P. 1
Civ Pro Case Chart

Civ Pro Case Chart

|Views: 38|Likes:
Published by Madeline Taylor

More info:

Published by: Madeline Taylor on Oct 17, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/27/2012

pdf

text

original

CASE ERIE/CHOICE OF LAW Erie RR v.

Tompkins

DATE/ COURT

RULE

BRIEF FACTUAL SUMMARY

RULE INVOLVED

1938/US

Although the 1789 Rules of Decisions Act lead federal courts unfettered to apply their own rules of procedure in common law actions brought in federal court, state law governs substantive issues. State law includes not only statutory law, but case law as well. No federal common law The Erie Doctrine mandates that federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law, but where matters fall roughly between the two and are rationally capable of classification as either, the constitution grants the federal system the power to regulate their practice and procedure

Trespasser v. Train; forum shopping

USC § 725

Hanna v. Plummer

1965/US

In a PI suit based on diversity, there was a large divergence between state and federal procedure regarding the methods of service

28 U.S.C.S. § 2072 (Rules Enabling Act)

FRCP 4 (d)(1)

Netherland v. Eli Lilly FEDERAL QUESTION Louisville & Nashville RR v Mottley

1908/US

Alleging an anticipated constitutional defense in the complaint does not give a federal court jurisdiction if there is no diversity of citizenship between litigants

Mottley was awarded lifetime tickets as part of a settlement. Congress outlawed lifetime tickets. Plaintiff claimed to be a resident of France. USC §1332(a)(2)

DIVERSITY Redner v. Sanders

2000/Distri ct Court

Saadeh v.

1997/Distri

For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction under §1332(a)(2), the controversy must be between citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state, not merely residents of a foreign state Aliens cannot bring suit against

A Greek sued a

USC §1332

The question for the court was who has the burden of showing that the prisoner had exhausted the administrative remedies. Towmbly and Iqbal 2007 and 2009 Supreme Court Jones v. Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation SzendreyRamos v First Bancorp 2007/Distri ct Court 2007/Distri ct Court (Puerto Rico) Supplemental Jurisdiction is proper where there is a sufficient nexus between state and federal claims. A district court’s error in failing to remand a case improperly removed does not prevent adjudication if the jurisdictional requirements are satisfied at the time of judgment Motion to FRCP 12(b)(1) dismiss state law claims that were USC §1367 based on the court’s supplemental jurisdiction. Lewis 1996/US PLEADINGS Haddle v. Default on a loan Article III SUPPLEMENTA L JURISDICTION In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co. The state law claims substantially predominate over the federal claim. Plaintiff filed an USC § 1367 employment discrimination suit. Garrison Stradford v. REMOVAL Caterpillar v. Block Those cases held that pleadings must contain facts that show an alleged claim is plausible. a conclusory statement that an action establishes liability is not enough. and statutory discretionary factors do not weigh in favor of a decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction where 1. The state law claims rise complex or novel issues or 2. The court held that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an a case was brought in federal court based on federal question subject matter .Farouki ct Court each other in federal court due to the requirement of complete diversity Jordanian in federal court based on diversity. Zurich Insurance Co.

Bad faith or dilatory considerations motive? were met so 3. Court held that this is were diverse not a valid argument and that if (obviously this is you want to plead diversity you not the must identify the citizenship of standard). Aquaslide ‘N’ Dive Co. Mattell 9th circuit 1992 Beek v. other side informs him of his mistake. allowed to amend their answer. 8th circuit 1977 jurisdiction. On appeal the lawyer tried to court holds that Rule 11 sanctions assert federal were correct because it was the subject matter plaintiffs burden to plead diversity jurisdiction and they did not do so because. He was sanctioned and the case A Plaintiff’s was dimissed.affirmative defense and inmates don’t have to plead or demonstrate exhaustion in their complaints. A huge amount of monetary Barbie doll case. According to legislation. sanctions against the lawyer were A lawyer is cited ordered. a prisoner must first exhaust administrative remedies before filing in court. Undue/Unfair none of these prejudice? three 2. In determining if a party should be Personal Injury. Norwest Corp. Undue delay in they allowed the coming forward party to amend answer based on Note: the closer it is to try the less new information Rule 11 Rule 11 They motion to file an amended answer so as to withdraw this answer pursuant to 15(a)(2) . delineate between Rule 11 and other violations. The court look at three factors decided that 1. it would be too of the parties difficult. On appeal the court said for a series of that sanctions were correct under violations. 1996 8th circuit Christian v. The the defendants. Walker v. as because SOME the lawyer said. It was a case between a prisoner and a guard of the prison. some Rule 11 because the lawyer did in of which fall fact misstate the law in a brief. under Rule 11 But the court remanded the cases and some that to recalculate the damages and do not.

the amendment must assert a claim that arose out of the same conduct. Precoat Steffan v. and should have informed GM of the location (junkyard) of the car before it was destroyed. Cheney Dc circuit 1990 Silvestri v.Zielinski v. The Π failed to preserve the car. The . The court decided that he did have the duty to preserve. Baker The cases of Moore v. The court used the pleading to measure it against. GM Corporation 4th circuit 2001 on appeal the court decided that the lower court had abused its discretion by dismissing cases as a sanction against a plaintiff who refused to answer a irrelevant request for admission. GM would be unable to defend themselves. Philadelphia Piers Inc. Rule 8 requires that in answer the defendant must be specific and deny/admit each allegation that came out in discovery (manufacturer of slide) the defendant did not do so and they were not allowed to amend their answer Rule 8 Bonerb v. Rule 26 Product liability Duty to claim brought preserve about an airbag in a GM car. so despite the harshness. Richard J. so GM moves for sanctions. Northern The court compelled discovery District of finding that it was not too broad Illinois 2002 and sufficiently limited to the claims of the case. Richard J. Caron Foundation together tell us that if a party wishes to relate back to the original filing to amend a complaint. Baker and Bonerb v. The court pointed out that without the car. Caron Foundation AND Moore v. a company refused to respond to a request for production because they found it too broad. likely a court is to grant a motion to amend pleading because there will be more prejudice to the other side. transaction or occurrence so as to put the defendant on notice of the claims against him. dismissal is the appropriate sanction. Case about homosexual student at military school Rule 26 DISCOVERY Davis v. in particular the sanction of dismissal.

Hickman v. Attorney for one of the deceased’s estate requested during discovery that the interviews be produced.) defendant said that he didn’t have the duty to preserve because it wasn’t his car. 26(b)(3) Trial Preparation Material “otherwise protected” Stalnaker v. and much of the information had already been revealed via interrogatories. the proceeding case. he did not have to hand over the interviews. the information is readily available to both parties. The lawyer who conducted the interview denied stating that they were his work product. (Although the plaintiff alleged that it was protected by trial prep (26(b)(4)(B) the court held that so much time had passed and an examination today would not be the same thing. M/V Bolero Thompson v. the court held that the work product protection was not overcome by any exceptional circumstances because the files that the defendant was seeking were still in existence. and not otherwise protected on the basis of privacy. The attorney for the boat interviewed on of the witnesses. the plaintiff had waived privilege by putting depression at issue. Estates of the injured people sued the boat. Kmart Corp District court in Kansas 1996 The court holds that the information is relevant. limit the An employee alleged that she was sexually harassed and because she did not acquiesce she was fired. etc. Haskell Co. Unlike Hickman. Plaintiff wants to depose other Kmart employees in an action centered 26(b)(4)(B) Pretrial deposition of experts “otherwise protected” 26(c) protective orders . deposed her and found out that she was seeing a psychiatrist. The court decided that because the witness was still alive. so the doctors report was given to the defendant. A boat sunk and people were killed and injured. the defendant. The court found that this information was discoverable because it was relevant. There was a public hearing about the incident. however. not privileged. Her employer. and it was not otherwise protected. v. They do. Taylor Supreme court 1947 Chiquita Int. Her employer then filed subpoena for the Doctor.

it was sent after the 90 days required in Texas. Appeal to supreme court for due process issues.nature of the question in the deposition to sex with the cited supervisor initiated by the supervisor. There was a lien placed on his property and sold. Rules 55. around a Kmart supervisor that sexually harassed Stalnaker. PRESSURE FOR ADJUDICATION Peralta v. motioned for a protective order due to the highly intrusive nature of the questions.) Defendant never received service. He moved for bill of review (equivalent of Rule 60(b) motion to reopen judgment). the plaintiff. Breach of K from policy holder to insurance co. Denied.s failure to pay up Summary Judgment Rule 56: Issues of genuine material fact?: . He did not answer and thus a default judgment was entered against him. Heights Medical Center Filed in Tx state court. Appealed to US Supreme Court The default judgment and subsequent sale of property denied defendant of due process when he didn’t have service of process (even if he didn’t have a meritorious defense. based on co. American Home Insurance Co. on behalf of the employee sought to be deposed. Kmart. 60 re: Default Judgment SUMMARY JUDGMENT Houchens v. We don’t actually know how he did or even if he died. so there are no genuine issues of material fact that should warrant a showing before a jury.

Celotex Corp. the non-moving party must prove the positive) 56 56 . Parents sued agent claiming that he breached his contract by not getting the player a life insurance policy as requested. drug overdose. said this was within the rule. No issue of genuine fact because College coaches evidence eliminated the basketball chance that he could have been player died for insured. Maker of do not have to show the negative product moved for summary judgment saying that it wasn’t actually the product that killed the ∆’s husband. Federal District Court DC life insurance policy of husband. Advantage International Inc. Agent presented evidence that no companies at the time would insure him and that he was a (Movant doesn’t have to prove the negative. Catrett 1986/Supre me Court Bias v. nothing known about his death. ∆ did provide documents (but no affidavits. Husband disappeared out of the country. v. The movant (Celotex) has to prove Products liability the absence of evidence but they case.) At Supreme Court. Coach said he could not have been able to due to his drug use.

JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT OF LITIGATION Lockhart v. Patel Federal district court in KY. other side had already undergone pain and expense. state court in Utah If there is a pretrial conference. Fairbairn Reid v. Rule 16 pretrial motion 41(b) Involuntary Dismissal and 16(f)(1)(B) 16 Cow killed by a railroad. Question of whether it was because of the .drug user. other people before same court would be troubled by the delay. For these reasons dismissal was appropriate. contempt is purged Sanders v. and Salt Lake City RR 1911. Parents provided less conclusive evidence. but instead supports equally one inference that renders the defendant liable and another that Doctor (Patel) and his insurance agent purposely fail to comply with judges orders. Union Pacific RR Dismissal can be used as a sanction Mckey v. Pleadings control discovery. pretrial order controls during case. 1987 Judge files show cause order for contempt. Plaintiff’s lawyer completely failed to comply with judges orders. Makes them send a letter of apology. Los Angeles. and sander’s case didn’t involve important issues of public policy. Π tries to amend pretrial order. there must be a pretrial order. San Pedro. Standard for amending pre-trial order: 16(e) to prevent manifest injustice Where evidence is intended to support one inference.

injunction. Chamberlain Lind v. the plaintiff must fai railroads negligence or the cow owners negligence. When claim is a mix of legal and equitable. Closest historical analog 2. lost profit. Teamsters and Helpers v. Altheimer and Gray Misseating of a juror can never be a harmless error Son and dad sued by Amoco for ejectment. Writ of mandamus for the judge to recuse herself One jury apparently bias. So the supreme court looked at 2 factors: 1. judge didn’t grant Π’s motion to strike.Terry Amoco Oil Co. THE TRIER AND THE TRIAL Chauffers.does not. jury goes first and hears the legal issues. $ damages (more often legal) The majority said it should be treated like a legal claim. Schenley Industries Peterson v. Torcomian This claim was not in existence in England in 1791. v. Π appealed Rule 38 Pennsylvania Railroad v. Wilson The court that if a reasonable jury would not have been able to find for the jury (legally sufficient evidentiary basis) directed verdict for defendant Court granted jnov (no legally sufficient evidence to get to the jury) and conditionally grants new trial because contrary to the substantial weight of evidence Jury can impeach own evidence based on internal influences or external influence 50(a) directed verdict Rule 59 granting of new trial . ∆ won at trial. and mesne profits. court grants recusal Breach of duty of fair representation Applying 7th Amendment preservation of jury trial to modern cases Rule 38demand for jury trial In re Boston’s Children First Thompson v. then judge hears equitable issues and is bound by the jury Due to an appearance of bias.

Sturgell 6 situations in which non-parties are found to be in privity (an thus preclusion applies) 1. so preclusion applies. Personal injury and property damage arose out of the same accident. 4. Claim preclusion: “same claim” Claim preclusion: “same claim” 1978 On appeal the court remands saying that the brothers must prove their partnership with the father. Preexisting substantive legal reslationship Express agreement to be bound Adequate representation by someone w/same interests Party assuming control over prior litigation Litigating through Special statutory schemes (such as bankruptcy) 6. Taylor v. Searle Claim preclusion. court applied the transaction test (as opposed to the primary rights theory. Sued but court did not grant him the information. Pierce.) Claim preclusion: After a final judgment Parklane Hoisery Co. Where a judgment can be based on either of 3 facts. v. Gargallo v. McDonald’s System Inc. (SEE OUTLINE for the 4 fairness factors. Issue Preclusion: Issue actually litigated and determined Issue Preclusion: .RESPECT FOR JUDGMENTS Rush v. City of Maple Heights Frier v. Fenner and Smith After a divorce suit. Meril Lynch. In order to meet the “one claim” requirement. brothers sue Mom claiming interest in her property. 3. Then friend (same club) brought suit for same request Claim preclusion: parties in privity Claim preclusion: party in privity Illinois Central Gulf Railroad v. party pleading had burden to prove one or the other. City of Vandalia Martino v.) Same claim. She raises preclusion. 2. 5. Plane aficionados FOIA request denied. Federal court applied Illinois law which uses the primary rights test (as opposed to previous court). Searle Brothers v. Parks The 1st judgment doesn’t have preclusive effect in a federal court action asserting those claims because Ohio would not give claim preclusive effect to prior judgment upon a cause of action over which the Ohio court had not subject matter jurisdiction.

Key issue was that the insurance company had solicited business within the California. Neff Court refused to vacate judgment. service by publication is ineffective to confer upon the court For a state to subject a nonresident defendant to in personam jurisdiction. International Life Insurance Co.due to nationalization of business. but did not pay Washington unemployment taxes. Jurisdiction cannot be founded on property within a state unless Suit brought to recover legal fees SEE INTERNATIOAN AL SHOE International Shoe had salesmen located in Washington. Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment The plaintiff brought a Due Process Clause of 14th .Shore Pacific Bell v. Washington 1945/US McGee v. communication. travel. Affirmed on appeal. Century Home State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. Trend of expanding state jdx over foreign corporations and non residents. Board of Education PERSONAL JURISDICTION *Pennoyer v. Century Home Components Durfee v. Avulsion and accretion: who opened the land? Clerk’s office and lawyer made mistakes Collateral Attack Rule 60 motion to vacate judgment 1887/US International Shoe Co. Duke Application of 4 fairness factors Application of 4 fairness factors Mutuality Requirement Brandon v. v. 1957/US Shaffer v. due process requires that the nonresident defendant have certain minimum contacts with the state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice Due process requires only that in order to subject a nonresident defendant to the personal jurisdiction of the form. etc. v. the suit be based on a contract that has substantial connection with the forum. Heitner 1977/US *Where the object of an action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the parties.

there are sufficient contacts within the meaning of the test developed in international shoe World Wide Volkswagen Corp v. the world wide fairness/balancing factors. v. used in it seems unduly unfair to asahi for California them to travel to California for court. § 1332(a) Due Process Clause State Long Arm Statute Pavlovich v. Superior Court 1987/US Burger King Corp. the other because their side (stream of commerce+) said products were that you must make it for the part of a larger market or cater to that market.C.” 4-4 split on whether entering A company with products into stream of no real ties to commerce was enough to California was constitute minimum contacts. Applied another state. 4 sued in said entering product in stream of California commerce is enough.) Direct and continuous contacts by Burger King a franchise with the franchisor brought action may lead to the franchise being against a subject to the jurisdiction of the franchisee from franchisor’s home forum. Rudzewicz 1985/US derivative suit against the directors of Greyhound for losses it suffered in antitrust action in Oregon. He was sued by DVD companies. Personal jurisdiction may not necessarily be acquired over a defendant based on a posting on a passive website Plaintiff posted info on a website that allowed people to break DVD codes. Superior Court 2002/Califo rnia State Court . Woodson 1980/US Asahi Metal Industry Co. A state court may exercise This was an personal jurisdiction over a attempt to nonresident defendant only so establish long as there exists sufficient diversity in “minimum contacts” between him order to get a and the forum state such that case away from maintenance of the suit does not an unfavorable offend “traditional notions of fair jury pool play and substantial justice. product that (But all agreed that in applying was sold and the worldwide balancing factors.S. Lower court Amendment Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment 28 U. v.

which you had a right to do. based on his posting Stockholder filed suit against a Philippines based business that does business in Ohio and was temporarily based there. even if such cause of action did not arise within its borders and was not related to the business activities of the corporation within its borders determined that he was subject to jurisdiction in California. as far as the decisions of this Court are concerned. where he had no real contacts. but you don't have to do it if you don't want to. 1984/US Contract negotiations and purchasing equipment alone does not constitute sufficient minimum Due Process Clause .Perkins v. that state may subject such corporation to the jurisdiction of its courts in personam on any transitory cause of action. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co. 1952/US Whenever a foreign corporation carries on “continuous and systematic” corporate activities within a state. denying service. Quote: What we are saying to Ohio is: ‘You have decided this case on an adequate state ground.’ Based on the deaths and injuries which Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. An important note re: this case is that it was during WWII and the company had fled Philippines due to the war.

Hall contacts to confer jurisdiction when they do not arise out of or relation to the cause of action. Burnham v. § 1404(a). Shute 1991/US Reasonable forum selection clauses contained in passenger tickets are presumptively valid Mullane v.S. The ticket contained a forum selection clause. Reyno 1981/US Passenger gave driver bad directions.C. This was regarding a banking issue State Long Arm Statute Due Process Clause State Long Arm Statute Piper Aircraft v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust 1950/US Gibbons v. notice must be by mean calculated to inform the desired parties and where they reside outside of the state and their names and addresses are available. . which resulted in a car accident Suit brought in California despite the fact that the accident happened in Scotland 28 U. notice by publication is insufficient A prior decision to file a lawsuit in a state does not qualify as sufficient activity in the state to confer personal jurisdiction A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss for forum non convenience merely by showing that the substantive law would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to him than that of the present forum were the result of a helicopter crash that occurred in Columbia Plaintiff was served with divorce papers which visiting California Shute was injured on a cruise. Superior Court 1990/US State courts have jurisdiction over nonresidents who are physically present in the state Carnival Cruise Lines v. Brown 1998/State Court In order to satisfy due process challenges.

 fn °€ fn      ¯ °€n¯½    ¾ D99.-@ D.

–f– .@- °  ¯  ¾ .

–f–   ° °– 9fnn ¾ –f°  °   f¯¾¾ f°n½  $¾ n.  .

  ½½ ¯ °f¾ n°¾ ½½     ¾f¾€€n ° ° ¾  °¾f f° € f nf¯¾ f° ¾f ¾n °f€fn¾ ° – °€f€f n¾° n°   n¾ ¾½½ ¯ °f©¾ n° n¯f n°   n¾  ¾½½ ¯ °f©¾ n°    @ ¾f fnf¯¾¾  n¯½ ° ¾¾ ¾ @  ¾f fnf¯¾¾ ¾f°f ½ ¯°f   € f nf¯    ¾nn#¾ °€f°–  ¯f° fnf¾ ¯½½   ¯   ¾°½  ° f © nf°€ ©¾ n°f   ¯ °¾f ¾f¾€ f  ¯ €© –¯ °     f°f°° € fn f¾ °  ¾   €f°f f°  .° ¾¯¾¾¾f f nf¯¾f   f¾ °  n#¾ ¾½½ ¯ °f ©¾ n°  9f°€€€ f° ¯½¯ ° ¾n¯°f° ¾   n   .

9% %%%  D.

    $¾ n.

 %9  n% D.

I .   .

f ½f   ¾  $D     9- f    f¾° f €   n °¾f°n .

  @¯ f°   f          f°   ½ ¯  .

 ° ¾  n  @¾ nf¾ ¾  f½ f °–¾ ¯¾n°f°€fn¾f¾f° f – nf¯¾½f¾  f n°n¾¾f ¯ °ff° fn° ¾f ¾ ¾f ¾° °–  @  ¾°€ nf¾ f¾   °€¾°– f ½¾° f  f¾   f ¯°¾f  ¯  ¾ @  n  f€f  f¾ f ¯°¾f  ¯  ¾¾f°   fnf¾ f¾  –° € fn f¾ °€ f  ¾°¾ © n ¯f  .

f€€¯f  € °¾ f° °¯f ¾ °#f ½ f  ¯°¾f  f¾°°  n¯½f°¾  Jf   - ¾.

½   nn  f¾¾f°n° f°  nf¾  f¾ ¯¾¾ °f½½ f  n ¾f ¾f°n°¾   n n nf¾ f¾  ½f°€€¾  °½ f   ¾ f°    ° ¾ nf¾ f¾  f ¾f    €€n .

  f¾¾ °ff f–¯ °f° f€ f°½ f   ¾ ¯¾ °€ n °¾½€   € ° f°¾  .

f  nn    f¾ #-#  .¾f°  .

 € ½f ¾     ¾  % ¾¾¾ °  ¾f° f % @   ¾  °€¯¾¯€ ¾¯¾f  f   nf¾    f ¾n  €f¾  ¾€ f°¾ ¾¯  €n€f °   f° ¾¯ f °  9 ¾°f°©  @ n n f °° € ¾    n°¾ f°¾   ¯ ¾  f   ½ff¯ °  f°¾  f¾ ° ° °€¯f° @ ¯° € f° f¯ °  f°¾ ¾f¾  f¾ f°¾  ½¾f° %f%%% .  nn  – f¯°€¯° f ¾f°n°¾f–f°¾ f      °f½½ f n¾f  f¾f°n°¾  n n°    nf¾  f   ° €fn¯¾¾f  f°f  €   n ¯f°  nf¾ ¾  nfnf   f¯f– ¾f°  ° f   ° f°   f°¾  °  ¯°°–€f½f¾   f f¯ °  f°¾   f €fn¾   D°  $D°€f ½ © n "   f €f f ¯ "   D°   f° n¯°–€f   -  n¾ ¾  ¾¾ ©¾ n°  f¾fnf¾   °f ½¾° f° f –f €  ½¾°  nn °–  –¾f° f ½¾° ¯¾ €¾ f¾ f ¯°¾f   ¯  ¾ €  €°–°n  9f°€€#¾   f   f¾¾ € f ¾ © n¯f  ©¾ n° nf¾ .

 °¾  9f ½f 9 ¾°n    fn¾–f°f¯° f¯ ° ½ f °– nf¾     ¯ ½ © n    ¾     ¾f°f°¾   € ° f°¯¾ ¾½ n€nf°  °$f ¯ fnf –f° °     nf   .

f° ° f° - .   f  .

   f f°  °   nf  .I f¾  9 nf @ nf¾ ¾€.

f° ° f°–   ¾f€ f½f¾ ¾ f  fn  –°f€°–f¯ ° f n¯½f°  f¯ ° ¯ °¯¾ f¾¾ fnf¯ff¾ €  ¾f¯ n° n f°¾fn° nn °n ¾f¾½  € ° f°°°n € nf¯¾ f–f°¾¯    - ° @ nn¯½   ¾n  ¾n€ €° °–ff¾° f  °¾ f° ¾€€n °¯   nf¯¾€ nf¾ @ n¾   ½ f °–¯ f¾  f–f°¾  fnf¯ ° ¾n  %¯f°€fn  €¾ %   € ° f°    ° ¾ f°     °f  f¯ °   f°¾     €€f°  .

 °  nnn   ¾ . .

½f° nn   fn¯½f°  €¾   ¾½° f   ¾€ ½ n° nf¾   €°  f  °f½½ f n n f .

f¾ f    nf f ¾ ¾ ¯¾ f ¾n °  ¾¯¾¾°–nf¾ ¾f¾f ¾ °f ¾f°n°f–f°¾f½f°€€ ¯f¾n  €¾ f°¾ f  f°   ¾€f ¯¾¾°  @ n n f    9 nf  f   ½ ¾  f°  nf¯ – ¾ f °€¯ .€  f f°f f– nf°%©°f %€ nf °f.nf @  € f¾ ¾ @  õ€f  n½° f ½ ¾   nf   nf .¯ ¾ € °  ¯¾  ¾ ¾ ¾½   €¾f°n°¾ ° f¾° ¾¾  ¾¯¾¾f¾  ½fnf  f½½½f ¾f°n°  ¾f°n°€ ¾¯¾¾f @        ½ ¾   .  °f   ¾.

n¯f°  @f ½ ¯  n .

f°   .$I    @¯½¾°  f¾ .

   f°f   ¯f.

f f  # ¾  ½ n #  % %%%% % 9 f ½¾°€ ½ ¾  # ¾  ½ n # %n% ½ n   ¾ .½ ¾n n° f°¾f¾  € ° f°¾f  f   °# f    ½ ¾   nf¾  f¾°#¾nf  ° €° €   f¾°f°  n f¾ #¾ ¾f   ¾  ½ ½    °– ¾n f   f°  °  ¾ ½ n @  °© ¾f ¾ f n° n   € °©  °   ° ¾f°–f  ½ ½ ¾     ¾½ n @ n f  n @   n f nf¾  ° ¾¾ f¾f½ n f¾¾f  °€¯f°¾  f°–f   f fff   ½f ¾   °n ° @  f° ¯n€ °€¯f°f  f° €  f f  °  f f f ° –f ¾    °f  °   ° f°   °  ¾  € ° ¾¾ ¾  D° n¯f°  ½n °–  nf¾  n  f  ½ n½ n°f¾°  n¯  f° n ½°f nn¯¾f°n ¾ nf¾  € ¾ f  € ° f°f¾¾ °–   ¾° ¾ °n  @ n€° f¾ ° ¯½  °€¯f°f¾ ¾n f   f – f¾  nf¾ f¾  f°   f¾¾ f ½f°€€f f ½ –   ff¾¾ f°  ½°– ½ ¾¾°f¾¾ f°  nf¾ ¾    f¾° ¾ ½ n  °fn ¾n  %– ½f°€€f –  ¾ f¾€  ff¾½ n  f½ ½   ¯½   %% %%%% % n  f¾   € ° f°  ¯n¯ f ½f¾¾ f° f° ½¾  f°  f¯°f° f °  €° f  ¾f¯ °– ¾  n¾ ¾ f¾¾ °–f  ½f¾– °  ½¾nf¾   € ° f° % ¯½  ° € ¾ ½ °f € n  @ n ¾f  9f°€€f°¾ °€¯f°¾  f° °  ½¾   ½ – f° ° ¾  ¯f ½ n °  f¾¾€½fn  ¯½ ¾°f° @      ¯  fn°n °   % %%%@f 9 ½ff° .

°f €  ¾°°  ½¾°¾  n  ¾½ ¾°f    ¾½ ¾  9D D.

@- 9 ff   –¾ . nf.

°    °@ ¾f n  ½½ f  D ½ ¯  .

  @  €f© –¯ °f°  ¾ ¾  °¾f €½½  °  € ° f°€  ½n ¾¾  °   °#f ¾ n € ½n ¾¾%  °€   °#f f ¯ ¾ € °¾ % f° f¯f ¾½ ¾f ¾ f ff¾¾  f°f    ½f°€€ ¯f  ° f€€  ¯½  ¾–  ½¾  ¯° €f ½ n     – °¾ °f  €  ¾°¾     € ° f°°    n  ¾ n  f¾¾ °f€    f¾   ° @ f¾     °f°¾ f°  ¾f €f © –¯ °f¾ °  f–f°¾ ¯ @  f¾ f °½fn ° ¾½½ f°  ¾  ¯  € €   % f °€  % % ¯°  ½ ° © –¯ °%   ° ½½ f ¾½ ¯  n€   ½n ¾¾¾¾ ¾    fn€€¯ ½n  °¾f°n n  f¾ °n ¾ €f ½f½  ¾    €f  –¯ ° D. D..-@ n °¾  ¯ nf° ¯  °¾f°n .

     J  °#fnf°     °€   ¾  f  °– °° ¾¾ ¾€¯f f€fn f¾ ff°f¾°– € f©   ¯¯f  –¯ °   ¾¾ ¾€ – °°  ¯f f€fn"  .

.

 .

½   .

f  $½ ¯ .

 f¾   f°f–  ° °f°f °n   f ¾n .

.

 € °¾f°n  ½n€ ¾ f°  ¾ f°  ¾f½½ f  € n°  °°–°° f ¾ f  @ ¯f°%.

f € °f ¾ ° –f  ½ n¯  €¾¯¯f © –¯ °¾f°– ff¾°# fnf  ½ nf    #¾ ¾ f°     ½  n¯ °¾%  °f€€ f¾ % ½ ¯  .  %f¾½  9 n¾f   f ¾ °n €  °n    nf¾ .

 ¾f ¾ f¾°    -¾¾ €– °° €fn nf¾  .

 –  nfn ¾  °n  ¯°f   f¾  f nf°n f n f  ° ½f   € °¾  –  ¾  9f °¾¾  f– °nf¯°– f   fn ¾ n°fn ° – °–  ½f f€  °¾f°n ½n f¾  ¾  .

f°  ¾°#f  ½   ° –f   °° ¯°– ½f¯¾ ½   ½¾ %   .fn¾f   n °f  °f     ¾ –¾  – °½ ¾ °   °n f° n¯½f° ¾f  ¯   °¾ ¯f°  f f¾f %.

D.

n   f f°     f° 9  ¾ °–  ¾ f°  ff .-@ @@- nf   f 9f  ¾n n°    –¾   9f °¾ ½  ¾¾ n°n¾   °n     – € ¾¾nf¾  € n° ¯½ .  .f ¾ ¯¾ ° f   €f½– n° ¯½¾ ½–  f° ¾  D°°9fn€n   ¾¯¾¾fnf° ¾ f¾f ¾f°n° .-.

   ¾f  n° Df €  ¾f½ fn°€  °n    ¯¾ f½ f   9 f °–¾n° ¾n   ½ f n°¾ °–nf¾  f° f €f¯ ° °–½ f   % %½  °¯f°€ ¾ °©¾n  J    °n ¾° °  ¾½½° °€  °n   °¾ f ¾½½¾ f°  °€  °n f ° ¾  € ° f°f  f° f° f n%9f % f° ¾ °¾f°n f– ° ½½¾ €f n¯½ © – ¾ ¾  9f°€€#¾f  n¯½   €f n¯½ © – ¾  ¾   ¾ f f f  ° –° ½f° f°  ½ °¾   ½ ½  € ¾f¯  n        f f°  ¾f° #¾nf¾   °#°  ¯½f°¾¾ ¾ €½ n½n   ¾   f¾°¾ ¾¯¾¾ff¾ f½½½f  õ ¾f¯ °  ½ f    ½ f¯° % % °°f ¾¯¾¾ff°  %€%%%% %  .

 ¾°€   f¾ nf¾ €   .  f ff  .

 ¾°  ½f°€€¯¾€f @@-  @@ .

f€€ ¾   @ f¯¾ ¾f°   ½ ¾ @   @¾nf¯f¾°° ¾ °n ° °–f° °  ¾½ ¯  n f€fn¾    .

¾ ¾ ¾nf f°f–    f¯f– ¾ %¯ € °  –f% @ ¯f©¾f ¾    f  f –fnf¯  J °nf¯¾f¯€ –ff°  f  ©– ¾€¾f°   f¾  –f¾¾ ¾  °© –   f¾ f  ¾¾ ¾f° ¾ °   © ff ¾ ° –– °n   n° ¾ ° –– °n    fn€  €€f  ½ ¾ °f°  ½½°– ¯ ° ¯ ° ½ ¾ f°€ ©f ¯ °nf¾ ¾     ¯f° € ©f ¯n.

   @n¯f°  °  ¾°#¾ .

  °¾  @¯½¾°   ¯ f°  f  9 °°¾f°f ff   .

f¯ f°  °   n °  ° ¾ ¾  9  ¾°  J¾°  °f°  f  ¾  ¯n € © n¯ °  °©°n° ¾ ½€ f°  ¯ ¾° ½€¾   f°f½½ ff°n € f¾  J€ n–f°¾ n¾f ¯f° f¯¾€  © –   n¾  ¾ € .¾¾ f°–€f©nf°°    ° © ff¯ ¾¾  f½½f ° f¾  © –   °# –f°õ#¾¯° ¾  ° ff õ f½½ f  @ nf€f f¾°f  ©   °f  °f  €°  € ©% –f¾€€n °  °f f¾¾%  n   n € € ° f° .

–f° ©°%° –f  ¾€€n °  °n –   ©%f° n° °f–f°¾°  f nf¾ n°f  ¾ ¾f°f –€  °n  nf°¯½ fn°  °n   f¾ °° °f°€ °n ¾  °f°€ °n      %f%  n    n   –f°°–€ ° f  .

9.

-@ ¾ .@ D.

f½  –¾    .€ .

f¯½ n¾° °  ¯  #° nf¯#   ¯ ° nf½½   f°¾fn° ¾%f¾½½¾   ½¯f–¾  %f¯  nf¯ ¾½ n¾°f½½ ¾   fnf½½ °¾f n¾ ¾ ½¯f–¾ ¾ %f¾½½¾ ½ ¾n%    9 ¾°f°© f° ½½  f¯f– f¾  € ¾f¯  fnn °    .

f¯ ½ n¾°  #¾f¯ nf¯#   .

f°   .n°f #¾ ¾ ¯°n   f   ¾    f   .€ If° ff  .

°n  9 n  °°  f° ¯  °¾.f¯ ½ n¾°  #¾f¯ nf¯#  °f½½ f n ¯f° ¾ ¾f°–f   ¾¯¾ ½  ½f° ¾½  €f   @f  –   f–f  .

°f  €ff   9f¾ € f n  ¾   ¾ ¾ .¯ nf¯°–°  ¾ ° ½½    f¾ ¾ ½ n¾°  ¾f°¾°n°° ½f ¾ 9f°  f €°  °½%f°¾ f€n°f ¾ ½ n¾°f½½ ¾%   ¾ °    9 ¾°–¾ ¾f°  –f   n  ¾f°¾½  °–f°   ½ ¾¾f– ¯ °  °  ¯     f  ½ ¾ °f°  °€¯f°  ¾¯ ° $¾f¯ °  ¾¾   9ff¾¾¯°–n°  @ °€ °  ½–f° %¾f¯ n %   –f°–– –¾€   ½ nf¾f¾n ¯ ¾%¾n ¾f¯   ¾ f¾ f°½n% ¾ @  © –¯ °  ¾°#f   ½ n¾  €€ n°f€ fn fn°f¾¾ °–¾ nf¯¾ nf¾  °–  nf¯½ n¾  €€ n½ © –¯ °½°fnf¾ €fn°  n nf ° ¾ © n¯f ©¾ n°  J  f© –¯ °nf°  f¾   °  €€fn¾ ½f½ f °– f   °½ °      %D@-€ €f° ¾¾ €fn¾ %  .

f¯ ½ n¾°  ½f ¾° ½ .

f¯ ½ n¾°  ½f°½ .

f¯ ½ n¾°  € f€°f © –¯ ° 9ff°  ¾ .

    ¾¾  9 n¾°  ¾¾ fnf –f f°   ¯°  ¾¾  9 n¾°  .

  9fn€n    .

°¯  f f¯   f° .

f¾f .

  .

° ¯  .

f   ¯ °    f° °  f €  nf° 9- D.¯½° °¾ €     ½½nf°€€f° ¾¾€fn¾ ½½nf°€€f° ¾¾€fn¾   .

@- &9 °°   - €€   $D ¾°f°  fnn °  ½ °   f° " .

 €¾ fnf © –¯ °  .

 #¾€€n  €€¯ °f½½ f  f° f  ¯f ¯¾f ¾   &J    © n€f°fn°¾   ¯°  ½ ¾°f–¾ f°  –f°¾€ ½f ¾  ¾ n  ½ nf°¾ ° €€ n n°€ ½°  n f¾f ¾ © nf °° ¾ ° € ° f°° ½ ¾°f¯©¾ n°    ½n ¾¾  ¾f  °° ¾ ° € ° f°f  n f°¯°¯¯n°fn¾  ¾f ¾nf  ¯f° °f°n € ¾  ¾° €€ ° f °f°°¾€€f ½ff° ¾ ¾f°f©¾n   ½n ¾¾  ¾°f°  ¾ © nf°° ¾ ° € ° f° ½ ¾°f ©¾ n°€ €¯  ¾  f¾ °fn°fnff¾ ¾ ¾f°fn°° n°  €¯ @ ° € ½f° °–¾f  ©  € –°n½f°¾f°  °° ¾ °¾    °f°ff°€ ¾° ¾¾  n¯¯°nf° f   n  ¾ n°nf°° €° ° ½½ °f¾f ° ¾¾  –  n  –f € ¾ .

f f fn  ¯° fnf  © –¯ °   -@-@ ° °f°f  .

   Jf¾°–° $D ° °f°f  9n ¾¾  f  .

f¾ € ¾f ¾¯ ° ¯ ° ¯ ° nf ° Jf¾°–°    °½f Jf¾°–° ° ¯½¯ ° f ¾   ¾¾ f¾ f  °¾f°n  n¯½f°f  ¾n  ¾° ¾¾°  .

f€°f   9n ¾¾ .

n   ° °f°f € °¾f°n  .f¾ € ¯ ° ¯ ° .

  $D f€€    °  $D @ ½f°€€ –f  9n ¾¾ .

f¾ € .

  f ¾€€n °n°fn¾ ° ¯ f°°–€  ¾  ½ °° °f°f¾  J J  I¾f– ° .

½  J ¾° $D ¾f. f ° ¾.

   ½ .

 $D – °– .

½     n $D f ¾ f–f°¾   n¾€  ° € ¾¾ ¾¾€€   °f°¾ fn°°  –°  ¾f n¯f  n¾  @¾f¾f° ½ ¾°f©¾ n° f f ¯½ °° ¾ ° € ° f°°¾ ¾f ¾ °–f¾   ¾¾¾€€n °  ¾° #¯°¯¯n°fn¾#  °¯  – f f°  €¯¾f ¾nf nf¾ ff€¯ ¯f° °f°n € ¾  ¾° f°°€ff   €€ ° #f °f°°¾€€f ©½ ½ff° ¾ ¾f°f©¾n #  ¾½°   ° °– n¯½f° ½ n¾°¾ f¯€ ° f ¾ n¯¯ n f¾ °– .

f€°ff¾ n°¾ ¯°¯¯n°fn¾  ¾ ° ¾f  ° °–½ n°¾ f¯€ .

f€°f n¯¯ n ¾ °–    nf¾   ¾ %¾ f¯€n¯¯ n +%¾f  ½ n¾   f¯¾¯f €  ½f€ff–  ¯f nf f¯f   ½ nf % ff– f°f½½°– f¾¾ f°      ff°n°–€fn¾  ¾ ° ¾ ¯¾° °€ff¾f€ .

f€°f  ¯f .

f€°f€ n %  nf° n°°¾n°fn¾  – °– f€f°n¾  €f°n¾ –fn° ¯f f  €f°n¾  °– f–f°¾f ¾ © n ©¾ n°€  €f°n¾ €¯ €f°n¾#¾¯ €¯ ½½  f° ¾f     €f° ¾¾$ ff°n°– €fn¾  9 ¾°f©¾ n°¯f° ° n ¾¾f fn  f € ° f° f¾ °f½¾°–° f½f¾¾  ¾  9f°€€½¾  °€°f  ¾ f f ½ ½    fI n ¾  f¾ ¾  I n¯½f° ¾   n ¯ ° ¯ °  9n ¾¾ .

f¾ € ¯ ° ¯ °  9n ¾¾ .

f¾ € ¯ ° ¯ ° 9fn  ½ .

 $.

f€ °ff  .

 D  .

  %f%   9n ¾¾ .

f¾   f °–¯ f   .

9 °¾  °–  .

°¾ f  .°°–.

  $D  n½ ¾ -fn°f ¾  .

¯ f  $D  ¯° f  f¾¾ © n ©¾ n°° .

f€°f     f °  fn°fn¾  f¾ °¾ ½¾°– J °  f€ –°n½f° n €  nf ¾°#n°°¾f°  ¾f–f°¾f ¾¾ ¯fn#n½f fn ¾ 9½½° ¾ °f¾f f¾f ¯f f¾  ¾° ¾¾ ¾ © n¾nn½f°  f  ¾ ©¾ n°€¾n¾° ¾° ¾¾° ½ ¾°f¯°f°f°¾nf¾  f° f¾ €fn°   °€¾nnf¾ €  ¯½f fn°  °f¾ °¾ f¾     ¾f° f¾° f     ¾° ¾¾fn ¾€  °¯½f° n½f°°¾  ¾ °  ¾ nf¾ ¾f f¾ °– JJf°   n¯½f°f  € 9½½° ¾   f   .  Jf f  ¾f°– ¾ #f  n ¾ nf¾ °f° f f ¾f  –°  °°– ¾ n n f f–     ° f   € °  f° f¾€f f¾  n¾°¾ €¾.

f  n°n ° # .

°fn° –f°¾f°  f¾ °  ½nf¾°– ½¯ °f°   ¾ f¾f°  °n°¾ ¾€€n °¯°¯¯ °© ¾n   9n ¾¾ .

f¾   .

f n°fn¾n°€ ©¾ n°  °  °f¾ €  f° nf¾ €fn°  °f¯  ½ .

 $D .

f°f.

f°   .¾  ° ¾   $D .

°f f°  f° @¾ $D  °¾  ° $f  .

 9½ nf€   ° $D     ¾ €f n½  nf¾f nn ° .

¯ f f n¾f ©¾ n°  9f°€€f¾ °° ¾ °¾f ½¾nf ¾   ½ ¾ °° ¾f  n ½f½ ¾ n¾°– .

f€°f  f¾°f  €¯¾  n°  f¾ nf¾ ¾n°f° °½f¾¾ °–  °© °f n ¾f ½ ¾¯½ f  n¾ @  n n°f°  f€¯ ¾  n°nf¾  ° ¾f¾€  ½n ¾¾ @¾f¾ nf °– ¾ °n ¯¾    –f °–f ¯ f°nfnf °€¯  f°°–¾¾  ¾ ½f ¾f°      ¾ ¾ € ¾f f°   °f¯ ¾f° f  ¾¾ ¾f  fff  °n  ½ nf°¾ °¾€€n ° ½ n¾°€ ff¾° 9f¾¾ °– –f  f¾f   ¾°f€f¾   f  ¾€€n °fn° ¾f   n°¾  n°€ ½ ¾°f©¾ n° n ¾  °fnffnn ° ½f°€€¯f° € ff  –° ¯° ¾¯¾¾€€¯°° .

f€°f n° ° °n ¯   ¾°– ¾½  €fn f ¾ ¾f° f   f  f½½ ° f °f €¯¾ fnn °  ¾¾€ff  ¯f°f€ f½½ ° °  ½ ¾ °€¯ nf°  f °–¯ f     9n ¾¾ .

f¾   f °–¯ f   D  .

  %f%   .

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->