POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term--2011
In class today, Thursday 4/28, the class handed in the Ashcroft papers, and we spent most of the class period discussing how the case should be decided. I also went over yesterday's 5-4 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, regarding arbitration clauses that preclude class-action arbitration proceedings. If you indicated that you want your paper returned, I will place in my mailbox in 229 N. Stevens by 10:30 on Thursday 5/5. Have a good summer.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/28, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Evidence regarding the rules of privilege. We went over the remainder of the cases in the text to the end of Chapter 5. I also discussed two Maine cases, St. Paul Insurance v. Hays, 2001 ME 71 (discovery sanctions) and Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 2005 ME 57 (religious privilege). The exam will be Thursday 5/5 from 10:30-11:45, open-book and open-note, (but only, as always, your own).
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
April 26, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Tuesday 4/26, I first went over two Supreme Court oral arguments that are taking place this week. Both involve free speech; one is about the rights of data-mining companies to have access to prescribing information of doctors, and the other involves the rights of a local politician to be free of the conflict-of interest state rules that limit the participation of that politician when his former campaign manager turns into a lobbyist for an applicant before the city government. We then went through parts of the al-Kidd oral argument, looking for sub-issues which you should address in your papers. Those papers are due at the beginning of class on Thursday, and finishing them up is your homework.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/26, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCivP) regarding service of process. I went over the final cases in Chapter 4, about the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and then we went over the Salmon and Dorsey textbook cases. We went over the handout through MRCivP 4(d)(1), and then I also talked about two Maine Supreme Court cases, Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, and Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98. The assignment for Thursday 4/28 is to finish reading Chapter 5 of the text, as well as the remainder of the MRCivP handout.
In class today, Tuesday 4/26, I first went over two Supreme Court oral arguments that are taking place this week. Both involve free speech; one is about the rights of data-mining companies to have access to prescribing information of doctors, and the other involves the rights of a local politician to be free of the conflict-of interest state rules that limit the participation of that politician when his former campaign manager turns into a lobbyist for an applicant before the city government. We then went through parts of the al-Kidd oral argument, looking for sub-issues which you should address in your papers. Those papers are due at the beginning of class on Thursday, and finishing them up is your homework.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/26, I distributed one handout, an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCivP) regarding service of process. I went over the final cases in Chapter 4, about the amount in controversy requirement for federal diversity jurisdiction, and then we went over the Salmon and Dorsey textbook cases. We went over the handout through MRCivP 4(d)(1), and then I also talked about two Maine Supreme Court cases, Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, and Ireland v. Carpenter, 2005 ME 98. The assignment for Thursday 4/28 is to finish reading Chapter 5 of the text, as well as the remainder of the MRCivP handout.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
April 21, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Thursday 4/21, I briefly went over yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Sossamon v. Texas, regarding waiver of sovereign immunity. We then went through Ashcroft's Reply Brief, once again labeling the sub-sections of the brief, and also filling in some of the substance within those sections. We also tied some of those arguments in the briefs to questions asked and positions taken during the oral argument. I've already assigned the oral argument in this case, and so review it (looking for where the argument deals specifically with our corner of the case). Other than that, the assignment is to continue working on the previously assigned paper, which is due Thursday 4/28 at the beginning of class.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/21, we went over the Edwards case and the Ruhrgas case from the textbook. I also discussed two Maine Supreme Court cases, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, 2004 ME 85, and Hawley v. Murphy, 1999 ME 127, and one U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 207 (2007). These cases dealt with various aspects of the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction. Next Tuesday I will talk a little about the subject of the last two cases in Chapter 4, the amount in controversy requirement for federal court diversity jurisdiction. The assignment for Tuesday 4/26 is to read in the text pp. 189-204.
In class today, Thursday 4/21, I briefly went over yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Sossamon v. Texas, regarding waiver of sovereign immunity. We then went through Ashcroft's Reply Brief, once again labeling the sub-sections of the brief, and also filling in some of the substance within those sections. We also tied some of those arguments in the briefs to questions asked and positions taken during the oral argument. I've already assigned the oral argument in this case, and so review it (looking for where the argument deals specifically with our corner of the case). Other than that, the assignment is to continue working on the previously assigned paper, which is due Thursday 4/28 at the beginning of class.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/21, we went over the Edwards case and the Ruhrgas case from the textbook. I also discussed two Maine Supreme Court cases, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, 2004 ME 85, and Hawley v. Murphy, 1999 ME 127, and one U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 207 (2007). These cases dealt with various aspects of the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction. Next Tuesday I will talk a little about the subject of the last two cases in Chapter 4, the amount in controversy requirement for federal court diversity jurisdiction. The assignment for Tuesday 4/26 is to read in the text pp. 189-204.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
April 19, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 4/19, the class first did class evaluations. I talked about a case that was being argued in the Court today, American Electric Power v. Connecticut, regarding the ability of states to sue polluters directly under federal common law, rather than relying on enforcement through federal environmental agencies. We went through the labeling of the al-Kidd brief. We will start with the labeling of Ashcroft's Reply Brief on Thursday. If you had any problem finding the Reply Brief through the ABA site, you can access the Reply Brief by looking up the Reply Brief in the Shindler Elevator Company case that got switched with ours, or find it through links through oyez.org or scotusblog.com. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 4/21, is to read the transcript of the oral argument, and highlight those sections of the oral argument that deal with the constitutionality of the Ashcroft policy.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday4/19, the class did class evaluations. I returned the Flaherty case briefs, together with the Flaherty comment key, and we briefly went over those papers. We then discussed the Bohlander and Karstetter cases, going over both personal jurisdiction and full faith and credit. The assignment for Thursday 4/21 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 152-171 of the text (skipping over the pages that we've previously covered).
In class today, Tuesday 4/19, the class first did class evaluations. I talked about a case that was being argued in the Court today, American Electric Power v. Connecticut, regarding the ability of states to sue polluters directly under federal common law, rather than relying on enforcement through federal environmental agencies. We went through the labeling of the al-Kidd brief. We will start with the labeling of Ashcroft's Reply Brief on Thursday. If you had any problem finding the Reply Brief through the ABA site, you can access the Reply Brief by looking up the Reply Brief in the Shindler Elevator Company case that got switched with ours, or find it through links through oyez.org or scotusblog.com. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 4/21, is to read the transcript of the oral argument, and highlight those sections of the oral argument that deal with the constitutionality of the Ashcroft policy.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday4/19, the class did class evaluations. I returned the Flaherty case briefs, together with the Flaherty comment key, and we briefly went over those papers. We then discussed the Bohlander and Karstetter cases, going over both personal jurisdiction and full faith and credit. The assignment for Thursday 4/21 is to read and prepare to discuss pp. 152-171 of the text (skipping over the pages that we've previously covered).
Thursday, April 14, 2011
April 14, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 4/14, I began by going over in more detail the Edmond case, and how it was distinguished from those cases that did allow road checkpoints. We then went through the Ashcroft brief, and put labels on those subparts of the brief that were not labeled; we also sketched in a summary of the substance of the arguments that fit within those subparts. These subparts are the "subissues" that I said would be what I'd be looking for you to discuss in your paper. We then did the same with the beginning of the al-Kidd brief. We got as far as I(A)(1)(a) in that brief. The assignment for Tuesday 4/19 is to finish doing this labeling exercise with the rest of the al-Kidd brief, and to read the Ashcroft reply brief (especially part II(A)) and subject it to the same look for subissues.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/14, I collected the Flaherty briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them on Tuesday. I then discussed two more cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Commerce Bank v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, and Tidwell v. Zawacki, 645 F.Supp.2d 7 (D. Me., 2009). The assignment for Tuesday 4/19 is to read in the text pp. 159-165 and 144-148.
In class today, Thursday 4/14, I began by going over in more detail the Edmond case, and how it was distinguished from those cases that did allow road checkpoints. We then went through the Ashcroft brief, and put labels on those subparts of the brief that were not labeled; we also sketched in a summary of the substance of the arguments that fit within those subparts. These subparts are the "subissues" that I said would be what I'd be looking for you to discuss in your paper. We then did the same with the beginning of the al-Kidd brief. We got as far as I(A)(1)(a) in that brief. The assignment for Tuesday 4/19 is to finish doing this labeling exercise with the rest of the al-Kidd brief, and to read the Ashcroft reply brief (especially part II(A)) and subject it to the same look for subissues.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 4/14, I collected the Flaherty briefs, and we went over them. I plan to return them on Tuesday. I then discussed two more cases regarding personal jurisdiction, Commerce Bank v. Dworman, 2004 ME 142, and Tidwell v. Zawacki, 645 F.Supp.2d 7 (D. Me., 2009). The assignment for Tuesday 4/19 is to read in the text pp. 159-165 and 144-148.
Monday, April 11, 2011
April 12, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term--2011
In class today, Tuesday 4/12, I distributed one handout, assignment #3, which is reproduced below. We went over the assignment, highlighting the parts of the al-Kidd case that are not included in the assignment. I also discussed the Whren and Edmond cases, as they are used by both sides of the al-Kidd case. The assignment is to start working on assignment #3, as well as to read the portion of Respondent's brief that deals with the constitutional issue (Part I(A)of the al-Kidd brief).
Assignment #3
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.
Your first job as a new Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Ashcroft v. al-Kidd case. The specific part that you’ve been assigned is a portion of the qualified immunity question: whether an arrest based on a material-witness warrant violates the Fourth Amendment when the purpose of that warrant is for investigation and detention, rather than to secure the testimony of the arrestee at a trial. This discussion is found at Part II (B) of Ashcroft’s brief, Part I (A) of al-Kidd’s brief, and Part II (A) of Ashcroft’s Reply Brief.
Your opinion is not a prediction of the votes; don’t worry about the other Justices, just concentrate on reaching and justifying the decision that you think makes the most sense. Where you cite to the oral argument, you’re looking to the response of the lawyers rather than the viewpoint expressed by the other Justices.
Since this will be your first Supreme Court opinion, here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the argument raised by the losers, both in their brief and in the oral argument?
• You should have at least two specific references to each party’s position in the briefs (two for Ashcroft, and two for al-Kidd), with specific reference to the page number of the argument.
• You should have at least two specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• You should deal specifically with how Whren and Edmond are to be interpreted in light of the present case.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects al-Kidd’s position that dual-motive arrests can be distinguished from the single-motive arrests that he seeks to forbid. While his brief argues that how the distinction between the two is made is of no concern for this Court (al-Kidd Brief, p. 47), at oral argument he conceded that there is no way (short of an outright admission by a prosecutor) that a fact-finder could ever distinguish these two situations (17:6). We refuse to establish such a charade as a principle of our constitution.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 28. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
This due date is the last day of class. If you would like me to return your paper to you, please indicate that on the top of your paper. If you want the paper returned, I will leave your paper in my mailbox in the Political Science Office in 229 N. Stevens on the morning of Thursday May 5.
The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before April 28, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating your analysis. But, if they do decide the case before April 28, I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog, as well as e-mail you through the MaineStreet portal. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the old Justices on the Court have written their views before receiving the benefit of your view.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/12, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm statute. I began class by clarifying the Flaherty assignment for Thursday: as for Count II of the Complaint (Section IV of the Opinion), omit this from the Facts, Issues, and Holding of the case brief, but include it in all of the other sections. I then talked about the concept of personal jurisdiction. I contrasted it with subject-matter jurisdiction, and with Conflict of Law Rules. We discussed the ways in which a court may assume jurisdiction over a defendant, including domicile, service of process within the state, consent, and constitutionally sufficient contacts with the forum state. I talked about the Maine case of Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, a personal jurisdiction case that was decided on the question of whether the Massachusetts driver could have reasonably anticipated litigation in Maine. We then went over the Maine long-arm statute which I had distributed, detailing the kinds of actions that will subject an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction in Maine. The assignment for Thursday 4/14 is to finish up your Flaherty case briefs, which are due at the beginning of Thursday's class.
In class today, Tuesday 4/12, I distributed one handout, assignment #3, which is reproduced below. We went over the assignment, highlighting the parts of the al-Kidd case that are not included in the assignment. I also discussed the Whren and Edmond cases, as they are used by both sides of the al-Kidd case. The assignment is to start working on assignment #3, as well as to read the portion of Respondent's brief that deals with the constitutional issue (Part I(A)of the al-Kidd brief).
Assignment #3
Good news! In order to foster a more youthful outlook at the Supreme Court, Congress increased the membership of the Court to ten, and you, because of your outstanding dedication to The Law, have been chosen to be that 10th Justice.
Your first job as a new Justice is to write a part of the Court’s opinion in the Ashcroft v. al-Kidd case. The specific part that you’ve been assigned is a portion of the qualified immunity question: whether an arrest based on a material-witness warrant violates the Fourth Amendment when the purpose of that warrant is for investigation and detention, rather than to secure the testimony of the arrestee at a trial. This discussion is found at Part II (B) of Ashcroft’s brief, Part I (A) of al-Kidd’s brief, and Part II (A) of Ashcroft’s Reply Brief.
Your opinion is not a prediction of the votes; don’t worry about the other Justices, just concentrate on reaching and justifying the decision that you think makes the most sense. Where you cite to the oral argument, you’re looking to the response of the lawyers rather than the viewpoint expressed by the other Justices.
Since this will be your first Supreme Court opinion, here are some guidelines for writing that I want you to observe:
• You should deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. What’s wrong with the argument raised by the losers, both in their brief and in the oral argument?
• You should have at least two specific references to each party’s position in the briefs (two for Ashcroft, and two for al-Kidd), with specific reference to the page number of the argument.
• You should have at least two specific references to the oral argument. Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
• You should deal specifically with how Whren and Edmond are to be interpreted in light of the present case.
• You should deal with other sub-issues as you locate them in the briefing and the oral argument.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange or a brief are crucial.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
This Court rejects al-Kidd’s position that dual-motive arrests can be distinguished from the single-motive arrests that he seeks to forbid. While his brief argues that how the distinction between the two is made is of no concern for this Court (al-Kidd Brief, p. 47), at oral argument he conceded that there is no way (short of an outright admission by a prosecutor) that a fact-finder could ever distinguish these two situations (17:6). We refuse to establish such a charade as a principle of our constitution.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 5 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday April 28. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of class. I will acknowledge receipt of any e-mailed papers--if you don’t get an acknowledgment, that means that I didn’t get the paper. See the syllabus for more information, or if you do not have the paper done on time.
This due date is the last day of class. If you would like me to return your paper to you, please indicate that on the top of your paper. If you want the paper returned, I will leave your paper in my mailbox in the Political Science Office in 229 N. Stevens on the morning of Thursday May 5.
The paper will not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you identify specific sub-issues, evaluate them, and support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try using an outline. I encourage you to use the UM writing center to help with your English.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration, and no plagiarism.
As I write this assignment, the Supreme Court has not yet decided this case; naturally, I hope they don’t decide it before April 28, because that would really complicate the process of evaluating your analysis. But, if they do decide the case before April 28, I will post a modification to the assignment on the blog, as well as e-mail you through the MaineStreet portal. Be sure to check the blog (even if you don’t miss any classes) to see if the old Justices on the Court have written their views before receiving the benefit of your view.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/12, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm statute. I began class by clarifying the Flaherty assignment for Thursday: as for Count II of the Complaint (Section IV of the Opinion), omit this from the Facts, Issues, and Holding of the case brief, but include it in all of the other sections. I then talked about the concept of personal jurisdiction. I contrasted it with subject-matter jurisdiction, and with Conflict of Law Rules. We discussed the ways in which a court may assume jurisdiction over a defendant, including domicile, service of process within the state, consent, and constitutionally sufficient contacts with the forum state. I talked about the Maine case of Connelly v. Doucette, 2006 ME 124, a personal jurisdiction case that was decided on the question of whether the Massachusetts driver could have reasonably anticipated litigation in Maine. We then went over the Maine long-arm statute which I had distributed, detailing the kinds of actions that will subject an out-of-state defendant to personal jurisdiction in Maine. The assignment for Thursday 4/14 is to finish up your Flaherty case briefs, which are due at the beginning of Thursday's class.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
April 7, 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Thursday 4/7, we went over the dissenting opinion in the 9th Circuit decision in the al-Kidd case. We discussed the different views about both absolute and qualified immunity, as well as going over the Rule 8 pleading issue and the Iqbal case. I also solicited ideas about what exactly should be the writing assignment for the al-Kidd case, and I hope to distribute that assignment next Tuesday. The class assignment for Tuesday 4/12 is to read the petitioner's brief in the U.S. Supreme Court for the al-Kidd case, available through the U.S. Supreme Court website (via the ABA site).
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today , Thursday 4/7, I distributed one handout, the next case brief assignment, which is copied below. We went over the Hubbard case and the Land case from the textbook, and I also gave some background to the assigned Flaherty case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/12 is to begin work on the Flaherty case brief assignment.
Assignment due Thursday, April 14, 2011
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance 2003 ME 72, 822 A.2d 1159 . 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 “2003 Opinions”
--select 2003 ME 72, Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance
Do not brief the final issue (Part IV) 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 your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 4/14, 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, Thursday 4/7, we went over the dissenting opinion in the 9th Circuit decision in the al-Kidd case. We discussed the different views about both absolute and qualified immunity, as well as going over the Rule 8 pleading issue and the Iqbal case. I also solicited ideas about what exactly should be the writing assignment for the al-Kidd case, and I hope to distribute that assignment next Tuesday. The class assignment for Tuesday 4/12 is to read the petitioner's brief in the U.S. Supreme Court for the al-Kidd case, available through the U.S. Supreme Court website (via the ABA site).
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today , Thursday 4/7, I distributed one handout, the next case brief assignment, which is copied below. We went over the Hubbard case and the Land case from the textbook, and I also gave some background to the assigned Flaherty case. The assignment for Tuesday 4/12 is to begin work on the Flaherty case brief assignment.
Assignment due Thursday, April 14, 2011
The assignment is to do a Case Brief of the case of Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance 2003 ME 72, 822 A.2d 1159 . 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 “2003 Opinions”
--select 2003 ME 72, Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance
Do not brief the final issue (Part IV) 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 your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 4/14, 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.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
April 5. 2011
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term 2011
In class today, Tuesday 4/5, I first finished going over the Davis oral argument (good faith exception to the exclusionary rule when following precedent). I then discussed yesterday's Arizona Christian School decision (no taxpayer standing to challenge tax credit to religious schools). We began our discussion of the al-Kidd Court of Appeals decision. We went over the three causes of action by al-Kidd, and the Court's disposition of the absolute immunity defense. We will continue with the Court of Appeals decision on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 4/7 is to read the dissenting opinion in that same Court of Appeals.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/5, we first went over the Apsey case, and discussed retroactive v. prospective application of court decisions. I also reported that the decision in the text was reversed on appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. We then talked about a recent Maine Supreme Court decision, Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, which discussed retroactive v. prospective application of a statutory change in Maine's law regarding termination of a guardianship. We also covered the Strunk case about the absence of precedent. We began a discussion of Conflict of Law rules and the Hubbard case. We will pick up with Hubbard on Thursday. The additional reading for Thursday is to read the Land case on p. 180 of the text. For both cases, prepare for yourself a case brief of the decision to aid in our discussion (not to be handed in).
In class today, Tuesday 4/5, I first finished going over the Davis oral argument (good faith exception to the exclusionary rule when following precedent). I then discussed yesterday's Arizona Christian School decision (no taxpayer standing to challenge tax credit to religious schools). We began our discussion of the al-Kidd Court of Appeals decision. We went over the three causes of action by al-Kidd, and the Court's disposition of the absolute immunity defense. We will continue with the Court of Appeals decision on Thursday. The additional assignment for Thursday 4/7 is to read the dissenting opinion in that same Court of Appeals.
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 4/5, we first went over the Apsey case, and discussed retroactive v. prospective application of court decisions. I also reported that the decision in the text was reversed on appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. We then talked about a recent Maine Supreme Court decision, Guardianship of Jeremiah T., 2009 ME 74, which discussed retroactive v. prospective application of a statutory change in Maine's law regarding termination of a guardianship. We also covered the Strunk case about the absence of precedent. We began a discussion of Conflict of Law rules and the Hubbard case. We will pick up with Hubbard on Thursday. The additional reading for Thursday is to read the Land case on p. 180 of the text. For both cases, prepare for yourself a case brief of the decision to aid in our discussion (not to be handed in).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)