POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/24, I first collected the Bickford case briefs, and we went over them. I then talked about two cases regarding service of process, Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, and Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98. We will do some more service of process cases when we pick up after the break. The assignment for Tuesday 12/1 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 189-204 of the text. I hope that you have a good Thanksgiving.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/19, we began by going over some questions about the Bickford case brief, which is due on Tuesday 11/24. I then discussed two recent Maine Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases, Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124 and Cavers v. Houston Astros, 2008 ME 164. We then went over the remaining three cases from Chapter IV of the text, Ruhrgas v. Marathon, Kopp v. Kopp, and Gebbia v. Wal-Mart. The assignment for Tuesday 11/24 is to complete your Bickford case brief, which is due at the beginning of class.
In class today, Thursday 11/19, we began by going over some questions about the Bickford case brief, which is due on Tuesday 11/24. I then discussed two recent Maine Supreme Court personal jurisdiction cases, Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124 and Cavers v. Houston Astros, 2008 ME 164. We then went over the remaining three cases from Chapter IV of the text, Ruhrgas v. Marathon, Kopp v. Kopp, and Gebbia v. Wal-Mart. The assignment for Tuesday 11/24 is to complete your Bickford case brief, which is due at the beginning of class.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
November 17, 2009
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/17, I distributed one handout, the final case briefing assignment, which is shown below,and which is due a week from today, Tuesday 11/24. We started our discussion with a comparison the concepts of conflict of law, subject matter jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction, by using the Maine Supreme Court case of Collins v. Trius, 663 A2d 570 (Me 1995). We then focused on subject matter jurisdiction, with the Maine Supreme Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure, 2004 ME 85, 853 A2d 749,and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell, 551 US 207 (2007). We finished today by discussing the Bohlander case from the text. The assignment for Thursday 11/19 is to read the remainder of chapter IV of the text, and to begin work on the Bickford case brief.
Assignment due Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation, 2004 ME 11, 855 A.2d 1150 . The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
--select “2004 Opinions”
--select 2004 ME 111, Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation
Do not brief the FCRA issue (Part II (A)) of the decision, but brief the other issues.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve 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, 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.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that i can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Tuesday 11/ 24, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon
as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Tuesday 11/17, I distributed one handout, the final case briefing assignment, which is shown below,and which is due a week from today, Tuesday 11/24. We started our discussion with a comparison the concepts of conflict of law, subject matter jurisdiction, and personal jurisdiction, by using the Maine Supreme Court case of Collins v. Trius, 663 A2d 570 (Me 1995). We then focused on subject matter jurisdiction, with the Maine Supreme Court case of Landmark Realty v. Leasure, 2004 ME 85, 853 A2d 749,and the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell, 551 US 207 (2007). We finished today by discussing the Bohlander case from the text. The assignment for Thursday 11/19 is to read the remainder of chapter IV of the text, and to begin work on the Bickford case brief.
Assignment due Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation, 2004 ME 11, 855 A.2d 1150 . The case can be found on the website of the Maine Supreme Court.
To access the case, go to
http://www.courts.state.me.us/opinions/supreme/index.html
--select “2004 Opinions”
--select 2004 ME 111, Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation
Do not brief the FCRA issue (Part II (A)) of the decision, but brief the other issues.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve 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, 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.
Please make two copies of your brief, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion.
You may e-mail me if you have questions about the brief. The more time that I have to answer our questions, the more likely it is that i can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Tuesday 11/ 24, you should still e-mail me your brief by the beginning of class time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the brief. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon
as possible to see what options are available to you. (Generally, I do not want to accept assignments after we have discussed them in class). See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your brief to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If I do not reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
November 12, 2009
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/12, I distributed two handouts: one is the Maine "long-arm" statute, and the other is an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. We finished our discussion of Full Faith and Credit, and went on to a discussion in Chapter Four of juries. I talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979) regarding the use of non-unanimous six person juries in felony trials. We then began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction with the Edwards case on p. 157. We will pick up next week with some more subject-matter jurisdiction cases, and then go to personal jurisdiction. The assignment is to read over those two handouts, and read through p. 169 of the text.
In class today, Thursday 11/12, I distributed two handouts: one is the Maine "long-arm" statute, and the other is an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. We finished our discussion of Full Faith and Credit, and went on to a discussion in Chapter Four of juries. I talked about the U.S. Supreme Court case of Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979) regarding the use of non-unanimous six person juries in felony trials. We then began our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction with the Edwards case on p. 157. We will pick up next week with some more subject-matter jurisdiction cases, and then go to personal jurisdiction. The assignment is to read over those two handouts, and read through p. 169 of the text.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
November 10, 2009
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/10, I handed back the Flaherty case briefs, as well as a comment key, and we briefly discussed those briefs. We discussed the Land v. Yamaha case at p. 180 of the text, and how federal courts apply conflict of laws rules. I described the broad outline of the concept of personal jurisdiction, and then we began a discussion of the Constitutional requirement of Full Faith and Credit. I distributed a handout that had the federal and state statutes that deny Full Faith and Credit to same sex marriages from states that do allow those marriages into states that do not allow those marriages. On Thursday, 11/12, we will begin with the previously assigned Karstetter case on p. 145. The additional assignment is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 152-167.
In class today, Tuesday 11/10, I handed back the Flaherty case briefs, as well as a comment key, and we briefly discussed those briefs. We discussed the Land v. Yamaha case at p. 180 of the text, and how federal courts apply conflict of laws rules. I described the broad outline of the concept of personal jurisdiction, and then we began a discussion of the Constitutional requirement of Full Faith and Credit. I distributed a handout that had the federal and state statutes that deny Full Faith and Credit to same sex marriages from states that do allow those marriages into states that do not allow those marriages. On Thursday, 11/12, we will begin with the previously assigned Karstetter case on p. 145. The additional assignment is to read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 152-167.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
November 5, 2009
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/5, I collected the Flaherty case briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. We also went over the Hubbard case from the textbook. I plan to return the Flaherty case briefs on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/10 is to finish reading Chapter III of the text, and to also read pp. 179-182 of the text, regarding what happens to choice-of-laws rules when they get into federal court.
In class today, Thursday 11/5, I collected the Flaherty case briefs, and we spent most of the class going over them. We also went over the Hubbard case from the textbook. I plan to return the Flaherty case briefs on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/10 is to finish reading Chapter III of the text, and to also read pp. 179-182 of the text, regarding what happens to choice-of-laws rules when they get into federal court.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
November 3, 2009
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, I began with news of the final exam date, which is Tuesday 12/15 from 5:30 -7:30 (actually, the exam will just be 75 minutes long, just like the first exam--5:30-6:45). We went over questions about the Flaherty case (case brief due Thursday), and then discussed the Apsey case (p. 132) regarding retroactive v. prospective application of a court decision. I went over a recent Maine Supreme Court decision, Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, which discussed retroactive v. prospective application of a change in the Maine statutes. We discussed the Strunk kidney transplant case(p. 136), and began our discussion of the conflict of laws case, Hubbard v. Greeson (p.141). The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to complete your Flaherty case brief, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, and also review the Hubbard case.
In class today, Tuesday 11/3, I began with news of the final exam date, which is Tuesday 12/15 from 5:30 -7:30 (actually, the exam will just be 75 minutes long, just like the first exam--5:30-6:45). We went over questions about the Flaherty case (case brief due Thursday), and then discussed the Apsey case (p. 132) regarding retroactive v. prospective application of a court decision. I went over a recent Maine Supreme Court decision, Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, which discussed retroactive v. prospective application of a change in the Maine statutes. We discussed the Strunk kidney transplant case(p. 136), and began our discussion of the conflict of laws case, Hubbard v. Greeson (p.141). The assignment for Thursday 11/5 is to complete your Flaherty case brief, which is due at the beginning of class on Thursday, and also review the Hubbard case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)