Deanne C. Siemer

An apple a day certainly won't keep the lawyers away. Produce broker Frisco Farm Corporation sold 25,000 pounds of apples to Blenheim Markets, with a contract clause stating that Blenheim could cancel the order within three business days. Blenheim tried to exercise that clause, but their email went astray. The apples were delivered, a thunderstorm destroyed most of the crop, and each of the parties believes the other is responsible for the loss. This short trial file revolves around two basic questions: what a contract is, and what constitutes a business day. The facts of the case are straightforward, and a variety of exhibits provide ample opportunity for evidence practice. The trial can be run in a single day, making this an attractive case for shorter programs. With four witnesses and a choice to try for either liability or damages, Frisco v. Blenheim is adaptable to your classroom needs.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants' advocacy skills.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants advocacy skills.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants' advocacy skills.

Kiya Ahmed had an affair with her married boss, Paul Buckner. After that relationship soured, Kiya was denied partnership at Cooper & Stewart, the accounting firm where she and Paul both worked. Kiya claims discrimination and retaliation caused the denial. The defendants say that her inconsistent job performance lead to their decision. Who is right? This well-balanced case file can be won by either party. Ahmed v. Buckner is the new incarnation of the popular case file Polisi v. Clark. The defendant business is now an accounting firm, rather than a law firm. Updated exhibits include computer records, text messages, and emails, allowing lawyers to practice their skills in laying foundations. The deposition file has three witnesses for each side. The trial version includes two additional expert witnesses and their reports. Whether they are law students or practiced lawyers, this engaging case file will hone participants' advocacy skills.

Kenneth Brown claims he can't engage in any strenuous exercise and that a muscle relaxant his doctor prescribes does not allow him to drink any alcohol. Both of these inconveniences, Brown is convinced, is a result of being rear-ended by the defendant, Robert Byrd, and Brown is suing to recover damages for neck, back, and closed-head injuries. However, Brown has been observed exercising and drinking alcohol. Byrd maintains that the collision was in no way serious enough to cause Brown's alleged injuries. There are two witnesses for both the plaintiff and the defendant in this personal injury case file.

At what point does a friendly conversation end and a business consultation begin? That is the question explored in this business contracts case file. The plaintiff, Roberta Quinlan, demands a broker fee of $300,000 that she is convinced she is entitled to be paid for her services as a business broker. The defendant, Brian Kane, however, maintains that Quinlan simply offered friendly advice on the sale of his business, Kane Electronics, to Nita Computer World and therefore he owes her no fee. There are two witnesses for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

In 1975, after three centuries of colonial rule, the people of the Northern Marianas exercised their right of self-determination to become US citizens in a self-governing commonwealth under U. S. sovereignty. This title is an account of their tenacious efforts to shape a political future separate from other Micronesian peoples, of the negotiations that produced the Covenant defining the commonwealth relationship, and its eventual approval by the Northern Marianas people and the US Congress.

After World War II, the United States assumed responsibilities for the Northern Mariana Islands, the Caroline Islands, and the Marshall Islands under a 1947 trusteeship agreement with the United Nations. The United States had the obligation to prepare these Micronesians for self-government or independence after termination of the trusteeship, but the Interior, State, and Defense Departments paid little attention to this question until 1961. Willens and Siemer examine the Kennedy administration's formation of a new Micronesian policy aimed at bringing these islanders under U. S. sovereignty by 1968, the inability of the federal agencies to achieve this objective, and their refusal to acknowledge that the Northern Marianas people had very different economic and political aspirations than the other Micronesians. By 1969, the Micronesian leaders—except for those of the Northern Marianas—were increasingly attracted to a future political status that rejected United States citizenship and had most of the attributes of a sovereign nation-state. Willens and Siemer analyze the initial negotiations between United States and Micronesian representatives, the inability of the United States to respond positively to the demands of the Micronesian negotiators, and the national defense and strategic objectives at issue. By April 1972, the United States recognized that its non-fragmentation policy conflicted with the right of self-determination of the Northern Marianas people and agreed to separate status negotiations with them. A detailed review of recent Micronesian history that will be of considerable value to U. S. government officials involved with insular affairs and foreign policy and scholars and researchers of Micronesian, Pacific islands, and Marianas affairs.