SD AND C

CONSENT

100

IMPLICIT CONSENT THAT CAN BE REASONABLE UNDERSTOOD + AN EXAMPLE 

APPARENT CONSENT AND RAISING HAND FOR HIGH FIVE 

200

WORDS OR CONDUCT THAT EXPLICITLY DEMONSTRATE CONSENT 

EXPLICIT CONSENT 

300

SOCIAL NORMS CONSENT + EXAMPLE

PRESUMED CONSENT + TAPPING ON THE SHOULDER WHILE ON THE BUS 

400

6 WAYS TO UNDERMINE CONSENT 

REVOCATION, RELATIONSHIP, FRAUDULENT, SCOPE, COERCION/DURESS, CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, CAPACITY 

500

MATERIAL FACT

INFORMATION THAT IS SIGNIFICANT AND WILL LIKELY INFLUENCE THE PARTY'S ASSENT 

CONSENT

100

IMMATERIAL FACT

INFORMATION THAT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN ONE'S ASSENT

200

WULF IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF CONSENT + 2 REASONS WHY

APPARENT CONSENT BECAUSE (1) RELATIONSHIP AND (2) NO PRIOR REVOCATION 

300

PRISON GUARD AND PRISONER CASE DEMONSTRATING RELATIONSHIP CAN UNDERMINE

ROBBINS

400

THIS WAY TO UNDERMINE CONSENT ASKS: DID IT FALL WITHIN THE REALM OF WHAT WAS CONSENTED TO? + 2 CASES AND REASONS

SCOPE. (1) HUNT, PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS MAY BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF PLAYING THE GAME AND (2) KAPLAN, DEF PERFORMING A PROCEDURE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS CONSENTED TO IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CONSENT. 

500

CONSENT IS A 

SUBJECTIVE WILLINGNESS

NECESSITY

100

NECESSITY DEFINITION

DEF IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATING HARM 

200

FIRST QUESTION WHEN DETERMINING NECESSITY

WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING TORT

300

PUBLIC NECESSITY PRIVILEGE ELEMENTS

PUPLIC OR PRIVATE ACTOR 

ACTS TO PROTECT PUBLIC INTEREST 

WITH A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT ACTION IS NEEDED 

THE ACTION TAKEN IS A REASONABLE RESPONSE 

400

PUBLIC NECESSITY DAMAGES

PLNTF RECIEVES NOTHING BASED ON JURISDICTION 

500

PUBLIC NECESSITY IS AN 

ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGE 

NECESSITY/ SELF-DEFENSE

100

PUBLIC NECESSITY CASE

SURROCCO 

200

PRIVATE NECESSITY DEFINITION + CASE

ACTOR IS PRIVILEGED TO INTERFERE WITH PROPERTY OR PERSON IN EVENTS OF NECESSITY. 

PLOOF. 

300

NECESSITY DAMAGES + CASE 

PLNTF MUST PAY RESULTING HARMS INCURRED. 

VINCENT. 

400

PRIVATE NECESSITY IS A 

LIMITED PRIVILEGE 

500

SELF DEFENSE QUESTION 

WHEN THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AND THERE IS DISPUTED FACTS ON SELF-DEFENSE WHAT HAPPENS + CASE

ANY DISPUTES OF FACTS ARE CONSTRUED IN LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO THE NON-MOVING PARTY. 

GRIMES

SELF-DEFENSE

100

RULES VS STANDARD

RIGID V. FLEXIBLE

200

SHOPKEEPER'S PRIVILEGE VALID DEFENSE 

MISTAKE 

300

A DEF IS JUSTIFIED INUSING DEADLY FORCE WHEN + CASE

REASONABLY IN THE FACE OF DEADLY FORCE. 

KATKO. 

400

FRESH PURSUIT IS NECESSARY WHEN 

IN RECAPTURE OF CHATTELS 

IN SHOPKEEPER'S PRIVILEGE 

500

ELEMENTS OF SHOPKEEPER'S PRIVILEGE

MUST BE IN FRESH PURSUIT

MUST BE FOR REASONABLE CAUSE 

MUST BE WITH REASONABLE FORCE IN DETAINING

MUST BE FOR REASONABLE TIME TO INVESTIGATE