POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/15, I first went over some scheduling plans. I plan to assign Case Brief #2 on Tuesday 11/29, to be due on the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. We began our discussion of the Land case by reviewing the concept of federal subject matter jurisdiction, including both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. We went over the Erie Doctrine. I talked about the definitions of Statutes of Repose v. Statutes of Limitation. With all that done, we then went over the Land case, and the question of whether it evidenced good or bad lawyering on the part of the Plaintiffs' attorney. I then went over a Maine case, Collins v. Trius, which applied Maine's conflict of law rules to a question of limitations on damages. We then turned to Full Faith and Credit and the Finstuen case. The assignment for Thursday 11/17 is to review Cheap Escape v. Haddox (previously assigned) and to read in addition Swoboda v. Hero Decks (through p. 136 of the text).
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Thursday, November 10, 2016
November 10, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we first reviewed a few aspects of the Butler case, and the concept of dictum. We went over the three types of dictum that we've seen, and we also talked about the second issue in Butler, voluntariness. We also went over the relationship between state courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal in terms of mandatory authority. We then discussed Dempsey and the retroactive / prospective distinction. We talked about the models available to the Montana Supreme Court, and the choice they made. We covered Strunk v. Strunk and the absence of precedent, and the role of the guardian and the guardian-ad-litem. Then we went over Hubbard v. Greeson and the choice of law (or conflict of law) issue. We discussed good lawyering in Hubbard, even though things didn't turn out as Greeson's lawyer may have planned. The assignment for Tuesday 11/15 is to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie Doctrine and Land v. Yamaha), and the pp. 115-129 (the end of Chapter 3 (Finstuen) and start of Chapter 4 (Cheap Escape v. Haddox)).
In class today, Thursday 11/10, we first reviewed a few aspects of the Butler case, and the concept of dictum. We went over the three types of dictum that we've seen, and we also talked about the second issue in Butler, voluntariness. We also went over the relationship between state courts and U.S. Courts of Appeal in terms of mandatory authority. We then discussed Dempsey and the retroactive / prospective distinction. We talked about the models available to the Montana Supreme Court, and the choice they made. We covered Strunk v. Strunk and the absence of precedent, and the role of the guardian and the guardian-ad-litem. Then we went over Hubbard v. Greeson and the choice of law (or conflict of law) issue. We discussed good lawyering in Hubbard, even though things didn't turn out as Greeson's lawyer may have planned. The assignment for Tuesday 11/15 is to read in the text pp. 144-146 (the Erie Doctrine and Land v. Yamaha), and the pp. 115-129 (the end of Chapter 3 (Finstuen) and start of Chapter 4 (Cheap Escape v. Haddox)).
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
November 9, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/9, I distributed one handout, selected federal and state statutes (and state regulations) about presidential elections. We began our discussion of the executive branch with the election case of Bush v. Gore. We then looked at the federal safe harbor statute involved in that case, as well as Maine law and regulations regarding the standards for determining what's to be done if the voter doesn't follow all the rules for marking the ballot. We examined the text of the constitution regarding presidential powers, and went over the Neagle case regarding the existence of implied presidential powers. We discussed Congressional limitations on presidential power (Youngstown Steel) and the obligation to enforce the law (Train v. NYC). Finally we covered Clinton v. NYC and the line-item veto. The assignment for Wednesday 9/16 is to read in the text, and prepare to discuss pp. 212-256.
In class today, Wednesday 11/9, I distributed one handout, selected federal and state statutes (and state regulations) about presidential elections. We began our discussion of the executive branch with the election case of Bush v. Gore. We then looked at the federal safe harbor statute involved in that case, as well as Maine law and regulations regarding the standards for determining what's to be done if the voter doesn't follow all the rules for marking the ballot. We examined the text of the constitution regarding presidential powers, and went over the Neagle case regarding the existence of implied presidential powers. We discussed Congressional limitations on presidential power (Youngstown Steel) and the obligation to enforce the law (Train v. NYC). Finally we covered Clinton v. NYC and the line-item veto. The assignment for Wednesday 9/16 is to read in the text, and prepare to discuss pp. 212-256.
November 8. 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first completed our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We went through Roberts' opinion issue by issue, going over each of the government's contentions, and why and how Roberts rejected them. We also covered the opinions by Ginsburg and the Joint Dissent. We then discussed some of the non-case material in the text, including the standard of review for the fit between the legislative means and the legislative end, preemption of state laws, the ex post facto prohibition and sex-offender registries, the role of common law, and the interaction of panels of appellate judges, We then discussed the Butler case and the concept of dictum. I went over the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., which also (like the Butler court) treated some of the Miranda opinion as dictum that could be ignored. The assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read in the text through p. 115 (review Dempsey (previously assigned), and read Strunk and Hubbard v. Greeson.
In class today, Tuesday 11/8, we first completed our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius. We went through Roberts' opinion issue by issue, going over each of the government's contentions, and why and how Roberts rejected them. We also covered the opinions by Ginsburg and the Joint Dissent. We then discussed some of the non-case material in the text, including the standard of review for the fit between the legislative means and the legislative end, preemption of state laws, the ex post facto prohibition and sex-offender registries, the role of common law, and the interaction of panels of appellate judges, We then discussed the Butler case and the concept of dictum. I went over the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of Harris v. N.Y., which also (like the Butler court) treated some of the Miranda opinion as dictum that could be ignored. The assignment for Thursday 11/10 is to read in the text through p. 115 (review Dempsey (previously assigned), and read Strunk and Hubbard v. Greeson.
Thursday, November 3, 2016
November 3, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 11/3, I began by recounting the further adventures of Caperton v. Massey after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. I went over how West Virginia tossed the case out based on the forum selection clause in the contract, and how the Virginia trial court then tossed the case out based on res judicata, a ruling that was then overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court. I then went over the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether the due process clause requires recusal of a justice who had earlier participated in a case as the district attorney. We went over the holding in Williams, the alignment of the Justices, and the two dissenting opinions. I then discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, which discussed the application of the Maine Bar Rule that requires a lawyer to report when another lawyer is dishonest. We discussed the difference between an objective versus a subjective standard of evaluation. We moved on to Chapter 3 of the text. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius by going over the text of the constitution, the difference between interstate versus intrastate commerce, and the necessary and proper clause. We talked about dictum, and the other (non-commerce clause) issues in the case. We generally discussed the concept of forcing people into commerce, versus regulating existing commerce. We will continue NFIB,and the specific issues addressed, next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/8 is to review NFIB, and to read in the text through p. 110 (Butler and Dempsey).
In class today, Thursday 11/3, I began by recounting the further adventures of Caperton v. Massey after the U.S. Supreme Court decision. I went over how West Virginia tossed the case out based on the forum selection clause in the contract, and how the Virginia trial court then tossed the case out based on res judicata, a ruling that was then overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court. I then went over the 2016 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Williams v. Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether the due process clause requires recusal of a justice who had earlier participated in a case as the district attorney. We went over the holding in Williams, the alignment of the Justices, and the two dissenting opinions. I then discussed a Maine Supreme Court case, Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Warren, which discussed the application of the Maine Bar Rule that requires a lawyer to report when another lawyer is dishonest. We discussed the difference between an objective versus a subjective standard of evaluation. We moved on to Chapter 3 of the text. We began our discussion of NFIB v. Sebelius by going over the text of the constitution, the difference between interstate versus intrastate commerce, and the necessary and proper clause. We talked about dictum, and the other (non-commerce clause) issues in the case. We generally discussed the concept of forcing people into commerce, versus regulating existing commerce. We will continue NFIB,and the specific issues addressed, next Tuesday. The assignment for Tuesday 11/8 is to review NFIB, and to read in the text through p. 110 (Butler and Dempsey).
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
November 2, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/2, I handed back last week's exams. We then resumed our trip through the commerce clause cases. We started with a brief review of where we had left off, Knight and Hammer v. Degenhart. I talked about some of the textbook cases that I had not assigned: Schechter Poultry (p. 443); Jones & Laughlin (p. 453); and Darby (p. 459). We then went over the assigned cases of Wickard; Heart of Atlanta: Lopez; Morrison; Raich; and NFIB. Along the way we talked about changing personnel on the Court, changing expectations of what kind of experience was needed for the Court, dictum and overruling prior cases, and the Venn diagram of Scalia's concurrence in Raich. The assignment for Wednesday 11/9 is to read in the text pp. 183-212.
In class today, Wednesday 11/2, I handed back last week's exams. We then resumed our trip through the commerce clause cases. We started with a brief review of where we had left off, Knight and Hammer v. Degenhart. I talked about some of the textbook cases that I had not assigned: Schechter Poultry (p. 443); Jones & Laughlin (p. 453); and Darby (p. 459). We then went over the assigned cases of Wickard; Heart of Atlanta: Lopez; Morrison; Raich; and NFIB. Along the way we talked about changing personnel on the Court, changing expectations of what kind of experience was needed for the Court, dictum and overruling prior cases, and the Venn diagram of Scalia's concurrence in Raich. The assignment for Wednesday 11/9 is to read in the text pp. 183-212.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
November 1, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, we began by looking at Maine's law for mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect, and the lack of penalties for failure to comply with those reporting requirements. I then reviewed the BrickKicker holding about enforcing the arbitration clause in the contract, even without the contract's unconscionable parts. I went over four U.S. Supreme Court case about the situation when the Federal Arbitration Act comes into conflict with state law regarding unconscionable contract provisions: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express v. Italian Colors, DirecTV v. Imburgia, and Kindred Nursing v. Clark. We then went over the Caperton case in the text. I plan on Thursday to start by talking about two cases that I didn't get to today, the recent U.S. Supreme Court judge recusal case of Williams v. Pa., and the Maine Supreme Court lawyer ethics case of Board of Overseers v. Warren. The assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read in the text through p. 98 (the various opinions in the Obamacare ACA case).
In class today, Tuesday 11/1, we began by looking at Maine's law for mandated reporting of child abuse and neglect, and the lack of penalties for failure to comply with those reporting requirements. I then reviewed the BrickKicker holding about enforcing the arbitration clause in the contract, even without the contract's unconscionable parts. I went over four U.S. Supreme Court case about the situation when the Federal Arbitration Act comes into conflict with state law regarding unconscionable contract provisions: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, American Express v. Italian Colors, DirecTV v. Imburgia, and Kindred Nursing v. Clark. We then went over the Caperton case in the text. I plan on Thursday to start by talking about two cases that I didn't get to today, the recent U.S. Supreme Court judge recusal case of Williams v. Pa., and the Maine Supreme Court lawyer ethics case of Board of Overseers v. Warren. The assignment for Thursday 11/3 is to read in the text through p. 98 (the various opinions in the Obamacare ACA case).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)