Subject Deep Dives

This Brieflex Deep Dive explains the difference between Public Nuisance and Private Nuisance, two torts that protect the use and enjoyment of property. Private nuisance involves substantial and unreasonable interference with an individual’s use of land, while public nuisance affects community rights such as health, safety, or comfort. The post also covers the special injury rule for standing, examples, defenses, and remedies to help law students and bar takers separate the two on Torts essays.

This Brieflex Deep Dive explains the difference between Conversion and Trespass to Chattels, two intentional property torts often confused on exams. Trespass to Chattels involves minor or temporary interference with personal property, while Conversion involves serious or total dominion — a “forced sale” of the item’s full value. Includes rule statements, examples, remedies, and exam tips for spotting both on Torts essays.

This Brieflex Deep Dive explains the difference between Battery and Assault — two intentional torts every law student and bar taker must master. It breaks down their rule statements, core elements, and how they interact: Battery requires harmful or offensive contact, while Assault requires reasonable apprehension of imminent contact. Includes examples, exam tips, and defenses to help you spot and separate both on Torts essays.

This Deep Dive explains how a single defective product can trigger three different legal theories: Strict Products Liability, Negligence, and Breach of Warranty. It breaks down the three strict liability defect types — manufacturing, design, and failure to warn — and shows how to analyze each under bar exam pressure. The post also covers the major defenses available for each theory, from product misuse and assumption of risk to warranty disclaimers and notice. The takeaway: the facts don’t tell you which theory applies — your reasoning does.

Negligence is the most frequently tested tort — in both law school and on the bar. This post breaks down the full negligence framework: duty, breach, causation, and damages — with both the Cardozo and Andrews views from Palsgraf. Using a realistic pedestrian-vehicle hypothetical, it shows how to argue both sides of every element, from foreseeability under Cardozo’s “zone of danger” test to comparative fault defenses. The takeaway: strong negligence analysis isn’t about memorizing the rule — it’s about reasoning through every element with balance, structure, and precision.

This Deep Dive explains the full structure of Defamation, from the common law rule to the constitutional limits on speech. It breaks down libel, slander, per se, and per quod, clarifies the difference between “of and concerning” and contextual defamation, and walks through the New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz standards. The post also covers key defenses — truth, privilege, opinion, and consent — and previews the Privacy Torts, which often appear alongside defamation on exams.