See the Case Analysis Instructions for further information about completing this assignment.

Foreachfactpattern, specifytheessentiallegalissue(s) involved, describethelegalconceptsfromthetext, decidewhichsideshouldwin, andexplainyourreasoningandhowyouusedthelegalconceptstoarriveatyourdecision. SeetheCaseAnalysisInstructionsforfurtherinformationaboutcompletingthisassignment.

1. Brian Short v. State of Florida

BrianandJenniferwereinlove. Theyhadbeenhighschoolsweethearts, andtheyplannedtogetmarriedwhentheybothgraduatedfromSaintLeoUniversity. However, therewasoneproblem: BrianandJenniferwerebothveryshort. Eachstoodlessthanfivefeettall. ThestateofFloridahadrecentlypassedalawthatprohibitedtwoveryshortpeoplefrommarrying. Indefenseofthelaw, thestateassertedthatinordertomaintaindominancewiththestateuniversityathleticprograms (e.g. Gatorfootballandbasketball, Seminolefootball), thestatehadalegitimateinterestinmakingsurethatthechildrenborninFloridawouldbeastallaspossible. Afterall, footballbringsinsomuchmoneytotheuniversities, whichallowslessfinancialstrainonthestatetosupportthem. Further, biggerchildrenarelesslikelytofallintosmallholes, andseatbeltscanfitthembetter; thus, thislawwouldprotectallthechildrenofthestate. Thislawwastitled “Maintainingthesizeofourchildren” law. BrianandJenniferhavesuedthestate, claimingthatthelawisunconstitutional.

1. Michael v. University

Michaelpulledan “all-nighter” studyingforanimportantexam. Hewasexhaustedthenextday, andduringtheexam, performed “head-rotations” toloosenhiscrampedneckmuscles. Dr. Pickett, whowasproctoringtheexam, sawhimstretchingandthoughthewaslookingattheanswersheetofthestudentsettingnexttohim. Shetookhisexamanddismissedhimfromtheclassroom. Shealsotoldhimthatbecauseofhischeating, hewouldautomaticallyfailtheclass. Thenextday, MichaeldiscoveredthathehadbeendismissedfromtheUniversitywithnotuitionrefundsandthathistranscriptshadbeendeleted. MichaelissuingtheUniversityclaimingthattheUniversity’sactionswereunconstitutionalandaskingtobereinstatedandtocontinuehiseducationwithoutpenalty.

1. Taylor Lautner v. Taylor Swift

TaylorSwiftwaslivinginthesamehousewithTaylorLautnerforthreeyears. Duringthattime, theybothpursuedindependentactingandmusiccareers, andeachearnedsubstantialincome. Theywereasmuchinloveascanbeandsharedmanygoodtimes. Theyneverpooledtheirfinancialresourcesintooneaccount, andeachpaidtheirownexpensesexceptfortherent, whichtheysplitdownthemiddle. Bymutualconsent, theyagreedthattheyhadfallenoutofloveandwereeachinterestedinpursuingotherrelationships. Afterashorttime, Mr. Lautner’sactingrolesdriedup. HeisnowsuingMs. Swiftforhalfofeverythingsheearnedwhiletheywerecohabitatingtogether.