Purpose of Assignment: The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate distinguishing case law from a given fact pattern.Course Competency: Distinguish case law from specific fact patterns.Instructions:For this assignment, you have to read three cases and explain how they can be distinguished from our fact pattern with the Lucky Duck in terms of the law and the facts. Think in terms of differences: look at each case and compare it to our fact pattern. Steps to Follow:First: remember our fact pattern:Steven owns a bar, The Lucky Duck. The Lucky Duck employs five bartenders, all of whom he has provided training on mixing drinks and general employment issues. It also employs a security person on weekends, when the patrons are a bit rowdier. The Lucky Duck has posted signs in the restroom giving patrons the phone number for local cab companies in the event they are too intoxicated to drink home.One Saturday night, Michael went to The Lucky Duck with a group of friends to celebrate his promotion. His group of friends was ordering rounds of shots from all the bartenders, and large beers all night, toasting to Michael’s recent success. As the night went on, the group became more intoxicated, and rowdier. At 1am, one of the bartenders, Melissa, told Michael that it was his “last round,” as he was staggering when he walked up to the bar. After finishing that beer, Michael had his friend go buy him another beer from a different bartender, Sally. Shortly after he finished his last drink, Michael decided that he was ready to head home. Security watched as Michael walked out towards the parking lot, muttering “what a drunk.”On his way home, Michael ran a stop sign and ran into Mindy, who was driving home from a late shift as a nurse at the local hospital. Mindy was severely injured with a concussion, fractured ribs, internal bleeding, a broken arm, and lacerations to her face and hands, and contusions where her seatbelt dug into her. Mindy was forced to take several months off work to recover, and her hospital bills were large.Mindy sought out an attorney, who told her that she should sue Michael. Michael however, lost his job after the accident, and was drowning in debt. Therefore, the attorney told Mindy that she should also sue The Lucky Duck for overserving Michael.Second: read the following cases:PLA2330_Module 4_Englund v. MN CA Partners.PDFPLA2330_Module 4_Koehnen v. Dufuor_ 590 N.W.2d 107.PDFPLA2330_Module 4_Kunza v. Pantze_ 527 N.W.2d 846.PDFThe cases are to be distinguished from our fact pattern. You should explain the ways in which the cases can be distinguished from our fact pattern in terms of the law and the facts.Format: your paper should be formatted as follows:Write the case name and give the proper Bluebook citation.Explain the main facts and the court's holding.Explain how the law is different in the cited case as compared to our fact pattern.Explain how the facts are different in the cited case as compared to fact pattern.NOTE: Each case is distinguishable from our fact pattern, but not always on both factual and legal grounds. Cases can be distinguished either way. If you find the law in one of the review cases does apply to our fact pattern, simply state so. In that event, the case facts will be the distinguishing grounds on which to focus.Do not follow the IRAC format from Mod 03. Instead, use the format noted above.

Unit 3 - Individual Project  Unit:  Local Intelligence Collection Strategies and Policies Assignment Description Perhaps the biggest concern with regards to intelligence fusion centers at the federal, state, and local levels is the concern over privacy. Since their inception, fusion center officials have taken a number of steps to embed privacy policies and practices into the management of the program.  You are the chief privacy officer (CPO) for the Department of Homeland Security assigned to the DHS privacy office. As the CPO, you are responsible for enforcing fusion center privacy policies, including specifically insuring that the methods and technologies used by the fusion centers for intelligence collection and dissemination do not violate privacy protections and that the fusion center complies with fair information practices in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. One of your primary responsibilities as the CPO is to conduct a privacy impact assessment of the current policies, practices, and proposals involving the collection and disclosure of personal information by fusion centers.  

The directions are all provided on the attachment. I also need the outline page filled out. He made some suggestions about what cases to use and statues. He said the "Ski Area Safety Act", MCL 408.34(2)This Final Project needs to include at least 6 cases, multiple statues and be anywhere from 2-10 pages. I think the shorter the better. I have access to Lexis Nexis, which you will need to use for the research.