POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/13, we first finished up our discussion of Jackson Women's Health. We then went through the underlying facts and Thomas' dissent in Gee v. Planned Parenthood. The exam will cover through Gee.
On Tuesday 12/18 from 9:30-10:45, the class will have exam #2. If you are missing any handouts, you must email me with what you need me to bring by 8:00 pm on Monday 12/17.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/13, we finished our discussion of subject-matter jurisdiction by looking at St. James v. Coinmach and federal diversity of citizenship. We also discussed the other basis of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, federal question jurisdiction. We then went over personal jurisdiction. We looked at 4 bases for asserting jurisdiction over a defendant: service of process within the state; domicile of the defendant; waiver of objection; and minimal contacts by the defendant with the forum state. We discussed Swoboda v. Hero Decks, and why the court there found the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. I then discussed a recent U. S. Supreme Court case, Walden v. Fiore, in which the Court examined whether Nevada had personal jurisdiction over a Georgia drug enforcement agent for his Georgia misdeeds.
On Thursday 12/20 from 9:30-10:45, the class will have exam #2. If you are missing any handouts, you must email me with what you need me to bring by 8:00 pm on Wednesday 12/19.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
December 11, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/11, I distributed one last handout, yesterday's denial of cert. in Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast. We first went through Thomas' dissent in Whole Woman's Health. We looked at both his big picture (use of tiers of scrutiny at all) as well as several smaller pictures (manipulation use tiers of scrutiny, abortion jurisprudence, proper interpretation of Casey). We then began our examination of Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Currier. We got through all but Parts V and VI of Jackson,which we'll finish on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 12/13 is to review Jackson, and to read and prepare to discuss today's handout.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/11, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine's subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We first went back to the Obergefell excerpt handed out last class, and saw how the Court mandated recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, even though those marriages do not result from judicial proceedings. We then went into the world of subject-matter jurisdiction. We discussed Cheap Escape from the text, and how the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the Ohio jurisdictional statute on municipal courts as requiring a connection between the location of the court and the location of the cause of action. I then talked about two other subject-matter jurisdiction cases. In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell. the 5-4 majority ruled that a time limit in a federal statute was a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, and therefore could not be waived even though the time was exceeded only because the prisoner was following the instruction of the U.S. District Court judge. In the Maine Supreme Court case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, the Court held that claims processing rules like time limits were not questions of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore could be waived. Then we went over V.L. v. E.L., another handout from last Thursday. Finally we started going over today's Maine statutory handout.
The assignment for Thursday 12/13 is to review today's handout, and review Swoboda v. Hero Decks (previously assigned), and to read and prepare to discuss through p. 141 in the text, including St. James v. Coinmach.
In class today, Tuesday 12/11, I distributed one last handout, yesterday's denial of cert. in Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast. We first went through Thomas' dissent in Whole Woman's Health. We looked at both his big picture (use of tiers of scrutiny at all) as well as several smaller pictures (manipulation use tiers of scrutiny, abortion jurisprudence, proper interpretation of Casey). We then began our examination of Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Currier. We got through all but Parts V and VI of Jackson,which we'll finish on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 12/13 is to review Jackson, and to read and prepare to discuss today's handout.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/11, I distributed one handout, excerpts from Maine's subject-matter jurisdiction statutes. We first went back to the Obergefell excerpt handed out last class, and saw how the Court mandated recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages, even though those marriages do not result from judicial proceedings. We then went into the world of subject-matter jurisdiction. We discussed Cheap Escape from the text, and how the Ohio Supreme Court interpreted the Ohio jurisdictional statute on municipal courts as requiring a connection between the location of the court and the location of the cause of action. I then talked about two other subject-matter jurisdiction cases. In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Bowles v. Russell. the 5-4 majority ruled that a time limit in a federal statute was a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, and therefore could not be waived even though the time was exceeded only because the prisoner was following the instruction of the U.S. District Court judge. In the Maine Supreme Court case, Landmark Realty v. Leasure, the Court held that claims processing rules like time limits were not questions of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore could be waived. Then we went over V.L. v. E.L., another handout from last Thursday. Finally we started going over today's Maine statutory handout.
The assignment for Thursday 12/13 is to review today's handout, and review Swoboda v. Hero Decks (previously assigned), and to read and prepare to discuss through p. 141 in the text, including St. James v. Coinmach.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
December 6, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Thursday 12/6, I distributed one handout, the recent U.S. District Court opinion of Jackson Women's Health v. Currier. We started back in on Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health, and went paragraph by paragraph through the opinion. We also looked back at the language of Casey itself, and saw how the Court of Appeals might have come to their (incorrect) understanding of the test that was created by Casey.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/11 is to review Thomas' dissent in Whole Woman's Health, and to read and prepare to discuss today's handout.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/6, I distributed 2 handouts: an excerpt from the Supreme Court same sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges, and the Supreme Court opinion in V.L. v. E.L. We finished Chapter 3 of the text by going through the Full Faith and Credit case of Finstuen v. Crutcher. We talked about the difference between states having to enforce statutes of other states, versus having to enforce court judgments of other states. We went through how that affects marriage, divorce, and adoption recognition. We went into Chapter 4 of the text, looking at trial courts and their relationship to appellate courts. I talked about the difference between subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Cheap Escape v. Haddox, going over the contract language that specified which courts could hear any dispute about the advertising. We will continue with Cheap Escape on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/11 is to review Cheap Escape, read and prepare to discuss today's two handouts, and read in addition in the text through p. 135 (including Swoboda v. Hero Decks).
In class today, Thursday 12/6, I distributed one handout, the recent U.S. District Court opinion of Jackson Women's Health v. Currier. We started back in on Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health, and went paragraph by paragraph through the opinion. We also looked back at the language of Casey itself, and saw how the Court of Appeals might have come to their (incorrect) understanding of the test that was created by Casey.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/11 is to review Thomas' dissent in Whole Woman's Health, and to read and prepare to discuss today's handout.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/6, I distributed 2 handouts: an excerpt from the Supreme Court same sex marriage case of Obergefell v. Hodges, and the Supreme Court opinion in V.L. v. E.L. We finished Chapter 3 of the text by going through the Full Faith and Credit case of Finstuen v. Crutcher. We talked about the difference between states having to enforce statutes of other states, versus having to enforce court judgments of other states. We went through how that affects marriage, divorce, and adoption recognition. We went into Chapter 4 of the text, looking at trial courts and their relationship to appellate courts. I talked about the difference between subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. We began our discussion of Cheap Escape v. Haddox, going over the contract language that specified which courts could hear any dispute about the advertising. We will continue with Cheap Escape on Tuesday.
The assignment for Tuesday 12/11 is to review Cheap Escape, read and prepare to discuss today's two handouts, and read in addition in the text through p. 135 (including Swoboda v. Hero Decks).
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
December 4, 2018
POS 384 CIVIL LIBERTIES
In class today, Tuesday 12/4, I distributed one handout, Thomas' dissenting opinion in Whole Woman's Health. The class voted that when we have our 75 minute exam number 2 on Tuesday 12/18, we will begin at 9:30 and end at 10:45. I also urged all students to fill out the online evaluations that have been sent to your emails. We finished up our discussion of Casey by going over the Blackmun, Stevens, Rehnquist and Scalia opinions. We then turned to Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health. We got as far as ¶14, in which Breyer discussed what was wrong with the legal standard used by the Court of Appeals. We will pick up at that point on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 12/6 is to review Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health, and then read Thomas' dissent that was distributed today.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/4, the class voted that when we have our 75 minute exam number 2 on Thursday 12/20, we will begin at 9:30 and end at 10:45. I also urged all students to fill out the online evaluations that have been sent to your emails. I talked about a textbook case that I had not assigned, Strunk v. Strunk, that raised the question of what a court is to do when there is no precedent on point to help the court decide a difficult common law question. We then went to today's assigned cases, Hubbard v. Greeson and Land v. Yamaha. We talked about how the forum state (the state where the case is brought) follows its own choice of laws rule to determine which state's substantive law applies. In Hubbard, we saw how the Indiana Supreme Court changed its choice of laws rule, much to the detriment of the plaintiff. In Land v. Yamaha, we saw how the federal district court in diversity cases applies the choice of law rules of the state in which the federal court sits to determine which state's substantive law applies. The federal court ending up applying Indiana choice of law rules to then apply the substantive Indiana Statute of Repose, again much to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The assignment for Thursday 12/6 is to read in the text from p. 116 to 129 (including Finstuen v. Crutcher and Cheap Escape v. Haddox).
In class today, Tuesday 12/4, I distributed one handout, Thomas' dissenting opinion in Whole Woman's Health. The class voted that when we have our 75 minute exam number 2 on Tuesday 12/18, we will begin at 9:30 and end at 10:45. I also urged all students to fill out the online evaluations that have been sent to your emails. We finished up our discussion of Casey by going over the Blackmun, Stevens, Rehnquist and Scalia opinions. We then turned to Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health. We got as far as ¶14, in which Breyer discussed what was wrong with the legal standard used by the Court of Appeals. We will pick up at that point on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 12/6 is to review Breyer's opinion in Whole Woman's Health, and then read Thomas' dissent that was distributed today.
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/4, the class voted that when we have our 75 minute exam number 2 on Thursday 12/20, we will begin at 9:30 and end at 10:45. I also urged all students to fill out the online evaluations that have been sent to your emails. I talked about a textbook case that I had not assigned, Strunk v. Strunk, that raised the question of what a court is to do when there is no precedent on point to help the court decide a difficult common law question. We then went to today's assigned cases, Hubbard v. Greeson and Land v. Yamaha. We talked about how the forum state (the state where the case is brought) follows its own choice of laws rule to determine which state's substantive law applies. In Hubbard, we saw how the Indiana Supreme Court changed its choice of laws rule, much to the detriment of the plaintiff. In Land v. Yamaha, we saw how the federal district court in diversity cases applies the choice of law rules of the state in which the federal court sits to determine which state's substantive law applies. The federal court ending up applying Indiana choice of law rules to then apply the substantive Indiana Statute of Repose, again much to the detriment of the plaintiff.
The assignment for Thursday 12/6 is to read in the text from p. 116 to 129 (including Finstuen v. Crutcher and Cheap Escape v. Haddox).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)