18 Jan 01



Darron, while 18 years old and living in MD, makes a will which, among other things, conveys his Internet gambling site to his friend, Stuart, who is 21 and is domiciled in NV.

All programs, html pages, and everything else associated with the gambling site (The Virtual Casino) are on a server physically located in VA.


Darron, shortly after making the will, is told by his parents that they plan to move the family to AL. Darron protests that he has no intention of moving to AL. The parents say that they will cut him off if he does not move, and shortly later, Darron leaves MD with his parents to set up residence with his parents in AL.


Thirty minutes after entering AL, on the highway from Chattanooga, an automobile accident occurs, and Darron is killed.


MD allows 18 yr olds to make wills,and otherwise makes persons 18 years and older adults. AL requires that one be 21 to make a will.


VA prohibits gambling, and makes gambling "paraphernalia" forfeitable to the Commonwealth upon any attempted transfer. NV encourages gambling. MD and AL allow it under some circumstances.


Stuart files an action in AL to probate the will, hoping to get clear title to the Virtual Casino, which is hugely sucessful financially, attracting gamblers from all over the World.


What arguments for each side?



Hacker invades server farm in England, obtaining data on April (17) who is student at Stanford (CA) and parents domiciled in VA.


Email provider "leases" space from farm; email service agreement has subrogation clause in favor of April;

English law does not allow trespass for intangible invasions; CA does; VA does not

CA has favorable damages for privacy invasion; VA might not even have a c/a on these facts; England allows claim before Commissioner but no damages.


What arguments for each side?