POS 282-Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/29, we began by going over several questions and concepts of the Schroeder case and case brief. We then went back into Choice of Law Rules with the Land case. We finished the personal jurisdiction case of Karstetter. The assignment for Thursday 12/1 is to finish the Schroeder case brief, which is due at the beginning of class on 12/1. Also review the Bohlander personal jurisdiction case which was previously assigned.
POS 359-The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/29, we spent the class period going over the oral argument in MBZ v. Clinton. I also reviewed the Youngstown Sheet and Tube case, (the steel seizure case) regarding the relationship between Congressional and Executive authority. Thursday we will have our own oral argument, building on the Supreme Court's oral argument. Four people in class were designated as advocates, and five as Justices, with teams representing the Executive and Zivitofsky. Then next Tuesday we will convene as the Court Conference, each class member saying how they think the case should be decided, and then voting. The final paper will be based on the classroom oral argument and Conference, as well as the Supreme Court oral argument. That final paper will now be due December 15, one week after the last day of class.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
November 22, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I distributed one handout, assignment #2, which is reproduced below, and which is due Thursday 12/1. We began our discussion by going over the Hubbard case, and the concept of common law choice of law rules. I added two Maine Supreme Court cases to the mix, Collins v. Trius and Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance. The case brief assignment regards choice of law rules in the context of a contract dispute. We then started our discussion of personal jurisdiction and full faith and credit by wading into the situation in the Karstetter case. We will continue with Karstetter when we reconvene after the Thanksgiving holiday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to read two additional cases in the text, Land, starting on p. 180, and Bohlander, starting on p. 162. In addition begin work on the case brief assignment.
Assignment due Thursday, December 1, 2011
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Schroeder v. Rynel,
1998 ME 259, 720 A2d. 1164. 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_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
--scroll down to “1998 Opinions”
--select 1998 ME 259, Schroeder v. Rynel (12/9/98)
or you can go directly to http://www.maine.gov/COURTS/opinions_orders/supreme/opinions_1998.html
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that 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.
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 12/1, 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. Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
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.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I handed back the Jones papers, and we briefly went over them. We started our discussion of MBZ v. Clinton, going over the Court of Appeals decision, and the two different ways in which the government can, and did, win the case. We went over four of the leading Supreme Court justiciability cases that were part of the Court of Appeals decision. We also discussed how to structure the remaining classes and assignments. Here's the plan we came up with: the assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to read the Supreme Court oral argument in the case, as well as the "Summary of Argument" in both the Petitioner's and Respondent's briefs. We will go over that oral argument during Tuesday's class. Then on Thursday, 12/1, we will have our own oral argument ("The Return of Zivotofsky")in which some class members will get to grill others to defend their positions regarding how the case should be decided. The final paper, due the last day of class, will then basically be a "how would you decide the case" type of question, but informed by not only the Supreme Court's oral argument, but also the oral argument that we hold in class. Hopefully it will all work out, but I hope that you first work out a way to have a good Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I distributed one handout, assignment #2, which is reproduced below, and which is due Thursday 12/1. We began our discussion by going over the Hubbard case, and the concept of common law choice of law rules. I added two Maine Supreme Court cases to the mix, Collins v. Trius and Flaherty v. Allstate Insurance. The case brief assignment regards choice of law rules in the context of a contract dispute. We then started our discussion of personal jurisdiction and full faith and credit by wading into the situation in the Karstetter case. We will continue with Karstetter when we reconvene after the Thanksgiving holiday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to read two additional cases in the text, Land, starting on p. 180, and Bohlander, starting on p. 162. In addition begin work on the case brief assignment.
Assignment due Thursday, December 1, 2011
The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Schroeder v. Rynel,
1998 ME 259, 720 A2d. 1164. 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_orders/supreme/publishedopinions.shtml
--scroll down to “1998 Opinions”
--select 1998 ME 259, Schroeder v. Rynel (12/9/98)
or you can go directly to http://www.maine.gov/COURTS/opinions_orders/supreme/opinions_1998.html
Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on.
Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that the Facts, Issues, and Holding are copied and pasted. Everything that 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.
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 12/1, 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. Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate.
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.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I handed back the Jones papers, and we briefly went over them. We started our discussion of MBZ v. Clinton, going over the Court of Appeals decision, and the two different ways in which the government can, and did, win the case. We went over four of the leading Supreme Court justiciability cases that were part of the Court of Appeals decision. We also discussed how to structure the remaining classes and assignments. Here's the plan we came up with: the assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to read the Supreme Court oral argument in the case, as well as the "Summary of Argument" in both the Petitioner's and Respondent's briefs. We will go over that oral argument during Tuesday's class. Then on Thursday, 12/1, we will have our own oral argument ("The Return of Zivotofsky")in which some class members will get to grill others to defend their positions regarding how the case should be decided. The final paper, due the last day of class, will then basically be a "how would you decide the case" type of question, but informed by not only the Supreme Court's oral argument, but also the oral argument that we hold in class. Hopefully it will all work out, but I hope that you first work out a way to have a good Thanksgiving.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
November 17, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/17, we first went over the Apsey case, and then the Michigan Supreme Court reversal of that Court of Appeals decision. I then went over the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Davis v. U.S., in which the Court ruled that the retroactivity rules regarding 4th Amendment decisions do not automatically also apply to the remedy of exclusion of evidence of unconstitutional searches and seizures. We compared the retroactivity rules laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griffith v. Kentucky with those of the Apsey court. We then discussed the Strunk case regarding the absence of precedent. The assignment for Tuesday 11/22 is to read and be prepared to discuss pp. 140-149 of the text. On Tuesday 11/22 I will also distribute the next briefing assignment for the class, which will be due on Thursday 12/1.
POS 259--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 11/17, we went over the Jones predictions, and I collected the papers. I plan to grade them this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/22 is to read the Court of Appeals decision in our next case, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 571 F.3d 1227 (D.C. Cir., 2009). This is the case that came in second in our last balloting. I will also be soliciting your opinions about a preferred specific assignment for the Zivotofsky case.
In class today, Thursday 11/17, we first went over the Apsey case, and then the Michigan Supreme Court reversal of that Court of Appeals decision. I then went over the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision of Davis v. U.S., in which the Court ruled that the retroactivity rules regarding 4th Amendment decisions do not automatically also apply to the remedy of exclusion of evidence of unconstitutional searches and seizures. We compared the retroactivity rules laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Griffith v. Kentucky with those of the Apsey court. We then discussed the Strunk case regarding the absence of precedent. The assignment for Tuesday 11/22 is to read and be prepared to discuss pp. 140-149 of the text. On Tuesday 11/22 I will also distribute the next briefing assignment for the class, which will be due on Thursday 12/1.
POS 259--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 11/17, we went over the Jones predictions, and I collected the papers. I plan to grade them this weekend, and return them on Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/22 is to read the Court of Appeals decision in our next case, Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 571 F.3d 1227 (D.C. Cir., 2009). This is the case that came in second in our last balloting. I will also be soliciting your opinions about a preferred specific assignment for the Zivotofsky case.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
November 15, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, we spent the first part of the class going over yesterday's grant of cert. in the Affordable Care Act case, and how the case of Gonzales v. Raich might impact the decision in the ACA case. We then returned to the textbook, and I discussed two ex post facto cases, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Smith v. Doe, and the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Letalien (2009). We then went over the concept of dictum, and the textbook case of State v. Butler. I also went over the later U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., which cleared up the Supreme's Court holding regarding the use of un-Mirandized statements for purposes of impeachment. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 140 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, we talked about how the Justices' specific questions in Jones might give a clue as to their votes. The assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to write the previously assigned Jones paper. The paper is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. After we go over your predictions, we will also discuss the third and final written assignment.
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, we spent the first part of the class going over yesterday's grant of cert. in the Affordable Care Act case, and how the case of Gonzales v. Raich might impact the decision in the ACA case. We then returned to the textbook, and I discussed two ex post facto cases, the U.S. Supreme Court case of Smith v. Doe, and the Maine Supreme Court case of State v. Letalien (2009). We then went over the concept of dictum, and the textbook case of State v. Butler. I also went over the later U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., which cleared up the Supreme's Court holding regarding the use of un-Mirandized statements for purposes of impeachment. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to read and prepare to discuss through p. 140 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, we talked about how the Justices' specific questions in Jones might give a clue as to their votes. The assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to write the previously assigned Jones paper. The paper is due at the beginning of class on Thursday. After we go over your predictions, we will also discuss the third and final written assignment.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
November 10, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we spent the class going over the Gonzales v. Raich opinion. We discussed the institutional power conflicts involved, the use of precedent, and the question left unresolved. I also discussed two Court of Appeals decisions: one Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 857 (9th Cir., 2007), rejected Raich's substantive due process claim that was left unanswered in the Supreme Court opinion; the other, Sky-Seven v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir., 2011) decided on Tuesday, applied the Raich case in concluding the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, an issue that seems headed to the Supreme Court soon. The assignment for Tuesday November 15 is to read through p.136 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we started going over the oral argument in Jones. I went over the background of four of the cases that were cited in the oral argument, Karo v. U.S., Oliver v. U.S., Caperton v. Massey, and Whren v. U.S. On Tuesday 11/15, the class will discuss how they're seeing the oral argument questioning in terms of predicting the votes of the Justices. The assignment is to continue working on the Jones paper.
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we spent the class going over the Gonzales v. Raich opinion. We discussed the institutional power conflicts involved, the use of precedent, and the question left unresolved. I also discussed two Court of Appeals decisions: one Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 857 (9th Cir., 2007), rejected Raich's substantive due process claim that was left unanswered in the Supreme Court opinion; the other, Sky-Seven v. Holder, __ F.3d __ (D.C. Cir., 2011) decided on Tuesday, applied the Raich case in concluding the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, an issue that seems headed to the Supreme Court soon. The assignment for Tuesday November 15 is to read through p.136 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we started going over the oral argument in Jones. I went over the background of four of the cases that were cited in the oral argument, Karo v. U.S., Oliver v. U.S., Caperton v. Massey, and Whren v. U.S. On Tuesday 11/15, the class will discuss how they're seeing the oral argument questioning in terms of predicting the votes of the Justices. The assignment is to continue working on the Jones paper.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
November 8, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first discussed the Penn State situation regarding mandated reporting of child abuse in the football program, and also talked about the Maine Law Court being in Bangor for a few days. We then turned to the Johnson case and punitive damages. I went over the 2007 Supreme Court punitive damages case of Philip Morris v. Williams. We went over the two major issues that the California Supreme Court dealt with in Johnson. We then briefly went over the attorney advertising case of Florida Bar v. Pape. We will pick up with the Gonzales v. Raich case on Thursday. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read through p. 130 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, I distributed one handout, the assignment below. Note that it will be due Thursday 11/17, rather than the following Tuesday as we had previously discussed. After going over the requirements of the assignment, we started our discussion of the Court of Appeals decision in our case, discussing how that Court distinguished the Knotts case. The oral argument in Jones was held today, and so the assignment is to read the transcript of that oral argument, as well as the Respondent Jones' Brief to the Supreme Court. We will concentrate our discussion Thursday, though, on going over today's oral argument.
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Jones. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 6 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday November 17. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of that 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.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: Go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case. (Take a pass for Justice Thomas, who usually asks no questions). Discuss how the questions asked or the comments made by a Justice may reflect a view of what the outcome should be. Remember that the Court issues two kinds of things: a Judgment (whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed or reversed); and an Opinion (the reasoning used to get to the result), Justices may agree on a result (a judgment) without agreeing on an opinion.
Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”. I don’t need any introduction to the case, its facts, the proceedings below, or precedent.
Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Jones), but also rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. An important part of the assignment is for you to identify those issues. For this, you will need to be guided by the arguments raised by the parties in their briefs, as well as the assigned Court of Appeals decision. The issues may include, but are not limited to, questions such as whether these issues makes a difference: how unlikely it would be that anyone would be observe all of a person’s movements for a month; how different the intrusion into a person’s privacy is when viewing a few snapshots of person’s movements, as opposed to all of them; how a ruling one way or the other will affect police work and will affect privacy of all individuals; whether the attachment itself of the GPs device was a search or seizure.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
Justice Thomas raised questions about Jones’ predictions regarding the dire consequences if the warrantless GPS attachments are allowed. He asked Leckar (Jones’ lawyer) whether the consequences wouldn’t be even worse if he ruled against the government, since then they might be limited in conducting even a long-term visual surveillance of a suspect. Leckar replied that the means of a GPS intrusion is important, even if other means such as visual surveillance might be permitted. (25:14). Thomas retorted that if the Founders had had GPS, they would have allowed it, just as they allowed the use of a spyglass (26:2). This exchange indicates that Thomas thinks that the original intent of the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit GPS use, or alternatively, that the government should win because Lecker’s test would hamper law enforcement too much. I predict therefore that Thomas will vote against Jones.
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that the government’s position is correct, how do you answer Jones’ objections that permitting such searches would allow police too much leeway?
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try used 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.
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first discussed the Penn State situation regarding mandated reporting of child abuse in the football program, and also talked about the Maine Law Court being in Bangor for a few days. We then turned to the Johnson case and punitive damages. I went over the 2007 Supreme Court punitive damages case of Philip Morris v. Williams. We went over the two major issues that the California Supreme Court dealt with in Johnson. We then briefly went over the attorney advertising case of Florida Bar v. Pape. We will pick up with the Gonzales v. Raich case on Thursday. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read through p. 130 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, I distributed one handout, the assignment below. Note that it will be due Thursday 11/17, rather than the following Tuesday as we had previously discussed. After going over the requirements of the assignment, we started our discussion of the Court of Appeals decision in our case, discussing how that Court distinguished the Knotts case. The oral argument in Jones was held today, and so the assignment is to read the transcript of that oral argument, as well as the Respondent Jones' Brief to the Supreme Court. We will concentrate our discussion Thursday, though, on going over today's oral argument.
For this assignment, I would like you to predict the outcome of the Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Jones. In addition, I would also like you to write about how you think the case should come out.
The paper should be a minimum of 3 pages long, and no more than 6 pages. Brevity should be seen as an asset, not a liability. It will be due at the beginning of the class on Thursday November 17. If you are unable to attend class on that date, you should e-mail the paper to me by the beginning of that 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.
The specific assignment regarding the prediction is this: Go Justice-by-Justice and find some indication of how each Justice might vote in this case. (Take a pass for Justice Thomas, who usually asks no questions). Discuss how the questions asked or the comments made by a Justice may reflect a view of what the outcome should be. Remember that the Court issues two kinds of things: a Judgment (whether the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed or reversed); and an Opinion (the reasoning used to get to the result), Justices may agree on a result (a judgment) without agreeing on an opinion.
Your citations to the oral argument transcript should give page and line numbers.
You should use primarily your own words, quoting only in snippets when the particular words of an exchange are crucial.
The predictive portion of this paper is not intended as a discourse on the history of the case, or a synopsis of the case, or a full legal analysis of the issues in the case--it is intended to be “I think that this Justice will vote this way because of these indications that I find in the oral argument”. I don’t need any introduction to the case, its facts, the proceedings below, or precedent.
Your prediction should be directed not only to the final vote (for or against Jones), but also rather to the distinct issues and positions raised by the parties. An important part of the assignment is for you to identify those issues. For this, you will need to be guided by the arguments raised by the parties in their briefs, as well as the assigned Court of Appeals decision. The issues may include, but are not limited to, questions such as whether these issues makes a difference: how unlikely it would be that anyone would be observe all of a person’s movements for a month; how different the intrusion into a person’s privacy is when viewing a few snapshots of person’s movements, as opposed to all of them; how a ruling one way or the other will affect police work and will affect privacy of all individuals; whether the attachment itself of the GPs device was a search or seizure.
Here’s a fictitious example to demonstrate the format that I’m looking for:
Justice Thomas raised questions about Jones’ predictions regarding the dire consequences if the warrantless GPS attachments are allowed. He asked Leckar (Jones’ lawyer) whether the consequences wouldn’t be even worse if he ruled against the government, since then they might be limited in conducting even a long-term visual surveillance of a suspect. Leckar replied that the means of a GPS intrusion is important, even if other means such as visual surveillance might be permitted. (25:14). Thomas retorted that if the Founders had had GPS, they would have allowed it, just as they allowed the use of a spyglass (26:2). This exchange indicates that Thomas thinks that the original intent of the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit GPS use, or alternatively, that the government should win because Lecker’s test would hamper law enforcement too much. I predict therefore that Thomas will vote against Jones.
For your own thoughts about how the case should be decided, deal specifically with the issues raised by the party that is opposed to your view of the case. For example, if you think that the government’s position is correct, how do you answer Jones’ objections that permitting such searches would allow police too much leeway?
You papers will not be graded on the accuracy of the predictions, but rather on how well you support your position by reference to the oral argument. The paper will also not be graded on whether I agree with your analysis of how the case should be decided, but rather by how well you support your position. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. Try used 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.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
November 3, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Thursday 11/3, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute saying that all crimes are codified (no common law), and the Maine statute that mandates that some people report some specific crimes. We started our discussion of the Johnson punitive damages case, and will continue with that case next Tuesday. The additional reading assignment for Tuesday 11/8 (election day--don't forget to vote) is to read through p. 121 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 11/3, we started going over the U.S. Brief in the Jones case. I gave a brief history of the Katz case and its progeny. The assignment for Tuesday 11/8 is to read the case of U.S. v. Knotts, 460 US 276 (1983) and the Circuit Court decision in our case, U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir., 2010). Both decisions are available from the Lexis database on the Fogler Library site by entering the citation of the case (e.g. "460 U.S. 276").
In class today, Thursday 11/3, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute saying that all crimes are codified (no common law), and the Maine statute that mandates that some people report some specific crimes. We started our discussion of the Johnson punitive damages case, and will continue with that case next Tuesday. The additional reading assignment for Tuesday 11/8 (election day--don't forget to vote) is to read through p. 121 of the text.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Thursday 11/3, we started going over the U.S. Brief in the Jones case. I gave a brief history of the Katz case and its progeny. The assignment for Tuesday 11/8 is to read the case of U.S. v. Knotts, 460 US 276 (1983) and the Circuit Court decision in our case, U.S. v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir., 2010). Both decisions are available from the Lexis database on the Fogler Library site by entering the citation of the case (e.g. "460 U.S. 276").
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
November 1, 2011
POS 282--Introduction to American Law
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding the crime of hindering apprehension. We went through the Gregg case, outlining the Stewart opinion and then talking about the different approaches in the three opinions in the text. We then discussed both the majority and dissenting opinions in the Mobbley case, especially the differing views regarding legislative intent. We started looking at the Maine statute to see how Maine deals with the problem addressed by the New Mexico legislature in the Mobbley case. We will begin on Thursday by finishing up our look at the Maine statute. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read in the text pp. 79-97.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, I returned the Florence papers. The class then made presentations in the cases that were assigned last week. We then voted on the next case that we'll concentrate on. The winner was United States v. Jones, the GPS Fourth amendment case which will be argued on Tuesday 11/8. The assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read the Petitioner's brief in U.S. v. Jones.
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, I distributed one handout, the Maine statute regarding the crime of hindering apprehension. We went through the Gregg case, outlining the Stewart opinion and then talking about the different approaches in the three opinions in the text. We then discussed both the majority and dissenting opinions in the Mobbley case, especially the differing views regarding legislative intent. We started looking at the Maine statute to see how Maine deals with the problem addressed by the New Mexico legislature in the Mobbley case. We will begin on Thursday by finishing up our look at the Maine statute. The additional reading assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read in the text pp. 79-97.
POS 359--The Current Supreme Court Term
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, I returned the Florence papers. The class then made presentations in the cases that were assigned last week. We then voted on the next case that we'll concentrate on. The winner was United States v. Jones, the GPS Fourth amendment case which will be argued on Tuesday 11/8. The assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read the Petitioner's brief in U.S. v. Jones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)