Welcome to Hastings Moot Court! Please support our team by signing up to judge a practice argument!
|DATE AND TIME||TEAM||ROOM||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE||JUDGE|
|Sun. March 26|
|10:00AM - 12:00AM||Prince Evidence||MCR||Ashley Gendotti||Philip Tacason||Mitch||Fiona Duffy|
|11:00AM - 1:00PM||Jessup International Rounds||C||Tyler Summers||Matthew Tratos||Joe Shashaty|
|12:00PM - 2:00PM||Traynor||MCR||Ashley Gendotti||Mitch||Eric Schmoll||Roman Walker||Fiona Duffy|
|Mon. March 27|
|3:00PM - 4:30PM||HAP||MCR||Anna Zaret||Adam Truong||Kaitlin Toyama||Mitch||D|
|3:30PM - 5:30PM||Jessup International Rounds||E||Miranda Rowley||Madeline Landry||Michelle Caylee Human||Kai Lucid||Monika Darwish|
Zohra Siddiq, Carson Riley, Erum Siddiqui, Nolan Theurer and Yasaman Anvari
Oralists will address transboundary aquifers, basic human rights including the rights to food and water, and what happens when arguable violations of those rights generate refugee outflows.
Last practice April 5.
Michelle Freeman and Deborah Rodriguez
Appeal of a denial of a petition for asylum and withholding of removal.
Last practice April 2.
Jonathan Klaren and Jessica Dabiri
This year’s Prince Competition problem, United States v. Paul Rutherford, focuses on three distinct, complex evidentiary issues, two of which involve the intersection of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the United States Constitution. In the problem, Defendant Paul Rutherford, the Governor of Boerum State, stands indicted for murdering his longtime aide Victor Smith to prevent Smith’s attendance or testimony in an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1). The Government alleges that the Defendant murdered Smith to prevent Smith from testifying before a grand jury investigating bribery and corruption allegations involving the Defendant as well as to prevent him from disclosing that the Defendant’s computer contained sexually suggestive images of and conversations with teenage girls.
The Defendant moved before the District Court to (1) suppress information seized from his computer; (2) exclude a statement Smith made to his fiancée on the night of his death that he had dinner plans with the Defendant; and (3) exclude opinion testimony by a surrogate medical examiner regarding cause of death that relied upon statements from an autopsy report prepared by a different medical examiner.
The District Court ruled in favor of the Defendant on all three issues. On the Government’s interlocutory appeal, the Fourteenth Circuit affirmed. The Government successfully sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court certified the following three issues:
Last practice March 27.
Madeline Landry, Philip Dabbagh, David Lum
This year's problem involves a tragic car accident that killed three teenagers. Stephanie Jones, the 19-year old driver, was a sales consultant for a beverage company, Energee Drink Company. On the night in question, she was driving two of her friends, Harold Richmond and Cynthia Johanssen, also 19 years old, who were considering becoming sales consultants, to an Energee marketing meeting late at night. Upon leaving the meeting, Stephanie's car crossed over railroad tracks located adjacent to Energee's property when it was struck by a train operated by the Hollis Regional Railroad; all of the occupants, including Stephanie, Harold and Cynthia, were killed.
The mothers of Harold and Cynthia sued Energee and Stephanie's estate for wrongful death, arguing a) that Energee was responsible for Stephanie's negligence because she was Energee's employee at the time of the accident, and b) that Energee was liable for failure to warn of the dangerous condition of the railroad crossing because, although Energee did not own the property where the tracks lay, Energee exercised control over the railroad crossing.
Energee moved for summary judgment on both issues, arguing a) that Stephanie was not their employee but was an ndependent contractor, and b) that the crossing and the property on which it was located were owned and operated by the Hollis Regional Railroad, and that Energee did not control the crossing to a legally sufficient degree to incur liability.
The trial court agreed with Energee and granted summary judgment on both issues; the mothers appealed.
Issues on appeal:
1) Was the trial court correct to grant summary judgment for defendant on the ground that there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether Jones was an employee of defendant ENERGEE at the time of the incident?
2) Was the trial court correct to grant summary judgment for defendant on the ground that there was no triable issue of material fact as to whether defendant ENERGEE owed a duty of care with regard to the railroad crossing located adjacent to the property?
For the purposes of the competition, Stephanie's negligence and Hollis Regional Railroad's liability are not at issue.
Last practice March 29.