Goldstein v. U.D.C.

Goldstein v. U.D.C.

Find the case online and answer the questions.

A, case title: Goldstein v. U.D.C.
questions: 1. There was no evidence that Mr. Goldstein’s land was blighted according to the traditional definition of the term “blight.”  How, then, was the court

able to determine that his land could be taken by the govenment because it was blighted?

2. Mr. Goldstein argued that “economic development” (jobs & tax revenue) was not a legitimate “public use” for which the government could take his land.  (He said, in

essence, that “public purpose” is not the same as “public use.”) What was his reasoning?  That is, essentially why might economic development takings be

B, CASE TITLE: O’Brien v. O’Brien
QUESTION: 1.  Michael O’Brien cited common law precedents in arguing that his medical license should not be considered property in the divorce settlement.  What was

his reasoning?
2.  Loretta O’Brien, on the other hand, cited New York’s Equitable Distribution Law arguing that Michael’s medical license was marital property.  What was her legal

(not factual) reasoning?
C, CASE TITLE:  Mississippi v. Hall
QUESTION: 1. Negligence law is based on the notion that we have a duty to refrain from putting others at unreasonable risk of harm.  It does not require us to

protect others.  However, Ms. Hall contends that the hospital was negligent for failing to protect her against herself.  What legal logic did she rest her claim on?

(Please remember to provide legal reasoning rather than factual evidence.)
2. Exactly what witness, for the plaintiff, established the element of foreseeability?  Secondly, please specify exactly what evidence was provided by the witness that

did, in fact, establish foreseeability.
D, Helen Peterson was standing on a platform waiting for a passenger train. The Long Island Railroad owned and operated the trains and employed the station guards. A

man carrying a package wrapped in newspaper tried to board a moving train.  Railroad guards attempted to help him. In doing so, the package was dislodged from the

man’s arms, fell to the tracks and exploded. It contained fireworks. The explosion shook the railroad platform, causing a scale to fall on Helen standing some distance

away, injuring her. She sued the railroad for negligence.
1.Were the railroad’s employees negligent at any point during the sequence of events (i.e., did they do anything negligently)?
Why or why not?
2.Did the Long Island Railroad own a duty of care toward Helen in connection with her injury?
Why or why not?


find the cost of your paper