Laurel v. Hardy Main issue: Laurel and Hardy, a professional comic duo, entered into a contract that agreed if they ever disbanded their partnership, they would refrain from using each other's material without compensation to the other party. After the duo disbanded, Hardy continued to use the materials without paying Laurel. Laurel is suing Hardy for $500,000. Hardy travels and has thus not been properly served Court Papers and refuses to read the local paper or respond to the suit. Laurel motions for a default judgment and Court Costs, which is granted. Hardy appeals this because he has not been properly notified.

Relevant Legal Concept: Contractual law and Service of Summons and Judgment

Procedural Due Process: Service by registered mail and publication in local newspaper; the Court is not responsible if the person being served pleads ignorance.

Relevant Definitions: Substituted Service of Court documents

Relevant Case Law: Dorsey v. Gregg, 784 P. 2nd 154, Court of Appeals, Oregon, 1988

Rationale: The Court is not responsible if the person being served pleads ignorance. A Defendant who has been properly serviced defaults by failing to file an answer in a timely manner (Schubert, 2010, p. 161).

Ruling: Original...

Marin
Main issue: Marin, a middle-aged male, developed severe lung problems after regularly smoking a potent variety of marijuana. Some of Marin's colleagues were arrested and charged with intent to manufacture and distribute marijuana. The DA wishes to subpoena Marin's doctor. Marin's attorney objects based on the physician-client privilege.

Relevant Legal Concept: Physician-Client Privilege

Procedural Due Process: Is the marijuana charge Federal or State; if State, were the plaintiff is holding valid medical cards?

Relevant Definitions: Legal concept protecting communications between a patient and doctor being used against the patient; part of the rules of evidence. No Relevant Case Law: Not recognized under the Federal Rules of Evidence Law; State level varies based on law. Binkley v Allen (2001, 5th District Appellate Court) and State v. Spencer (1998). California Penal Codes

Rationale: If State Court - 2010 California Evidence Code, Article 6.994 states that physician-client privilege allows physician to refuse to disclose any confidential communication between the doctor and patient unless a life-threatening crime has been committed. No overt life threatening crime…