Point v. Dunstable

Having a film short accepted at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival is a dream come true for many indie filmmakers-especially if early buzz suggests it could take the top prize. Such was the case for French filmmaker Josephine Point and What Red Balloon?, Point\u27s incisive, twenty-minute social critique of globalization. But when her distributor colorized portions of the film without her express consent, Point was outraged and embarrassed, but hardly surprised, when her film was the flop of Sundance. Colorization had changed her film\u27s theme to such a degree that it no longer made the strong social statement that the plaintiff intended, and her repeated invocation of droit moral-the European legal concept of artists\u27 moral right to have their artistic works remain as they created them-fell on the deaf ears of counsel and the arbitration board assembled to settle the dispute. Point v. Dunstable is a legal malpractice case involving artists, arbitrators, film experts, questions of professional liability, and the nexis-if any-of American and European intellectual property law. With exhibits and two witnesses (including experts) per side, Dunstable sharpens a student\u27s trial skills and knowledge of ethics and professional conduct. Substantive knowledge of intellectual property law is neither tested nor required. It is suitable as a half-day bench trial or full-day full trial. Please note that a crucial part of the fact pattern in Point v. Dunstable concerns the unauthorized colorization of the plaintiff\u27s film. The movie stills are reproduced in black and white exhibits in the print version of this case file, but appear in accurate color on the CD-ROM. Please refer your students to the CD-ROM exhibits when teaching this case file. Law professors may request the teaching notes for this publication by emailing [email protected]://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1034/thumbnail.jp

Peters v. Denver

Peters v. Denver is a civil action charging legal malpractice on the part of attorney D.C. Denver. Paul Peters was tried and convicted on charges of aggravated battery and attempted murder. Along with his co-defendant, Carl Chastis, Peters was co-represented by Denver the time of their arrest through verdict. Neither defendant testified in the criminal trial. Instead, the defense offered aggressive cross-examination of the State\u27s witnesses (both forensic and fact) and presented two alibi witnesses to testify that during the time period of the crime both Chastis and Peters had been at a social club playing poker. Nevertheless, both men were convicted on all charges and Peters received a prison sentence of life with parole after 20 years. In this suit Peters charges that Denver provided his defense under an impermissible conflict of interest between his duties to the two criminal defendants, depriving Peters of proper representation and leading to his conviction. Defendant asserts that his conduct of the defense was proper in all respects, and that any conflicts were fully, knowingly, and permissibly waived by plaintiff. Through the testimony of the parties and expert witnesses and the presentation of exhibits focused on the interaction between Peters and Denver, students will have the opportunity to analyze the duties of attorneys to their clients and pitfalls presented by those duties. This well-balanced case could go either way, and its ethics issues are a subject for challenging questions to witnesses as well as well-reasoned closing arguments.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1035/thumbnail.jp

Taylor v. Pinnacle Packaging Products, Inc.

In the Third Edition of Taylor v. Pinnacle Packaging Products, Inc., the plaintiff, Jamie Taylor, was hired by the defendant, Pinnacle Packaging Products, Inc., to work in the company warehouse. During her employment, the plaintiff claims she was sexually harassed by the warehouse manager, John Hamilton. Taylor was fired by Hamilton during her probation period. The plaintiff alleges that she was fired because she resisted the advances of Hamilton. Taylor has sued Pinnacle under a Title VII claim for sexual harassment and wrongful discharge. There are three witnesses for the plaintiff and four for the defendant. A deposition version of Taylor v. Pinnacle Packaging Products, Inc. is also available in plaintiff, defendant, and faculty versions. The deposition and trial files are fully integrated, so that students may use the deposition materials to study deposition practice and then go on to study trial practice using the trial materials. A CD with exhibits is included with the file.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1033/thumbnail.jp

Trans-ancestry genome-wide association meta-analysis of prostate cancer identifies new susceptibility loci and informs genetic risk prediction.

Prostate cancer is a highly heritable disease with large disparities in incidence rates across ancestry populations. We conducted a multiancestry meta-analysis of prostate cancer genome-wide association studies (107,247 cases and 127,006 controls) and identified 86 new genetic risk variants independently associated with prostate cancer risk, bringing the total to 269 known risk variants. The top genetic risk score (GRS) decile was associated with odds ratios that ranged from 5.06 (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.84-5.29) for men of European ancestry to 3.74 (95% CI, 3.36-4.17) for men of African ancestry. Men of African ancestry were estimated to have a mean GRS that was 2.18-times higher (95% CI, 2.14-2.22), and men of East Asian ancestry 0.73-times lower (95% CI, 0.71-0.76), than men of European ancestry. These findings support the role of germline variation contributing to population differences in prostate cancer risk, with the GRS offering an approach for personalized risk prediction

New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution.

Body fat distribution is a heritable trait and a well-established predictor of adverse metabolic outcomes, independent of overall adiposity. To increase our understanding of the genetic basis of body fat distribution and its molecular links to cardiometabolic traits, here we conduct genome-wide association meta-analyses of traits related to waist and hip circumferences in up to 224,459 individuals. We identify 49 loci (33 new) associated with waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index (BMI), and an additional 19 loci newly associated with related waist and hip circumference measures (P < 5 × 10(-8)). In total, 20 of the 49 waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI loci show significant sexual dimorphism, 19 of which display a stronger effect in women. The identified loci were enriched for genes expressed in adipose tissue and for putative regulatory elements in adipocytes. Pathway analyses implicated adipogenesis, angiogenesis, transcriptional regulation and insulin resistance as processes affecting fat distribution, providing insight into potential pathophysiological mechanisms

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals &lt;1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

Evidence Simulations: Bridge to Practice

his volume in the “Bridge to Practice” series is designed to help students hit the ground running when they graduate, focusing on the trial context – how to handle evidentiary issues in the heat of battle. In ten chapters, it takes the class through each of the major areas of evidence law, using simulated trial settings, pretrial arguments, and trial-planning evidentiary analysis. The exercises are based on two simple, easy-to-grasp cases scenarios (one civil, one criminal). In some exercises the students play all the roles; in others, they watch video trial segments “cold” and are required to react with objections and arguments in support of or in opposition to offered evidence. Each exercise is preceded by a set of “points to remember” to equip beginning students with the trial advocacy skills they need to handle a simulated trial setting. A final exercise combines all areas into one summary wrap-up useful for a session on overall course review.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1045/thumbnail.jp

Evidence Simulations: Bridge to Practice

his volume in the “Bridge to Practice” series is designed to help students hit the ground running when they graduate, focusing on the trial context – how to handle evidentiary issues in the heat of battle. In ten chapters, it takes the class through each of the major areas of evidence law, using simulated trial settings, pretrial arguments, and trial-planning evidentiary analysis. The exercises are based on two simple, easy-to-grasp cases scenarios (one civil, one criminal). In some exercises the students play all the roles; in others, they watch video trial segments “cold” and are required to react with objections and arguments in support of or in opposition to offered evidence. Each exercise is preceded by a set of “points to remember” to equip beginning students with the trial advocacy skills they need to handle a simulated trial setting. A final exercise combines all areas into one summary wrap-up useful for a session on overall course review.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1045/thumbnail.jp

Point v. Dunstable

Having a film short accepted at the prestigious Sundance Film Festival is a dream come true for many indie filmmakers-especially if early buzz suggests it could take the top prize. Such was the case for French filmmaker Josephine Point and What Red Balloon?, Point\u27s incisive, twenty-minute social critique of globalization. But when her distributor colorized portions of the film without her express consent, Point was outraged and embarrassed, but hardly surprised, when her film was the flop of Sundance. Colorization had changed her film\u27s theme to such a degree that it no longer made the strong social statement that the plaintiff intended, and her repeated invocation of droit moral-the European legal concept of artists\u27 moral right to have their artistic works remain as they created them-fell on the deaf ears of counsel and the arbitration board assembled to settle the dispute. Point v. Dunstable is a legal malpractice case involving artists, arbitrators, film experts, questions of professional liability, and the nexis-if any-of American and European intellectual property law. With exhibits and two witnesses (including experts) per side, Dunstable sharpens a student\u27s trial skills and knowledge of ethics and professional conduct. Substantive knowledge of intellectual property law is neither tested nor required. It is suitable as a half-day bench trial or full-day full trial. Please note that a crucial part of the fact pattern in Point v. Dunstable concerns the unauthorized colorization of the plaintiff\u27s film. The movie stills are reproduced in black and white exhibits in the print version of this case file, but appear in accurate color on the CD-ROM. Please refer your students to the CD-ROM exhibits when teaching this case file. Law professors may request the teaching notes for this publication by emailing [email protected]://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1034/thumbnail.jp

Peters v. Denver

Peters v. Denver is a civil action charging legal malpractice on the part of attorney D.C. Denver. Paul Peters was tried and convicted on charges of aggravated battery and attempted murder. Along with his co-defendant, Carl Chastis, Peters was co-represented by Denver the time of their arrest through verdict. Neither defendant testified in the criminal trial. Instead, the defense offered aggressive cross-examination of the State\u27s witnesses (both forensic and fact) and presented two alibi witnesses to testify that during the time period of the crime both Chastis and Peters had been at a social club playing poker. Nevertheless, both men were convicted on all charges and Peters received a prison sentence of life with parole after 20 years. In this suit Peters charges that Denver provided his defense under an impermissible conflict of interest between his duties to the two criminal defendants, depriving Peters of proper representation and leading to his conviction. Defendant asserts that his conduct of the defense was proper in all respects, and that any conflicts were fully, knowingly, and permissibly waived by plaintiff. Through the testimony of the parties and expert witnesses and the presentation of exhibits focused on the interaction between Peters and Denver, students will have the opportunity to analyze the duties of attorneys to their clients and pitfalls presented by those duties. This well-balanced case could go either way, and its ethics issues are a subject for challenging questions to witnesses as well as well-reasoned closing arguments.https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyteaching/1035/thumbnail.jp