POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/28, I distributed one handout, an article about the 1972 case about capital punishment, Furman v. Georgia. We first finished our discussion of Suggs v. Norris, including putting the case in the format of the case brief. I then talked about a Maine Supreme Court case, Paffhausen v. Balano, in which the Court distinguished the theories of unjust enrichment (equitable, no contract) from quantum meruit (contractual and implied contract). We also looked at the question of damages for both theories of recovery (enhanced value of the property v. value of services rendered). We then went to Chapter 2 and the ethics of capital punishment. I talked about the Furman case from 1972, which is the subject of the handout. We started into the plurality opinion in Gregg, looking at history, precedent, text, and evolving standards of decency. That's where we'll pick up next week.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/2 is to read today's handout, review all of the opinions in Gregg, and read in addition through p. 64 (State v. Mobbley).
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 3/28, I distributed one handout, the Maine Constitution's Declaration of Rights (including the Maine religious freedom section). We then went through the Town of Greece v. Galloway, including the three versions of what "coercion" means as a test of "establishment". We began going through the Maryland brief in American Legion, looking at the specific tests of "establishment" that the Maryland Commission wanted to use, and how it also asserted that it could meet any test.
The assignment for Tuesday 4/2 is to review the briefs and the oral argument in American Legion.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
March 26, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/26, we first finished off our discussion of authority in Katko v. Briney. We looked at the dissent's view of the issues that should have been, but weren't, submitted to the jury. Included in those issues was the question of the intent in setting the spring gun. We went through four levels of mental states: intent; knowledge; recklessness; and negligence. We then went through the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property, and examined the variables in terms of whether the Briney's behavior would be criminal in Maine. Finally we turned to contracts, and went over the essentials for contract formation, and differentiated contracts from gifts. We'll pick up with Suggs v. Norris on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 3/28 is to review Suggs v. Norris, and to read in addition through p. 59 of the text, including Gregg v. Georgia.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 3/26, we first discussed the 2 remaining shadow docket cases from before the break, June Medical (abortion) and Morris County (free exercise). In terms of abortion, I talked about the previous Whole Woman's Health case that struck down a state statute that required hospital admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortion. In terms of the free exercise of religion, I talked about the Trinity Lutheran case, that struck down state rules that excluded churches from getting public funds for a playground safety program. We discussed how Roberts may be viewing his role as Chief Justice, and how that may be influencing his votes. We then talked about the Establishment Clause. We looked at the text, and possible interpretations of that text, including Thomas' interpretation. I went over some of the cases that provide the foundational rules for interpreting the Establishment Clause: Lemon v. Kurtzman (school aid); Stone v. Graham, McCreary County v. ACLU, and Van Orden v. Perry (all 10 Commandment cases); and Salazar v. Buono (cross on public land). We will pick upon Thursday with Greece v. Galloway (public prayer).
The assignment for Thursday 3/28 is to review the Petitioner and Respondent Briefs in American Legion, and review the oral argument in that case, all previously assigned.
In class today, Tuesday 3/26, we first finished off our discussion of authority in Katko v. Briney. We looked at the dissent's view of the issues that should have been, but weren't, submitted to the jury. Included in those issues was the question of the intent in setting the spring gun. We went through four levels of mental states: intent; knowledge; recklessness; and negligence. We then went through the Maine statutes regarding use of force in defense of premises and property, and examined the variables in terms of whether the Briney's behavior would be criminal in Maine. Finally we turned to contracts, and went over the essentials for contract formation, and differentiated contracts from gifts. We'll pick up with Suggs v. Norris on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 3/28 is to review Suggs v. Norris, and to read in addition through p. 59 of the text, including Gregg v. Georgia.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 3/26, we first discussed the 2 remaining shadow docket cases from before the break, June Medical (abortion) and Morris County (free exercise). In terms of abortion, I talked about the previous Whole Woman's Health case that struck down a state statute that required hospital admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortion. In terms of the free exercise of religion, I talked about the Trinity Lutheran case, that struck down state rules that excluded churches from getting public funds for a playground safety program. We discussed how Roberts may be viewing his role as Chief Justice, and how that may be influencing his votes. We then talked about the Establishment Clause. We looked at the text, and possible interpretations of that text, including Thomas' interpretation. I went over some of the cases that provide the foundational rules for interpreting the Establishment Clause: Lemon v. Kurtzman (school aid); Stone v. Graham, McCreary County v. ACLU, and Van Orden v. Perry (all 10 Commandment cases); and Salazar v. Buono (cross on public land). We will pick upon Thursday with Greece v. Galloway (public prayer).
The assignment for Thursday 3/28 is to review the Petitioner and Respondent Briefs in American Legion, and review the oral argument in that case, all previously assigned.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
March 14, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/14, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed one handout, my version of the Katko case brief. After going over the exam, we resumed constructing a case brief of Katko. We then looked at the authority relied on by the Iowa Supreme Court in deciding the spring gun issue. I went over the difference between primary authority (law) and secondary authority (non-law), and we looked at the two sources of secondary authority that the court turned to. We left off with the Hooker case as authority, and we'll pick up at hat point when we resume after Spring Break. Once we finish looking at authority, we'll also look at what the dissenting judge thought. After that, we'll look at the Maine statute regarding the use of force in defense of premises and property, and discuss whether the Brineys had committed a crime if their conduct had happened in Maine.
The assignment for Tuesday 3/26 is to review Katko and the Maine statutory handout, and to read in addition through the end of Chapter 1, including Suggs v. Norris.
Have a good Spring Break.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 3/14, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed 2 handouts, the Petitoner's and Respondent's Briefs in American Legion et. al. v. American Humanist Association. After going over the exam, we talked about one of the three "shadow docket" cases that I had previously distributed, Dunn v. Ray. We will begin class on Tuesday 3/26 with the other 2 shadow docket handouts, and then move on to American Legion v. American Humanist Association.
The assignment for Tuesday 3/26 is to review those other 2 shadow docket handouts, to read today's American Legion handouts, and to listen to, read, and have available for class the American Legion oral argument, found at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-1717_8n59.pdf
and
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717
Have a good Spring Break.
In class today, Thursday 3/14, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I also distributed one handout, my version of the Katko case brief. After going over the exam, we resumed constructing a case brief of Katko. We then looked at the authority relied on by the Iowa Supreme Court in deciding the spring gun issue. I went over the difference between primary authority (law) and secondary authority (non-law), and we looked at the two sources of secondary authority that the court turned to. We left off with the Hooker case as authority, and we'll pick up at hat point when we resume after Spring Break. Once we finish looking at authority, we'll also look at what the dissenting judge thought. After that, we'll look at the Maine statute regarding the use of force in defense of premises and property, and discuss whether the Brineys had committed a crime if their conduct had happened in Maine.
The assignment for Tuesday 3/26 is to review Katko and the Maine statutory handout, and to read in addition through the end of Chapter 1, including Suggs v. Norris.
Have a good Spring Break.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 3/14, I returned the exams, and we went over them. I distributed 2 handouts, the Petitoner's and Respondent's Briefs in American Legion et. al. v. American Humanist Association. After going over the exam, we talked about one of the three "shadow docket" cases that I had previously distributed, Dunn v. Ray. We will begin class on Tuesday 3/26 with the other 2 shadow docket handouts, and then move on to American Legion v. American Humanist Association.
The assignment for Tuesday 3/26 is to review those other 2 shadow docket handouts, to read today's American Legion handouts, and to listen to, read, and have available for class the American Legion oral argument, found at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2018/17-1717_8n59.pdf
and
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-1717
Have a good Spring Break.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
March 12, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/12, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those graded exams back on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 3/14 is to review both Katko v.Briney and the Maine statutory handout on the defense of premises
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 3/12, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those graded exams back on Thursday. I also distributed 3 short opinions from the Court's "shadow docket": Morris County v. Freedom from Religion (establishment clause); Dunn v. Ray (establishment clause); and June Medical v. Gee (abortion).
The assignment for Thursday 3/14 is to read those 3 handouts.
In class today, Tuesday 3/12, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those graded exams back on Thursday.
The assignment for Thursday 3/14 is to review both Katko v.Briney and the Maine statutory handout on the defense of premises
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 3/12, the class took Exam #1. I plan to hand those graded exams back on Thursday. I also distributed 3 short opinions from the Court's "shadow docket": Morris County v. Freedom from Religion (establishment clause); Dunn v. Ray (establishment clause); and June Medical v. Gee (abortion).
The assignment for Thursday 3/14 is to read those 3 handouts.
Thursday, March 7, 2019
March 7, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 3/7, I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statutes regarding the use of force in defense of property and premises. (That handout, though, will not be included in the material for which you are responsible for Tuesday's exam). We began class by going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had handed out on Tuesday. We looked at how closing your eyes can work out in your favor. I then talked about a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case, Jones v. Flowers, in which the Court dealt with the Due Process requirements when an important notice is returned as undeliverable. The Court also discussed the scope of responsibilities on the sender regarding further attempts to get the notice delivered, and the responsibility to do further investigation into the correct address. We then turned to Katko v. Briney in the textbook. We went through the case brief of the case as far as the "facts" in the first issue in the case (whether the thief can recover when he was shot in the course of his thieving ways). That's where we'll pick up on Thursday after we go over Tuesday's exam.
On Tuesday 3/12 we will have Exam #1. Remember that if you're using a laptop etc., you may not use it in any way that a person having just paper cannot do. If you find in your review of the blog that you are missing any handouts, you can email me no later than 8:00 pm on Monday with your request for a copy of what you're missing.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 3/7, we first finished our discussion of the Madison opinion. I pointed out a few points in Kagan's opinion that I found of particular interest. One was in Kagan's discussion of the ability (or lack of ability) to preserve memories, even though the lack of memory is not, in itself, sufficient for a finding of incompetency. The other was in her discussion of the procedure that should be followed by the Alabama competency court on remand, with her strong suggestion that there should be a new round of evidence, even though she didn't find that that court had committed error in their previous ruling. Then we went over the dissent, and saw how they got to the conclusion that the Court was ruling on issues that weren't properly before it, and Madison's case should therefore be dismissed.
We then turned to the Timbs opinion, and saw how in that case as well, the Court dealt with the issue of one one the contentions of the state of Indiana (that Austin should be overruled) would not be dealt with, because it was not raised in the Questions Presented in the Cert. Petition. We saw how Ginsburg had little trouble then with the incorporation question, as well as the state's contention that protections against in rem forfeitures were neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. We finally looked at Thomas' concurrence, in which he refused to go along with Due Process as the vehicle for incorporation, but rather used the 14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause
On Tuesday 3/12 we will have Exam #1. Remember that if you're using a laptop etc., you may not use it in any way that a person having just paper cannot do. If you find in your review of the blog that you are missing any handouts, you can email me no later than 8:00 pm on Monday with your request for a copy of what you're missing.
In class today, Thursday 3/7, I distributed one handout, the Maine criminal statutes regarding the use of force in defense of property and premises. (That handout, though, will not be included in the material for which you are responsible for Tuesday's exam). We began class by going over the Speelman hypotheticals that I had handed out on Tuesday. We looked at how closing your eyes can work out in your favor. I then talked about a 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case, Jones v. Flowers, in which the Court dealt with the Due Process requirements when an important notice is returned as undeliverable. The Court also discussed the scope of responsibilities on the sender regarding further attempts to get the notice delivered, and the responsibility to do further investigation into the correct address. We then turned to Katko v. Briney in the textbook. We went through the case brief of the case as far as the "facts" in the first issue in the case (whether the thief can recover when he was shot in the course of his thieving ways). That's where we'll pick up on Thursday after we go over Tuesday's exam.
On Tuesday 3/12 we will have Exam #1. Remember that if you're using a laptop etc., you may not use it in any way that a person having just paper cannot do. If you find in your review of the blog that you are missing any handouts, you can email me no later than 8:00 pm on Monday with your request for a copy of what you're missing.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Thursday 3/7, we first finished our discussion of the Madison opinion. I pointed out a few points in Kagan's opinion that I found of particular interest. One was in Kagan's discussion of the ability (or lack of ability) to preserve memories, even though the lack of memory is not, in itself, sufficient for a finding of incompetency. The other was in her discussion of the procedure that should be followed by the Alabama competency court on remand, with her strong suggestion that there should be a new round of evidence, even though she didn't find that that court had committed error in their previous ruling. Then we went over the dissent, and saw how they got to the conclusion that the Court was ruling on issues that weren't properly before it, and Madison's case should therefore be dismissed.
We then turned to the Timbs opinion, and saw how in that case as well, the Court dealt with the issue of one one the contentions of the state of Indiana (that Austin should be overruled) would not be dealt with, because it was not raised in the Questions Presented in the Cert. Petition. We saw how Ginsburg had little trouble then with the incorporation question, as well as the state's contention that protections against in rem forfeitures were neither fundamental nor deeply rooted. We finally looked at Thomas' concurrence, in which he refused to go along with Due Process as the vehicle for incorporation, but rather used the 14th Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause
On Tuesday 3/12 we will have Exam #1. Remember that if you're using a laptop etc., you may not use it in any way that a person having just paper cannot do. If you find in your review of the blog that you are missing any handouts, you can email me no later than 8:00 pm on Monday with your request for a copy of what you're missing.
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
March 5, 2019
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 3/5, I distributed 3 handouts: the Comment Key to the Carter case briefs, my version of the Speelman case brief, and some hypotheticals with variations on the Speelman case. I handed back the Carter case briefs, and we went over some aspects of the Comment Key, especially those things that are not "Facts". We then went over some sample questions in preparation for next Tuesday's Exam #1, including case citations and statutory citations. We went through the Speelman case and saw how the language of their letter sank the BHA's case. We will begin on Thursday with today's handout of hypotheticals, and then I want to go over the U.S. Supreme Court case involving the address on the envelope, Jones v. Flowers.
The assignment for Thursday 3/7 is to read today's handouts, prepare to discuss the hypotheticals, and read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 38-43, including Katko v. Briney.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 3/5, we first went over some sample questions in preparation for next Tuesday's Exam #1. We reviewed the Dunn v, Madison opinion of the Supreme Court, which said the the federal 11th Circuit had been wrong to say that the Alabama state competency court had been unreasonable in its application of the Ford/Panetti standard. We then went through the majority opinion in last week's Madison opinion, paying special attention to the outline of Kagan's opinion. There were two paragraphs of Kagan's opinion that I still want to spend more time on: ¶17 (and a word from ¶21) in terms of memory and ¶26 in terms of evidence and experts. We'll then go to the Madison dissent. And from there we'll go the the Timbs opinion, previously distributed.
The assignment for Thursday 3/7 is to review the Madison opinion, and to read (if you haven't done so already) the Timbs opinion.
In class today, Tuesday 3/5, I distributed 3 handouts: the Comment Key to the Carter case briefs, my version of the Speelman case brief, and some hypotheticals with variations on the Speelman case. I handed back the Carter case briefs, and we went over some aspects of the Comment Key, especially those things that are not "Facts". We then went over some sample questions in preparation for next Tuesday's Exam #1, including case citations and statutory citations. We went through the Speelman case and saw how the language of their letter sank the BHA's case. We will begin on Thursday with today's handout of hypotheticals, and then I want to go over the U.S. Supreme Court case involving the address on the envelope, Jones v. Flowers.
The assignment for Thursday 3/7 is to read today's handouts, prepare to discuss the hypotheticals, and read in the text and prepare to discuss pp. 38-43, including Katko v. Briney.
POS 359 THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT TERM
In class today, Tuesday 3/5, we first went over some sample questions in preparation for next Tuesday's Exam #1. We reviewed the Dunn v, Madison opinion of the Supreme Court, which said the the federal 11th Circuit had been wrong to say that the Alabama state competency court had been unreasonable in its application of the Ford/Panetti standard. We then went through the majority opinion in last week's Madison opinion, paying special attention to the outline of Kagan's opinion. There were two paragraphs of Kagan's opinion that I still want to spend more time on: ¶17 (and a word from ¶21) in terms of memory and ¶26 in terms of evidence and experts. We'll then go to the Madison dissent. And from there we'll go the the Timbs opinion, previously distributed.
The assignment for Thursday 3/7 is to review the Madison opinion, and to read (if you haven't done so already) the Timbs opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)