April 16, 2015

POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/16, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and the case you'll be briefing, Schroeder v. Rynel, 1998 ME 259. (If you weren't in class today, you can get the case by going to
http://courts.maine.gov/opinions_orders/supreme/opinions_1998.html
and scrolling down to case 259).
We finished our discussion of Land v. Yamaha, going over the difference between a statute of repose v. a statute of limitations, and federal court power over the conflict of laws rules v. state court power. I then discussed a Maine case regarding our conflict of laws rule, Collins v. Trius. I went over the background of our case to brief, specifically the reasons to incorporate in Delaware, the contract that Schroeder had with his employer Rynel, and the difference between a breach of contract cause of action and this statutory cause of action. We began our discussion of the Finstuen case, going over the difference in Full Faith and Credit analysis between laws v. court judgments, and the significance of birth certificates and adoption decrees. On Tuesday we will go over questions about the Schroeder case brief, and also finish up Finstuen. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to begin work on the Schroeder brief, and to review Finstuen.


Assignment #2 due Thursday April 23, 2015

The assignment (graded) is to do a Case Brief of the case of Schroeder v. Rynel, 998 ME 259, 720 A.2d 1164.

Brief all of the issues that you determine that the Court ruled on. Remember that the purpose of the brief is to be useful. Check your holdings to make sure that they give the most useful rules possible. Mere conclusory facts just tell us who won and who lost, but not what circumstances determine the winner and loser.

Follow the format from the Sample Briefs that I’ve distributed. Note especially that, after the “Issue” is composed, the “Facts” 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 specific 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 4/23, 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. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work.

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 383 AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Thursday 4/16, we went over the transcript of the Zivotofsky oral argument. We basically looked at the questions by the Justices, and tried, by the tenor of the question, to put each participating Justice in the pro- or anti- Zivotofsky camp. We got as far as p.15, where Alito joined in. We will pick up at that point next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 4/21 is to read the rest of the oral argument transcript (with audio is best), trying to get the point of each question and locating where that question puts the Justice in the vote tally.