Case on point
“Case on point” means a jurisdiction, guideline, fact or issue in a dispute that closely corresponds to the factual details, dispute, and legal principles of the instance currently before the court. Overall, this concept indicates a specific case that has been adjudicated before and has the same facts, issues of law, or litigation in it as the case at hand. “Case on point” precedent can be used by the courts to determine the outcome of the new case that bears the newly established precedent or is similar to the initial fact question relating to the selected issue of law (Cappalli, 2021). Precedent makes up the core of the standard law legal system, in which judicial decisions from previous similar cases become authoritative interpretations of the law.
The need for “case on point.”
Firstly, Establishing Legal Authority: “Cases in this point” give a leading direction to lawyers so they can identify proper precedents and, even figuring out which of them are applicable, analyze these cases concerning legal and practical issues. Secondly, facilitating legal analysis and argumentation: legal research and writing is an integral part of it that helps attorneys deeply research the relevant legal principles and precedents. Legal practitioners can be more effective in building winning arguments by analyzing precedents, including prior court rulings on similar factual scenarios and applying relevant legal doctrines. Furthermore, attorneys may predict and counter objections. In addition, it guides Judicial Decision-Making: Judges retreat on what other judges have decided in cases similar to the case under consideration in rendering thorough and wise decisions under the existing law. By drawing from past cases with similar facts and issues, judges can build their explanations for their judgments and put forward their reasoning about interpreting the law.
Key cites
A key cite is a must-have for legal professionals which helps in quick citation research, seamless legal authority status updates, and speedily getting hands on relevant legal sources. One of its leading roles is to confirm legal rights and help the user verify the lawful authority’s current status and validity. It guarantees that the authorities they cite are still in force and have yet to be overruled or changed. Secondly, it sets up a system of symbols and flags to reflect whether a particular authority has been subject to any negative judgment in the following cases. Additionally, it serves cited materials in a convenient form, allows being up to date and reflects recent changes in the legal status and authority. Moreover, it is an engine that provides a simple interface and very efficient search capabilities, so it can make legal research more applicable.
The Argument in Support of Tom Defaming Allen
In the decision of the Gault v. Ender case, where gross negligence is the concern and the circumstances, it is apparent that Tom’s actions were defamation against Allen. Section 41-1-6-9 first portrayed defamation as the meaning of false statements about a person through a third party, which consequently caused harm to the reputation of the defamed person. Thus, another party does not have to contact the defamed person directly to cause defamation. Secondly, through their interpretation of the case of Gault v. Eder, The court opined that abandoning an unenveloped letter on the dining table was grossly irresponsible, leading to its being read and disseminated. Tom’s utterance matches the defamation components presented in the statute and the court’s opinion. He deliberately used the letter to accuse Allen of stealing. He stated in the letter that he would criminal charges against him, therefore g, giving his malicious intent to destroy Allen’s reputation. Moreover, by entrusting the letter to Allen’s friend, Tom never explicitly commanded him not to read it, which caused him to unburden Allen of the damaging information. Tom’s accusations could be very detrimental to Allen’s professional and personal image among the community and his clients.
Counter Argument
Even though Tom’s responsibility for defamation of Allen has been adequately proved, one could also offer an opposite point of view. One of the first components is the absence of the intent to publish. Tom goes to Allen’s address, so he can only let others see this letter. To emphasize, Tom did not suggest his friend read the letter, and he was not a holder of any secret or private information; additionally, he thought that his friend (referred to here as Allen) was stealing from his clients, and he intended to fill in the relevant authorities citing his implied honest belief of the matters at hand (true faith belief). He is not about to maltreat Allen but protect a situation surrounding what seems to be unfair treatment. Consequently, the assertion could be made that although Tom’s conduct wasn’t good, it was done without the intention to harm the reputation of the other man and, therefore, shouldn’t be considered the leading cause of the defamation claimed. Tom’s absence of intent to publish the defamatory statements and the actions of Allen’s friend unforeseeably weaken his culpability for libel.
References
Cappalli, R. (2021). Advanced Case Law Methods: A Practical Course. BRILL.
Thomson Reuters Westlaw | KeyCite. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2024, from www.youtube.com website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBwQFiqNclg&feature=youtu.be
write