POS 282--Introduction to American law
In class today, Thursday
12/13, we went over the first two cases in Chapter 7. The exam on
Tuesday will cover through those two cases, then. We also discussed the
Maine statutory provisions of "wrongful birth" (from a handout given
out last week), and I also talked about a 1995 Maine Supreme Court
opinion,Thibeault v. Larson, 666 A.2d 112. On Tuesday, 12/18 we will have our exam at 2:45, which exam will last just a class period, 75 minutes.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
December 11, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 12/11,
I distributed 2 handouts: one was the comment key to the Campbell case,
and the other concerned the logic used in the Jeweler Insurance case at
the end of Chapter 6. We discussed the Campbell case and the logical
problem. On Thursday, 12/13 we will discuss the cases from the
beginning of Chapter 7 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 12/11,
I distributed 2 handouts: one was the comment key to the Campbell case,
and the other concerned the logic used in the Jeweler Insurance case at
the end of Chapter 6. We discussed the Campbell case and the logical
problem. On Thursday, 12/13 we will discuss the cases from the
beginning of Chapter 7 of the text.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
December 6, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 12/6,
I first collected the Campbell case briefs which I will return on
Tuesday. The class then filled out evaluations of the course. Then we
finished our discussion of Chapter 6. I distributed one handout, the
Maine statute regarding "wrongful birth", which we will discuss on
Tuesday 12/11. The assignment for Tuesday 12/11 is to read and prepare
to discuss Chapter 7.
In class today, Thursday 12/6,
I first collected the Campbell case briefs which I will return on
Tuesday. The class then filled out evaluations of the course. Then we
finished our discussion of Chapter 6. I distributed one handout, the
Maine statute regarding "wrongful birth", which we will discuss on
Tuesday 12/11. The assignment for Tuesday 12/11 is to read and prepare
to discuss Chapter 7.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
December 3, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
The University has cancelled all classes for today Tuesday 12/3, that start before 10:00 a.m., and so our class is cancelled for today. Our next class meeting will be Thursday 12/5.
The case brief that is due Thursday will still be due Thursday. I have had some email questions from students about the brief, and so I thought that some suggestions might be helpful to you.
First, there have been questions about the "under what law" segment of the issue. The laws that are providing the rule in this case are the principles of equity, or the equitable rules regarding specific performance.
The major difficulties have been identifying the operative legal questions, and the key facts that go with them. My suggestion is to read the case paragraph by paragraph, and try to identify what question the court is dealing with in each paragraph. There is more than one issue in the case, and so look for the specific legal questions that the court faces. Reading the rest of the chapter regarding equity, equitable principles, and the preconditions to the exercise of equity should be useful. Ask yourself what the pre-conditions are before the court will impose equitable remedies, and what conditions might also preclude the court's imposition of equitable remedies.
Once you have identified those operative legal questions, the Facts you need will be those that answer the question, "under what circumstances (Facts) will this be the outcome regarding this legal question?". The Facts in this case are actual conditions that exist in the world, not the procedural stuff that has happened in court.
I hope that this is helpful. Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions. See you Thursday
The University has cancelled all classes for today Tuesday 12/3, that start before 10:00 a.m., and so our class is cancelled for today. Our next class meeting will be Thursday 12/5.
The case brief that is due Thursday will still be due Thursday. I have had some email questions from students about the brief, and so I thought that some suggestions might be helpful to you.
First, there have been questions about the "under what law" segment of the issue. The laws that are providing the rule in this case are the principles of equity, or the equitable rules regarding specific performance.
The major difficulties have been identifying the operative legal questions, and the key facts that go with them. My suggestion is to read the case paragraph by paragraph, and try to identify what question the court is dealing with in each paragraph. There is more than one issue in the case, and so look for the specific legal questions that the court faces. Reading the rest of the chapter regarding equity, equitable principles, and the preconditions to the exercise of equity should be useful. Ask yourself what the pre-conditions are before the court will impose equitable remedies, and what conditions might also preclude the court's imposition of equitable remedies.
Once you have identified those operative legal questions, the Facts you need will be those that answer the question, "under what circumstances (Facts) will this be the outcome regarding this legal question?". The Facts in this case are actual conditions that exist in the world, not the procedural stuff that has happened in court.
I hope that this is helpful. Feel free to e-mail me if you have questions. See you Thursday
Thursday, November 29, 2007
November 29, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/29, I distributed 2 handouts. One had excerpts from the Maine Tort Claims Act, which we reviewed when we discussed sovereign immunity. The
other handout, regarding the assignment due next Thursday 12/6 is included here. I went over a recent U.S. Supreme Court argument regarding the reach of the commerce clause to bar Maine's law regarding internet sales of tobacco to minors. We discussed the Kruckenberg and Solomon cases. On Tuesday 12/4 we will finish Chapter 6, and move onto Chapter 7. The assignment is to read and prepare to discuss Chapter 7,
as well as to work on the case brief assigned.
ASSIGNMENT FOR DECEMBER 6, 2007
The assignment for December 6 is to do a case brief of the case of Campbell Soup Company v. Wentz, page 293 of the text. I will collect the assignment at the beginning of class. Please make an extra copy of your brief so that we can still
discuss it after I’ve collected the brief.
Follow the format from the Sample Brief that I previously distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Whatever you
put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and
Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be
identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the
answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
You should work by yourself in doing this brief. This is not a collaborative assignment, and working with others, or copying or allowing the copying of work, will
be considered academic dishonesty.
If for any reason you cannot be in class on December 6th,
I still expect the case brief to be submitted on time. You can e-mail
it to me before class meets. I may still accept papers later than that,
but late papers will be reduced one letter grade. I have decided that I
will accept a maximum of one late paper from any student, so if you
have already handed any previous paper in late, you’ve used up your quota.
In class today, Thursday 11/29, I distributed 2 handouts. One had excerpts from the Maine Tort Claims Act, which we reviewed when we discussed sovereign immunity. The
other handout, regarding the assignment due next Thursday 12/6 is included here. I went over a recent U.S. Supreme Court argument regarding the reach of the commerce clause to bar Maine's law regarding internet sales of tobacco to minors. We discussed the Kruckenberg and Solomon cases. On Tuesday 12/4 we will finish Chapter 6, and move onto Chapter 7. The assignment is to read and prepare to discuss Chapter 7,
as well as to work on the case brief assigned.
ASSIGNMENT FOR DECEMBER 6, 2007
The assignment for December 6 is to do a case brief of the case of Campbell Soup Company v. Wentz, page 293 of the text. I will collect the assignment at the beginning of class. Please make an extra copy of your brief so that we can still
discuss it after I’ve collected the brief.
Follow the format from the Sample Brief that I previously distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Whatever you
put into the Fact section should appear exactly in your Issue and
Holding sections as well. Your Issue and Holding sections should be
identical to each other, except that the issue is a question, and the Holding is the
answer to that question. Your briefs will be evaluated on the format, as well as the specific content.
You should work by yourself in doing this brief. This is not a collaborative assignment, and working with others, or copying or allowing the copying of work, will
be considered academic dishonesty.
If for any reason you cannot be in class on December 6th,
I still expect the case brief to be submitted on time. You can e-mail
it to me before class meets. I may still accept papers later than that,
but late papers will be reduced one letter grade. I have decided that I
will accept a maximum of one late paper from any student, so if you
have already handed any previous paper in late, you’ve used up your quota.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
November 27, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/27, we continued our discussion in Chapter 6 of the text. We discussed the Padilla and Atkins cases. On Thursday 11/29 we will finish Chapter 6. I also will distribute a new casebrief assignment on Thursday.
In class today, Tuesday 11/27, we continued our discussion in Chapter 6 of the text. We discussed the Padilla and Atkins cases. On Thursday 11/29 we will finish Chapter 6. I also will distribute a new casebrief assignment on Thursday.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
November 20, 2007
POS 282 ---Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/20, I first handed back the Cody case briefs, and we went over in some detail what I was looking for for each segment of the brief. The class also voted to have the final written assignment be another case brief. In Chapter 6 of the text, I went over one Maine Supreme Court case regarding advisory opinions under the Maine Constitution, Opinion of the Justices of 4/16/2004. We discussed the Sullivan case on p. 232, and then I went over two 2007 U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding standing, Massachusetts v. EPA and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Maine case is available on the Maine Supreme Court website, and the 2 U.S. Supreme Court cases are available on the U.S. Supreme Court website. When we come back for the final three weeks of the semester on 11/27, we will resume our discussion of Chapter 6 picking up after the Sullivan case.
In class today, Tuesday 11/20, I first handed back the Cody case briefs, and we went over in some detail what I was looking for for each segment of the brief. The class also voted to have the final written assignment be another case brief. In Chapter 6 of the text, I went over one Maine Supreme Court case regarding advisory opinions under the Maine Constitution, Opinion of the Justices of 4/16/2004. We discussed the Sullivan case on p. 232, and then I went over two 2007 U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding standing, Massachusetts v. EPA and Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation. The Maine case is available on the Maine Supreme Court website, and the 2 U.S. Supreme Court cases are available on the U.S. Supreme Court website. When we come back for the final three weeks of the semester on 11/27, we will resume our discussion of Chapter 6 picking up after the Sullivan case.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
November 15, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/15, I collected the Cody case briefs, which I will return on Tuesday. We finished discussing Chapter 5 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday 11/20 is to read Chapter 6 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 11/15, I collected the Cody case briefs, which I will return on Tuesday. We finished discussing Chapter 5 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday 11/20 is to read Chapter 6 of the text.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
November 13, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/13, we went over the service of process case, Dorsey v. Gregg, and the Libby discovery sanctions case. We also went over the Maine Rule of Civil Procedure regarding service of process, and the rule regarding civil juries in Maine. The assignment for Thursday 11/15 is to finish the case brief of Cody v. Atkins that was assigned last Thursday, as well as reading and preparing to discuss the remainder of Chapter 5 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 11/13, we went over the service of process case, Dorsey v. Gregg, and the Libby discovery sanctions case. We also went over the Maine Rule of Civil Procedure regarding service of process, and the rule regarding civil juries in Maine. The assignment for Thursday 11/15 is to finish the case brief of Cody v. Atkins that was assigned last Thursday, as well as reading and preparing to discuss the remainder of Chapter 5 of the text.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
November 8, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/8,I distributed 2 handouts. One was the briefing assignment that will be due next Thursday, 11/15, and the other consisted of excerpts from the
Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and Maine Rules of Evidence that
corresponds with some of the textbook cases. I discussed the briefing
assignment of the Cody case on page 215 of the text, and went over the
key concepts of what I'll be looking for in the case brief. We then
went over the Land case at the end of chapter 4, and the Salmon case at
the beginning of Chapter 5. The assignment for Tuesday 11/13 is to read
and prepare to discuss the rest of chapter 5 (as well as starting work
on the case brief, so that you don't leave it for the last minute).
In class today, Thursday 11/8,I distributed 2 handouts. One was the briefing assignment that will be due next Thursday, 11/15, and the other consisted of excerpts from the
Maine Rules of Civil Procedure and Maine Rules of Evidence that
corresponds with some of the textbook cases. I discussed the briefing
assignment of the Cody case on page 215 of the text, and went over the
key concepts of what I'll be looking for in the case brief. We then
went over the Land case at the end of chapter 4, and the Salmon case at
the beginning of Chapter 5. The assignment for Tuesday 11/13 is to read
and prepare to discuss the rest of chapter 5 (as well as starting work
on the case brief, so that you don't leave it for the last minute).
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
November 6, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/6, I began by discussing 2 cases, one from the Maine Supreme Court and a more recent one from the U.S. Supreme Court, that dealt with subject matter jurisdiction and claims-processing rules. In the textbook, we went over cases through the Gebbia v. WalMart case. On Thursday we will finish Chapter 4, and move right on to Chapter 5. The assignment for Thursday 11/8 is to read and prepare to discuss Chapter 5. Also on Thursday I plan to assign a paper that will be due the following Thursday, 11/15.
In class today, Tuesday 11/6, I began by discussing 2 cases, one from the Maine Supreme Court and a more recent one from the U.S. Supreme Court, that dealt with subject matter jurisdiction and claims-processing rules. In the textbook, we went over cases through the Gebbia v. WalMart case. On Thursday we will finish Chapter 4, and move right on to Chapter 5. The assignment for Thursday 11/8 is to read and prepare to discuss Chapter 5. Also on Thursday I plan to assign a paper that will be due the following Thursday, 11/15.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
November 1, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today Thursday, 11/1, I began with an explanation of the unique Maine court system. We started going through Chapter 4 of the text, discussing through the Bohlander case on page 162. The assignment for Tuesday 11/6 is to read and prepare to discuss the remainder of Chapter 4.
In class today Thursday, 11/1, I began with an explanation of the unique Maine court system. We started going through Chapter 4 of the text, discussing through the Bohlander case on page 162. The assignment for Tuesday 11/6 is to read and prepare to discuss the remainder of Chapter 4.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
October 30, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/30, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed a change to the syllabus. The change eliminate one of the three exams originally planned, so that we will have just one more exam, as well as two more papers to do. Finally, I discussed two recent actions in the U.S. Supreme Court, one agreeing to take a case involving punitive damages in the Exxon-Valdez litigation, and the other having oral argument today in a child pornography case raising issues of overbreadth under the 1st Amendment. The assignment for Thursday 11/1 is to read and be prepared to discuss Chapter 4 of the text.
In class today, Tuesday 10/30, I handed back the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed a change to the syllabus. The change eliminate one of the three exams originally planned, so that we will have just one more exam, as well as two more papers to do. Finally, I discussed two recent actions in the U.S. Supreme Court, one agreeing to take a case involving punitive damages in the Exxon-Valdez litigation, and the other having oral argument today in a child pornography case raising issues of overbreadth under the 1st Amendment. The assignment for Thursday 11/1 is to read and be prepared to discuss Chapter 4 of the text.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
October 25, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/25, we had our first exam. On Tuesday 10/30 we will go over the exam, and then start Chapter 4 of the text. The assignment is to read Chapter 4 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 10/25, we had our first exam. On Tuesday 10/30 we will go over the exam, and then start Chapter 4 of the text. The assignment is to read Chapter 4 of the text.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
October 23, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/23, we finished going over Chapter 3 of the text. I also gave a short sample test. I reviewed the kinds of questions that will be on the exam, and what to prepare for. The exam will be on Thursday 10/25. If for any reason you are unable to come to class Thursday, you must be in touch with me and have made up the test before it is handed back to the class next Tuesday.
In class today, Tuesday 10/23, we finished going over Chapter 3 of the text. I also gave a short sample test. I reviewed the kinds of questions that will be on the exam, and what to prepare for. The exam will be on Thursday 10/25. If for any reason you are unable to come to class Thursday, you must be in touch with me and have made up the test before it is handed back to the class next Tuesday.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
October 18, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/18, we started going through the concepts of chapter 3. I also talked about a recent U.S. Supreme Court argument that raised many issued under the supremacy clause. On Tuesday 10/23, we will finish Chapter 3. I will also present some sample test questions to go over. The first test will be next Thursday 10/25, covering Chapters 1-3 and the material that we have discussed in class.
In class today, Thursday 10/18, we started going through the concepts of chapter 3. I also talked about a recent U.S. Supreme Court argument that raised many issued under the supremacy clause. On Tuesday 10/23, we will finish Chapter 3. I will also present some sample test questions to go over. The first test will be next Thursday 10/25, covering Chapters 1-3 and the material that we have discussed in class.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
October 16, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/16, we finished our discussion of Chapter 2. We will start into Chapter 3 on Thursday 10/18. We will have our first exam when we finish chapter 3.
In class today, Tuesday 10/16, we finished our discussion of Chapter 2. We will start into Chapter 3 on Thursday 10/18. We will have our first exam when we finish chapter 3.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
October 11, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday
10/11, I returned the Williams papers, and we went over those papers. I
discussed one recent Supreme Court argument, and we also went over theMobbley
case in the text. On Tuesday 10/16 we will finish Chapter 2, and
continue on to Chapter 3 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday is to
read Chapter 3 of the text. Also, we discussed some changes to the
tentative schedule that was on the syllabus. The first exam will be
when we finish chapter 3. I am also considering having only two, rather
than 3, exams.
In class today, Thursday
10/11, I returned the Williams papers, and we went over those papers. I
discussed one recent Supreme Court argument, and we also went over theMobbley
case in the text. On Tuesday 10/16 we will finish Chapter 2, and
continue on to Chapter 3 of the text. The assignment for Tuesday is to
read Chapter 3 of the text. Also, we discussed some changes to the
tentative schedule that was on the syllabus. The first exam will be
when we finish chapter 3. I am also considering having only two, rather
than 3, exams.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
October 4, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Thursday 10/4, we finished our discussion of the Lawrence case, and then discussed the Johnson case and the Williams Supreme Court case. There is no class meeting on Tuesday 10/9. On Thursday 10/11 we will continue (finish?) Chapter 2 of the text. While I did not specifically assign Chapter 3 yet, the extra day off might be a good time to do that reading.
In class today, Thursday 10/4, we finished our discussion of the Lawrence case, and then discussed the Johnson case and the Williams Supreme Court case. There is no class meeting on Tuesday 10/9. On Thursday 10/11 we will continue (finish?) Chapter 2 of the text. While I did not specifically assign Chapter 3 yet, the extra day off might be a good time to do that reading.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
October 2, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 10/2, we continued our discussion of Chapter 2 of the text. We discussed the various opinions in Gregg, and then talked about the recently accepted U.S. Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of lethal injections. We also began our discussion of the Lawrence case. The assignment for Thursday 10/4 is to write the paper that was assigned last week (9/27).
In class today, Tuesday 10/2, we continued our discussion of Chapter 2 of the text. We discussed the various opinions in Gregg, and then talked about the recently accepted U.S. Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of lethal injections. We also began our discussion of the Lawrence case. The assignment for Thursday 10/4 is to write the paper that was assigned last week (9/27).
Thursday, September 27, 2007
September 27, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to Amer. Law
In class today, Thursday 9/27, we finished going over Chapter 1(!). We also began our discussion of Chapter 2 regarding capital punishment. I distributed a homework assignment which I'm repeating below. The assignment is due next Thursday, 10/4.
POS 282 Introduction to American Law Sol Goldman
September 27, 2007
The assignment for Thursday, October 4, 2007 is
1) Re-read Johnson v. Ford Motor Company at p. 91 of the text.
2) Go to the website for the Medill School of Journalism, and read this article about a recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case, Philip Morris v. Williams (February 20, 2007) (R-17, 2006 Term):
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003687.php
3) Using the link at the bottom of the Medill article (or going directly to the U.S. Supreme Court site
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html)
read the opinions (majority and dissenting) of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the punitive damage award in this case.
This case involved a civil suit by a smoker who died from his smoking, and who was mislead by the tobacco company into believing that smoking was safe.
4) Write a paper (approximately 2 double-spaced pages) summarizing in your own words what the majority found to be the trouble with the way that the punitive damages issue had been presented to the jury. Also write a summary of the positions of each of the dissenting opinions. Finally, evaluate as well as you can whether the California Supreme Court decision in Johnson is affected by the Philip Morris decision (and, if so, how).
In class today, Thursday 9/27, we finished going over Chapter 1(!). We also began our discussion of Chapter 2 regarding capital punishment. I distributed a homework assignment which I'm repeating below. The assignment is due next Thursday, 10/4.
POS 282 Introduction to American Law Sol Goldman
September 27, 2007
The assignment for Thursday, October 4, 2007 is
1) Re-read Johnson v. Ford Motor Company at p. 91 of the text.
2) Go to the website for the Medill School of Journalism, and read this article about a recently decided U.S. Supreme Court case, Philip Morris v. Williams (February 20, 2007) (R-17, 2006 Term):
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003687.php
3) Using the link at the bottom of the Medill article (or going directly to the U.S. Supreme Court site
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html)
read the opinions (majority and dissenting) of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the punitive damage award in this case.
This case involved a civil suit by a smoker who died from his smoking, and who was mislead by the tobacco company into believing that smoking was safe.
4) Write a paper (approximately 2 double-spaced pages) summarizing in your own words what the majority found to be the trouble with the way that the punitive damages issue had been presented to the jury. Also write a summary of the positions of each of the dissenting opinions. Finally, evaluate as well as you can whether the California Supreme Court decision in Johnson is affected by the Philip Morris decision (and, if so, how).
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
September 25, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to Amer. Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/25, we spent the class going through in detail the Katko case, including the types of authority used, the creation of common law, and the nuances of the key circumstances of the holding. The assignment for Thursday 9/27 is to review the rest of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
In class today, Tuesday 9/25, we spent the class going through in detail the Katko case, including the types of authority used, the creation of common law, and the nuances of the key circumstances of the holding. The assignment for Thursday 9/27 is to review the rest of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
September 20, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Thursday 9/20, we
continued our journey through Chapter One of the text. I also discussed
one other case regarding assisted suicide, Gonzales v. Oregon. We
started a detailed discussion of the exact holding of theKatko case. On
Tuesday, 9/25 we will finish Chapter One for sure. The assignment for
Tuesday is to review the reading of Chapter One and Chapter Two.
In class today, Thursday 9/20, we
continued our journey through Chapter One of the text. I also discussed
one other case regarding assisted suicide, Gonzales v. Oregon. We
started a detailed discussion of the exact holding of theKatko case. On
Tuesday, 9/25 we will finish Chapter One for sure. The assignment for
Tuesday is to review the reading of Chapter One and Chapter Two.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
September 18, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to Amer. Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/18, we continued going over the concepts of Chapter 1 of the text. We evaluated the Bangor parade permit against the standards set out in the
AAC case, and discussed the assisted suicide case. The assignment for Thursday 9/20 is to review your reading of the reminder of Chapter 1 and all of chapter 2.
In class today, Tuesday 9/18, we continued going over the concepts of Chapter 1 of the text. We evaluated the Bangor parade permit against the standards set out in the
AAC case, and discussed the assisted suicide case. The assignment for Thursday 9/20 is to review your reading of the reminder of Chapter 1 and all of chapter 2.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Tuesday September 11, 2007
POS 282 --Intro. to Amer. Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/11, we finished our discussion of Sociological jurisprudence with the cases of Ledbetter (pay discrimination) and Parents Involved (racial segregation). We went over AAC v. Dearborn, and the handout from last class with my version of the holdings of that case. I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Bangor parade ordinance, but we did not have time to discuss it. The assignment for next Tuesday, 9/18 is to review the remainder of Chapter 1 of the text, and to read Chapter 2 of the text. A reminder that there will be no class meeting on Thursday 9/13.
In class today, Tuesday 9/11, we finished our discussion of Sociological jurisprudence with the cases of Ledbetter (pay discrimination) and Parents Involved (racial segregation). We went over AAC v. Dearborn, and the handout from last class with my version of the holdings of that case. I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Bangor parade ordinance, but we did not have time to discuss it. The assignment for next Tuesday, 9/18 is to review the remainder of Chapter 1 of the text, and to read Chapter 2 of the text. A reminder that there will be no class meeting on Thursday 9/13.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
POS 282
In class today, Thursday 9/6, we finished our discussion of the Maine perjury and false swearing statutes, and I presented one Maine case regarding false swearing, State v. Anthoine. We then started our discussion of the Jurisprudential ideas of the text, and I also presented the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Gonzales v. Carhart. I also distributed one handout, my version of the holdings of AAC v. Dearborn. Next Tuesday we will finish our discussion of chapter 1 including the uses of case briefs. The assignment for Tuesday is to finish reading Chapter 1 of the text. (And a reminder that there will be no class Thursday 9/13).
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Sepember 4, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to Amer. Law
In class today, Tuesday 9/4, I distributed and we discussed 3 handouts: the syllabus, a list of useful websites, and a handout regarding perjury, both ancient and modern. The assignment for Thursday 9/6 is to read through page 28 in the text. Also, read the perjury handout and be prepared to discuss the difference in the definitions of perjury and false swearing.
In class today, Tuesday 9/4, I distributed and we discussed 3 handouts: the syllabus, a list of useful websites, and a handout regarding perjury, both ancient and modern. The assignment for Thursday 9/6 is to read through page 28 in the text. Also, read the perjury handout and be prepared to discuss the difference in the definitions of perjury and false swearing.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Monday, April 30
POS 282--Intro. to Criminal Law
In class today, Monday 4/30, the first thing that we did was change the time of the final exam. The exam will start at 8:30 (instead of 8:00) on the morning of Wednesday, 5/9.
In class, we went over the handout from last week on the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We then went over the textbook concepts in Chapter 10. I distributed 2 handouts, one with excerpts from the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the other a newspaper article about a no-knock warrant gone bad in Georgia. We also discussed the Hudson v. Michigan case.
In class today, Monday 4/30, the first thing that we did was change the time of the final exam. The exam will start at 8:30 (instead of 8:00) on the morning of Wednesday, 5/9.
In class, we went over the handout from last week on the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We then went over the textbook concepts in Chapter 10. I distributed 2 handouts, one with excerpts from the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the other a newspaper article about a no-knock warrant gone bad in Georgia. We also discussed the Hudson v. Michigan case.
Monday, April 23, 2007
April 23, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/23, we went over the concepts of the homework assignment. I distributed a handout of selected Maine Rules of Court. I also talked about three Maine Supreme Court opinions regarding appropriate sanctions for violations of the Rules of Procedure. The assignment for Monday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text regarding criminal procedure. In addition, please read last year's U.S. Supreme Court case of Hudson v. Michigan. The Medill article about the case can be found at
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/002753.php
and the Supreme Court Opinion can be found at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
and scroll down to R-65, Hudson v. Michigan, 6/15/06
In class today, Monday 4/23, we went over the concepts of the homework assignment. I distributed a handout of selected Maine Rules of Court. I also talked about three Maine Supreme Court opinions regarding appropriate sanctions for violations of the Rules of Procedure. The assignment for Monday 4/30 is to read Chapter 10 of the text regarding criminal procedure. In addition, please read last year's U.S. Supreme Court case of Hudson v. Michigan. The Medill article about the case can be found at
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/002753.php
and the Supreme Court Opinion can be found at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05slipopinion.html
and scroll down to R-65, Hudson v. Michigan, 6/15/06
Sunday, April 22, 2007
April 22, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
Several students have asked about the concept of authority--under what law is the court ruling.
There is a limited set of possibilities for court authority.
The court can base its decision on a constitution, statute, regulation, or ordinance. All of these are authority enacted by a different body, and the court's job is to determine what that enacted authority means and how those rules are to be applied.
The court itself also enacts law in the form of Court Rules, such as the Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, etc. and the court's job in cases decided under those Rules is to determine what their own rules mean and how those rules are to be applied.
In common law, the court gets to make up the rules, instead of interpreting somebody else's rules (or even their own rules) . The most frequent example of this is in tort law.
In all decisions, the court will usually cite (make reference to) previous court cases (caselaw).
Just because the court cites caselaw, though, doesn't mean that it is those previous cases that are the source of authority for the court's decision. If the decision is a common law case, then the caselaw would be the authority, but if the caselaw is interpreting some enacted law or rule, that law or rule remains the source of the authority.
That's the theory, anyway. Sometimes a court doesn't spell things out completely, and so you just rely on what the court has provided, even if it doesn't spell out the source of the authority.
I think that this explanation will help you get through the Stoddard and Grover cases. The Lowry case is a little more difficult, though, in terms of finding the authority upon which the court is relying. If the court gives you only prior caselaw as authority, then you just use what they give you, even if it doesn't fit neatly into my explanation.
Several students have asked about the concept of authority--under what law is the court ruling.
There is a limited set of possibilities for court authority.
The court can base its decision on a constitution, statute, regulation, or ordinance. All of these are authority enacted by a different body, and the court's job is to determine what that enacted authority means and how those rules are to be applied.
The court itself also enacts law in the form of Court Rules, such as the Rules of Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, etc. and the court's job in cases decided under those Rules is to determine what their own rules mean and how those rules are to be applied.
In common law, the court gets to make up the rules, instead of interpreting somebody else's rules (or even their own rules) . The most frequent example of this is in tort law.
In all decisions, the court will usually cite (make reference to) previous court cases (caselaw).
Just because the court cites caselaw, though, doesn't mean that it is those previous cases that are the source of authority for the court's decision. If the decision is a common law case, then the caselaw would be the authority, but if the caselaw is interpreting some enacted law or rule, that law or rule remains the source of the authority.
That's the theory, anyway. Sometimes a court doesn't spell things out completely, and so you just rely on what the court has provided, even if it doesn't spell out the source of the authority.
I think that this explanation will help you get through the Stoddard and Grover cases. The Lowry case is a little more difficult, though, in terms of finding the authority upon which the court is relying. If the court gives you only prior caselaw as authority, then you just use what they give you, even if it doesn't fit neatly into my explanation.
Friday, April 20, 2007
April 20, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
If you are checking the blog, you're probably aware that there is a problem with the URL for the Stoddard case on the Maine Supreme Court website. After a little sleuthing, I believe I've figured out what the problem is and how to get around it. The Stoddard case was corrected later in the day that it was originally posted, but the URL was not changed. The corrected URL is
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/documents/97me114A.htm
(the only difference is that there is an "A" rather than a "s" after the 114 in the address.
I'm sorry for the problem. Please let other class members know of this posting.
If you are checking the blog, you're probably aware that there is a problem with the URL for the Stoddard case on the Maine Supreme Court website. After a little sleuthing, I believe I've figured out what the problem is and how to get around it. The Stoddard case was corrected later in the day that it was originally posted, but the URL was not changed. The corrected URL is
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/documents/97me114A.htm
(the only difference is that there is an "A" rather than a "s" after the 114 in the address.
I'm sorry for the problem. Please let other class members know of this posting.
Monday, April 16, 2007
April 16, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/16, I handed back the exams from last week. We went over the concepts of Chapter 8 on family law, and the 2 cases and statutes that I distributed last week. Here's the writing assignment for next Monday:
The assignment for Monday, April 23, 2007 is
•1) Read Chapter 9 of the text on Civil Procedure, etc. Pages 294-295 discuss the process of jury selection and voir dire.
•2) Read the following Maine Supreme Court cases
State v. Stoddard, 1997 ME 114
State v. Lowry, 2003 ME 38
Grover v. Boise Cascade, 2004 ME 119
All of these cases are available from the Maine courts website
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
•3) For each case, write out the holding of the Court regarding eachvoir dire issue. (Not the other issues in the case.)
Here are two sample holdings from a family law case for today, Jacobs v. Jacobs:
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “household members” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “presently or formerly living together” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Notice the 3-part format for a holding:
Under what law... Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4)...
The operative legal question... two adults are not “household members”
Under what facts... when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
•4) Finally, write what your evaluation is of the Court’s decisions (regarding the voir dire issue). If you were designing a court system, would your system agree with the results that the Court reaches? To what extent do the holdings of the Court make for a good system, and to what extent would the arguments of the losing side have produced a better system? Finally, do you think that the whole system of peremptory challenges itself produces a fair and unbiased jury, or do you think that it just favors that side that has the resources to research the jury pool enough to find out by its own means the likely sympathies of each potential juror?
In class today, Monday 4/16, I handed back the exams from last week. We went over the concepts of Chapter 8 on family law, and the 2 cases and statutes that I distributed last week. Here's the writing assignment for next Monday:
The assignment for Monday, April 23, 2007 is
•1) Read Chapter 9 of the text on Civil Procedure, etc. Pages 294-295 discuss the process of jury selection and voir dire.
•2) Read the following Maine Supreme Court cases
State v. Stoddard, 1997 ME 114
State v. Lowry, 2003 ME 38
Grover v. Boise Cascade, 2004 ME 119
All of these cases are available from the Maine courts website
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
•3) For each case, write out the holding of the Court regarding eachvoir dire issue. (Not the other issues in the case.)
Here are two sample holdings from a family law case for today, Jacobs v. Jacobs:
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “household members” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4), two adults are not “presently or formerly living together” when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
Notice the 3-part format for a holding:
Under what law... Under 19-A MRSA §4002(4)...
The operative legal question... two adults are not “household members”
Under what facts... when they are related by consanguinity (siblings) but there is no evidence that they ever lived together, as adults or otherwise.
•4) Finally, write what your evaluation is of the Court’s decisions (regarding the voir dire issue). If you were designing a court system, would your system agree with the results that the Court reaches? To what extent do the holdings of the Court make for a good system, and to what extent would the arguments of the losing side have produced a better system? Finally, do you think that the whole system of peremptory challenges itself produces a fair and unbiased jury, or do you think that it just favors that side that has the resources to research the jury pool enough to find out by its own means the likely sympathies of each potential juror?
Monday, April 9, 2007
April 9, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/9, we had Exam #2, and then went over the exam. The homework for Monday 4/16 is to read Chapter 8 of the text regarding family law. I also distributed 3 handouts to the class, one of selected Maine family law statutes, and also 2 Maine Supreme Court decisions, Morin v. Kundrigan, 2007 ME 37 and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 2007 ME 14, that I would like to read for next week.
In class today, Monday 4/9, we had Exam #2, and then went over the exam. The homework for Monday 4/16 is to read Chapter 8 of the text regarding family law. I also distributed 3 handouts to the class, one of selected Maine family law statutes, and also 2 Maine Supreme Court decisions, Morin v. Kundrigan, 2007 ME 37 and Jacobs v. Jacobs, 2007 ME 14, that I would like to read for next week.
Monday, April 2, 2007
April 2, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 4/2, we went over the concepts in Chapter 7. We also discussed the Searles case that I handed out last week. I distributed a handout of selected Maine contracts statutes, and I also went over 4 Maine contracts and consumer protection cases. Next Monday 4/9 we will have our second exam, open book and open note. If an emergency arises and you cannot be in class next week, you must notify me as soon as possible and make arrangements to make up the exam. Failure to make up the exam before class on Monday 4/16 will result in failure for that exam.
In class today, Monday 4/2, we went over the concepts in Chapter 7. We also discussed the Searles case that I handed out last week. I distributed a handout of selected Maine contracts statutes, and I also went over 4 Maine contracts and consumer protection cases. Next Monday 4/9 we will have our second exam, open book and open note. If an emergency arises and you cannot be in class next week, you must notify me as soon as possible and make arrangements to make up the exam. Failure to make up the exam before class on Monday 4/16 will result in failure for that exam.
Monday, March 26, 2007
March 26, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 3/26, we discussed the concepts of chapter 6 of the text, and then the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. I distributed 2 handouts, one a selection of Maine landlord/tenant laws, and the second a Maine Supreme Court case I want you to read for next week, 4/2. The case is Searles v. Trustees of St Joseph's College, and the citation is 1997 ME 128. If you were not in class, you can get the case from the Maine Supreme Court Opinions site. In addition to reading and preparing to discuss that case, I would like you to read and prepare to discuss chapter 7 of the text. On the following week, 4/9, we will have Exam #2.
In class today, Monday 3/26, we discussed the concepts of chapter 6 of the text, and then the U.S. Supreme Court case of Kelo v. City of New London. I distributed 2 handouts, one a selection of Maine landlord/tenant laws, and the second a Maine Supreme Court case I want you to read for next week, 4/2. The case is Searles v. Trustees of St Joseph's College, and the citation is 1997 ME 128. If you were not in class, you can get the case from the Maine Supreme Court Opinions site. In addition to reading and preparing to discuss that case, I would like you to read and prepare to discuss chapter 7 of the text. On the following week, 4/9, we will have Exam #2.
Monday, March 19, 2007
March 19, 2007
POS 282--Intro. To American Law
In class today, Monday 3/19, I returned the Williams papers. I discussed 2 additional Maine Supreme Court tort cases. Then we discussed the Williams case. The assignment for Monday 3/26 is to read Chapter 6 of the text. Then read and prepare to discuss a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London. You can find the case from the Supreme Court site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
then scroll down to
R-69 6/23/05 04-108 Kelo v. New London
In class today, Monday 3/19, I returned the Williams papers. I discussed 2 additional Maine Supreme Court tort cases. Then we discussed the Williams case. The assignment for Monday 3/26 is to read Chapter 6 of the text. Then read and prepare to discuss a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v. New London. You can find the case from the Supreme Court site:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
then scroll down to
R-69 6/23/05 04-108 Kelo v. New London
Monday, February 26, 2007
February 26, 2007
POS 282 Intro. to Amer. Law
In class today, Monday 2/26, I passed back last week's exams, and I went over the grading. We discussed the concepts of Chapter 5 on torts. I distributed a handout of selected Maine tort statutes. I discussed several Maine Supreme Court tort decisions. I collected your papers on Willliams, but we did not have time to discuss Williams. Since we still have Williams to discuss, I decided to not give you any additional assignment over spring break, other than to review Williams (if you have not yet read the Supreme Court decision, you should do so). Have a good spring break.
In class today, Monday 2/26, I passed back last week's exams, and I went over the grading. We discussed the concepts of Chapter 5 on torts. I distributed a handout of selected Maine tort statutes. I discussed several Maine Supreme Court tort decisions. I collected your papers on Willliams, but we did not have time to discuss Williams. Since we still have Williams to discuss, I decided to not give you any additional assignment over spring break, other than to review Williams (if you have not yet read the Supreme Court decision, you should do so). Have a good spring break.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
February 21, 2007
POS 282 --Introduction to American Law
When I assigned the Philip Morris case on Monday, I had no idea that the Supreme Court would hand down its ruling in the case on Tuesday. If they had just waited one more week. it would have been great timing...As it is though, it does create a problem with an assignment that asked you to make a prediction in the case.
Anyway, here's how I've decided to deal with this new development: You will have a choice of doing one of two things.
1) You may just do the original assignment. Go ahead and do your analysis and make your prediction just as assigned. If you do this, I ask you to not read anything more about the decision, because it would be like placing bets now on the last month's Superbowl-not really sporting.
or
2) You may write a paper (2-3 pages) that discusses the issues that were presented to the Supreme Court, and what issues the Supreme Court ultimately ruled on. Summarize the majority opinion, and summarize each of the three dissenting opinions, emphasizing on which point(s) each dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority. Also, go back to the oral argument, and show how the questions asked at oral argument did (or did not) reflect the ultimate viewpoint of at least 2 of the Justices. Finally, explain which opinion(s) you find the most persuasive, and why.
The link to the decision may be found at the Supreme court site at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html
When I assigned the Philip Morris case on Monday, I had no idea that the Supreme Court would hand down its ruling in the case on Tuesday. If they had just waited one more week. it would have been great timing...As it is though, it does create a problem with an assignment that asked you to make a prediction in the case.
Anyway, here's how I've decided to deal with this new development: You will have a choice of doing one of two things.
1) You may just do the original assignment. Go ahead and do your analysis and make your prediction just as assigned. If you do this, I ask you to not read anything more about the decision, because it would be like placing bets now on the last month's Superbowl-not really sporting.
or
2) You may write a paper (2-3 pages) that discusses the issues that were presented to the Supreme Court, and what issues the Supreme Court ultimately ruled on. Summarize the majority opinion, and summarize each of the three dissenting opinions, emphasizing on which point(s) each dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority. Also, go back to the oral argument, and show how the questions asked at oral argument did (or did not) reflect the ultimate viewpoint of at least 2 of the Justices. Finally, explain which opinion(s) you find the most persuasive, and why.
The link to the decision may be found at the Supreme court site at
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06slipopinion.html
Monday, February 19, 2007
February 19, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Monday 2/19, we had our first test. After a break, we went over the test. I will hand back the results next Monday. Also I assigned the following for class next Monday:
The assignment for Monday, February 26, 2007 is
•1) Read Chapter 5 of the text on Torts
•2) Go to the website for the Medill School of Journalism, and read this article about a recently argued U.S. Supreme Court case,
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola Docket: 05-1256
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003687.php
The case involves the limits that the U.S. Constitution puts on the amount of punitive damages that a jury can award in torts cases. The questions presented to the Supreme Court (as written by the tobacco company) are
(1) Whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analogous to crime can override the constitutional requirement that punitive damages must be reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff? (2) Whether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties?
•3) Using the link on the Medill site to the Oregon Supreme Court decision -or going directly to the Oregon Supreme Court site at http://159.121.112.45/S51805.htm
read that Oregon Supreme Court decision that is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Use that decision’s discussion of previous Supreme Court decisions to help you understand what tests the U.S. Supreme Court has previously imposed on punitive damages.
•4) Go to the U.S. Supreme Court site, locate and read the transcript of the oral argument that was held by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 31, 2006. The transcript site is
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
and the case to scroll down to is
05-1256. Philip Morris USA v. Williams 10/31/06
•5) Write a paper (approximately 2-3 double-spaced pages) summarizing in your own words how the constitutional test applies to the facts of this case, (not a summary of the facts of this case) and giving your prediction about how the case will be decided by the Supreme Court, making specific reference to the language of questions asked by various justices during the oral argument.
In class today, Monday 2/19, we had our first test. After a break, we went over the test. I will hand back the results next Monday. Also I assigned the following for class next Monday:
The assignment for Monday, February 26, 2007 is
•1) Read Chapter 5 of the text on Torts
•2) Go to the website for the Medill School of Journalism, and read this article about a recently argued U.S. Supreme Court case,
Philip Morris USA v. Williams, Mayola Docket: 05-1256
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/003687.php
The case involves the limits that the U.S. Constitution puts on the amount of punitive damages that a jury can award in torts cases. The questions presented to the Supreme Court (as written by the tobacco company) are
(1) Whether, in reviewing a jury's award of punitive damages, an appellate court's conclusion that a defendant's conduct was highly reprehensible and analogous to crime can override the constitutional requirement that punitive damages must be reasonably related to the harm to the plaintiff? (2) Whether due process permits a jury to punish a defendant for the effects of its conduct on non-parties?
•3) Using the link on the Medill site to the Oregon Supreme Court decision -or going directly to the Oregon Supreme Court site at http://159.121.112.45/S51805.htm
read that Oregon Supreme Court decision that is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Use that decision’s discussion of previous Supreme Court decisions to help you understand what tests the U.S. Supreme Court has previously imposed on punitive damages.
•4) Go to the U.S. Supreme Court site, locate and read the transcript of the oral argument that was held by the U.S. Supreme Court on October 31, 2006. The transcript site is
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html
and the case to scroll down to is
05-1256. Philip Morris USA v. Williams 10/31/06
•5) Write a paper (approximately 2-3 double-spaced pages) summarizing in your own words how the constitutional test applies to the facts of this case, (not a summary of the facts of this case) and giving your prediction about how the case will be decided by the Supreme Court, making specific reference to the language of questions asked by various justices during the oral argument.
Monday, February 12, 2007
February 12, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Monday 2/12, I handed back the Scott v. Harris papers. We then went over some of the concepts of Chapter 4 regarding criminal law. I distributed handouts of the 2 Thongsavanh decisions, and we discussed them. We then went over a sample test. On Monday 2/19 we will have out first test, which will be open-book and open-note.
In class today, Monday 2/12, I handed back the Scott v. Harris papers. We then went over some of the concepts of Chapter 4 regarding criminal law. I distributed handouts of the 2 Thongsavanh decisions, and we discussed them. We then went over a sample test. On Monday 2/19 we will have out first test, which will be open-book and open-note.
Monday, February 5, 2007
February 5, 2007
POS 282--Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 2/5, I distributed two handouts, one a list of useful Websites, and the other a portion of the Maine statute regarding the use of force by police. We discussed the concepts in Chapter 3 in light of current Supreme Court cases, and discussed the Scott v. Harris case and paper. The assignment for Monday 2/12 is to read Chapter 4 of the text. In addition read and prepare to discuss two Maine Supreme Court cases entitled State v. Thongsavanh. The citations for the cases are 2004 ME 126 and 2007 ME 20. The cases are available from the Maine Supreme Court Website,
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
Also, the first test in the class will be on Monday, 2/19.
In class today, Monday 2/5, I distributed two handouts, one a list of useful Websites, and the other a portion of the Maine statute regarding the use of force by police. We discussed the concepts in Chapter 3 in light of current Supreme Court cases, and discussed the Scott v. Harris case and paper. The assignment for Monday 2/12 is to read Chapter 4 of the text. In addition read and prepare to discuss two Maine Supreme Court cases entitled State v. Thongsavanh. The citations for the cases are 2004 ME 126 and 2007 ME 20. The cases are available from the Maine Supreme Court Website,
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
Also, the first test in the class will be on Monday, 2/19.
Monday, January 29, 2007
January 29, 2007
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, 1/29, we went over some of the concepts in Chapters one and two of the text. I distributed 3 handouts, two recent articles about law school and the third the assignment for next week.
The assignment for Monday, February 5, 2007 is
1) Read Chapter 3 of the text on Constitutional Law
2) Go to the website for the Medill School of Journalism, and read this article about a recently-accepted and soon to be argued U.S. Supreme Court case, Scott v. Harris
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004069.php
3) Go to this website of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to read the decision of the 11th Circuit that is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court
start at: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/
link to: Published Opinions
link to: Search the Opinions Database
go to “Search by Case Number or Docket Number”
type in 03-15094
this will direct you to “Search Results”
link to the top case, “200315094.reh.pdf” (this is the rehearing of the case)
[The full docket information for the 11th circuit case is
Case Number: 03-15094
Docket Num: 01-00148 CV-WBH-3
File Name: (click) 200315094.reh.pdf
Date Issued: 12-23-2005
Opinion Type: REH
Description: Victor Harris v. Coweta County, Georgia]
The docket entry for the U.S. Supreme Court is
05-1631 [The Supreme Court docket number]
SCOTT V. HARRIS
DECISION BELOW:433 F3d 807 Cert. Granted 10/27/2006
QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether a law enforcement officer’s conduct is “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment when the officer makes a split-second decision to terminate a high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect’s vehicle with his push bumper, because the suspect had demonstrated that he would continue to drive in a reckless and dangerous manner that put the lives of innocent persons at serious risk of death. 2. Whether, at the time of the incident, the law was “clearly established” when neither this Court nor any circuit court, including the Eleventh Circuit, had ruled the Fourth Amendment is violated when a law enforcement officer uses deadly force to protect the lives of innocent persons from the risk of dangerous and reckless vehicular flight.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-15094
This case involved a civil suit by a teenager who was left paralyzed after the police rammed his car in a high-speed car chase. The constitutional issue involves the definition of an “unreasonable” seizure under the 4th Amendment, and specifically whether a police officer has a qualified immunity from being sued when he engages in such a chase under the circumstances in this case.
4) Write a paper (approximately 2 double-spaced pages) summarizing in your own words how the constitutional test applies to the facts of this case, and giving your own opinion about how the case should be decided (an opinion, not a prediction) by the Supreme court, making reference to the language of the constitutional test.
In class today, 1/29, we went over some of the concepts in Chapters one and two of the text. I distributed 3 handouts, two recent articles about law school and the third the assignment for next week.
The assignment for Monday, February 5, 2007 is
1) Read Chapter 3 of the text on Constitutional Law
2) Go to the website for the Medill School of Journalism, and read this article about a recently-accepted and soon to be argued U.S. Supreme Court case, Scott v. Harris
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004069.php
3) Go to this website of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to read the decision of the 11th Circuit that is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court
start at: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/
link to: Published Opinions
link to: Search the Opinions Database
go to “Search by Case Number or Docket Number”
type in 03-15094
this will direct you to “Search Results”
link to the top case, “200315094.reh.pdf” (this is the rehearing of the case)
[The full docket information for the 11th circuit case is
Case Number: 03-15094
Docket Num: 01-00148 CV-WBH-3
File Name: (click) 200315094.reh.pdf
Date Issued: 12-23-2005
Opinion Type: REH
Description: Victor Harris v. Coweta County, Georgia]
The docket entry for the U.S. Supreme Court is
05-1631 [The Supreme Court docket number]
SCOTT V. HARRIS
DECISION BELOW:433 F3d 807 Cert. Granted 10/27/2006
QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Whether a law enforcement officer’s conduct is “objectively reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment when the officer makes a split-second decision to terminate a high-speed pursuit by bumping the fleeing suspect’s vehicle with his push bumper, because the suspect had demonstrated that he would continue to drive in a reckless and dangerous manner that put the lives of innocent persons at serious risk of death. 2. Whether, at the time of the incident, the law was “clearly established” when neither this Court nor any circuit court, including the Eleventh Circuit, had ruled the Fourth Amendment is violated when a law enforcement officer uses deadly force to protect the lives of innocent persons from the risk of dangerous and reckless vehicular flight.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-15094
This case involved a civil suit by a teenager who was left paralyzed after the police rammed his car in a high-speed car chase. The constitutional issue involves the definition of an “unreasonable” seizure under the 4th Amendment, and specifically whether a police officer has a qualified immunity from being sued when he engages in such a chase under the circumstances in this case.
4) Write a paper (approximately 2 double-spaced pages) summarizing in your own words how the constitutional test applies to the facts of this case, and giving your own opinion about how the case should be decided (an opinion, not a prediction) by the Supreme court, making reference to the language of the constitutional test.
Monday, January 22, 2007
January 22, 2007
POS 282 Intro. to American Law
In class today, Monday 1/22, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus, the case of Mills v. Wyman, a Maine statute regarding support for relatives, and an article about Montreal. We discussed constitutional limits on unfair action by state actors, and began our discussion about alternative views about how legal systems might be structured. The assignment for Monday, 1/29, is to read the handouts, and read chapters 1 and 2 of the text. There is no writing assignment, but prepare to discuss questions 1 & 2 on p. 31 and question 6 on p. 67.
In class today, Monday 1/22, I distributed 4 handouts: the syllabus, the case of Mills v. Wyman, a Maine statute regarding support for relatives, and an article about Montreal. We discussed constitutional limits on unfair action by state actors, and began our discussion about alternative views about how legal systems might be structured. The assignment for Monday, 1/29, is to read the handouts, and read chapters 1 and 2 of the text. There is no writing assignment, but prepare to discuss questions 1 & 2 on p. 31 and question 6 on p. 67.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)