> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-5-comparing-cases-and-rule-synthesis/activities.md).

# Activities

## <mark style="background-color:$warning;">Activity #1</mark>

Is OVERNIGHT FERRY company liable for loss of passenger’s luggage? Ferry has restaurant and bar. The luggage was stolen from an overhead rack in the plaintiff’s locked cabin.&#x20;

Precedent 1--HOTEL owner held liable for a guest’s stolen luggage because contract of hospitality impliedly involved reasonably safe storage of the guest’s belongings.&#x20;

Precedent 2: RAILROAD company held not liable for the loss of the luggage of a passenger who traveled on a train in a locked sleeper berth because the contract was primarily for travel and not for lodging.

***

## <mark style="background-color:$warning;">Activity #2</mark>

**Objective:** Practice synthesizing a concise legal rule by analyzing multiple cases, distinguishing necessary and persuasive conditions, and merging them into a single statement that can be applied to new facts.

#### **Hypothetical Scenario**

You are a law clerk tasked with creating a synthesized rule about employee eligibility for overtime pay under the state's employment statute. You have been given three precedent cases:

**Case A:** Employees who regularly work more than 40 hours per week are generally entitled to overtime pay at 1.5 times their hourly rate.

**Case B:** Overtime pay applies only to non-exempt employees, meaning those whose job duties do not include managerial discretion or significant independent judgment.

**Case C:** Although not required, employees who record their hours accurately and consistently are more likely to successfully claim overtime pay.

#### <mark style="background-color:green;">**Step 1: Pinpoint Key Legal Findings**</mark>

For each case, identify the specific part of the decision that relates to your question about overtime eligibility. Focus only on the statements directly addressing what makes an employee eligible.

#### <mark style="background-color:green;">**Step 2: Identify Necessary vs. Persuasive Conditions**</mark>

* Determine which conditions the court said must be present (necessary) and which are recommended or strengthen the conclusion (persuasive).
* Use the language of the court to support your determination.

#### <mark style="background-color:green;">**Step 3: Funnel Together Conditions**</mark>

1. Merge the necessary conditions first.
2. Add the persuasive conditions afterward.

#### <mark style="background-color:green;">**Step 4: Create a Synthesized Rule**</mark>

* Turn each “funneled” part into a clear statement.
* Combine them into a single synthesized rule.
* Choose your signal words carefully:
  * Use “if…then” for necessary conditions.
  * Use “especially when” or “preferably” for persuasive factors.

#### <mark style="background-color:green;">**Step 5: Check S-A-C**</mark>

Make sure your final rule is:

1. **Simple (S):** Concise and easy to grasp.
2. **Appliable (A):** Can guide evaluation of new fact patterns.
3. **Consistent (C):** Matches the cases you used.&#x20;