POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/8, I collected the Brown and Hawkins case briefs, and distributed my own version of those briefs. I also distributed Maine statutes regarding wrongful death and the Maine Tort Claims Act. We went over the Brown and Hawkins briefs. I plan to return them when we meet for Exam #2. We then went over the remainder of Chapter 5 (Civil Procedure), including the Fontenot case.
Exam #2 will be Thursday 12/15 from 9:30 - 10:45. It will be in the same format as Exam #1, and will only include the material covered since the first exam. If you are missing any handouts, be sure to email me your request by 8:00 pm on Wednesday night, 12/14. See you next Thursday.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
December 7, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 12/7, we first finished our discussion of separation of powers in foreign affairs by going over the Hamdi case, and then the textbook discussion of the three cases that followed Hamdi. We then turned to the separation of powers in domestic affairs. After looking at the early cases (Wayman and Hampton) that looked for the principle dividing legitimate delegation of Congress' law-making powers from unconstitutional delegation, we went through the Mistretta, Chadha, and Bowsher cases.
The paper on Muslim registration is due at the beginning of the exam at 9:30 on Friday 12/16. The exam is in the same format as Exam #1, and will only cover the material covered since that first exam. It will be from 9:30 - 10:45. If you are missing any handouts, make sure to email me by the night before (8:00 pm on the night of Thursday 12/15) to request them. See you Friday 12/16.
In class today, Wednesday 12/7, we first finished our discussion of separation of powers in foreign affairs by going over the Hamdi case, and then the textbook discussion of the three cases that followed Hamdi. We then turned to the separation of powers in domestic affairs. After looking at the early cases (Wayman and Hampton) that looked for the principle dividing legitimate delegation of Congress' law-making powers from unconstitutional delegation, we went through the Mistretta, Chadha, and Bowsher cases.
The paper on Muslim registration is due at the beginning of the exam at 9:30 on Friday 12/16. The exam is in the same format as Exam #1, and will only cover the material covered since that first exam. It will be from 9:30 - 10:45. If you are missing any handouts, make sure to email me by the night before (8:00 pm on the night of Thursday 12/15) to request them. See you Friday 12/16.
Tuesday, December 6, 2016
December 6, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I distributed one handout, excerpts from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (regarding the Hawkins case brief and the Idnani case) and the Maine Rules of Evidence (regarding the Timmermann case). We first went over the issues in Hawkins, and I clarified what I thought the Court was doing: by ruling on the Rule 55(c) motion to set aside the default judgment, they were introducing the concept of good cause (Hawkins' behavior) into what otherwise would have been a straight question of the sufficiency of service of process (the deputy's behavior). We also talked about dictum in the Hawkins case. After that, we went over the Idnani case and discovery sanctions. We looked at the Maine Rule of Civil Procedure regarding discovery sanctions. We then went over the Timmermann case on spousal privilege. We also looked at the Maine Rule of Evidence regarding spousal privilege, and I talked about waiver of the privilege in the Maine case of State v. Lipham. The assignment for Thursday 12/8 is to finish work on the Brown v. Thaler and Bank v. Hawkins case briefs, due at the beginning of class Thursday. In addition read through the end of Chapter 5 of the text, including the Fontenot case.
In class today, Tuesday 12/6, I distributed one handout, excerpts from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure (regarding the Hawkins case brief and the Idnani case) and the Maine Rules of Evidence (regarding the Timmermann case). We first went over the issues in Hawkins, and I clarified what I thought the Court was doing: by ruling on the Rule 55(c) motion to set aside the default judgment, they were introducing the concept of good cause (Hawkins' behavior) into what otherwise would have been a straight question of the sufficiency of service of process (the deputy's behavior). We also talked about dictum in the Hawkins case. After that, we went over the Idnani case and discovery sanctions. We looked at the Maine Rule of Civil Procedure regarding discovery sanctions. We then went over the Timmermann case on spousal privilege. We also looked at the Maine Rule of Evidence regarding spousal privilege, and I talked about waiver of the privilege in the Maine case of State v. Lipham. The assignment for Thursday 12/8 is to finish work on the Brown v. Thaler and Bank v. Hawkins case briefs, due at the beginning of class Thursday. In addition read through the end of Chapter 5 of the text, including the Fontenot case.
Thursday, December 1, 2016
December 1, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Thursday 12/1, we first discussed Assignment #2, due next Thursday 12/8. We discussed what was decided in both cases, and how the two decisions square with each other (or don't). We then went over Johnson v. Cintas and Salmon v. Atkinson in the textbook. Regarding the theory of quantum meruit from the Salmon case, I also went over the Maine case of Paffhausen v. Balano, which differentiated quantum meruit from unjust enrichment, and went over the different theories of recovery for each theory. The assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to continue working on the two case briefs, and to read in the text pp.164-175 (including Idani and Timmermann).
In class today, Thursday 12/1, we first discussed Assignment #2, due next Thursday 12/8. We discussed what was decided in both cases, and how the two decisions square with each other (or don't). We then went over Johnson v. Cintas and Salmon v. Atkinson in the textbook. Regarding the theory of quantum meruit from the Salmon case, I also went over the Maine case of Paffhausen v. Balano, which differentiated quantum meruit from unjust enrichment, and went over the different theories of recovery for each theory. The assignment for Tuesday 12/6 is to continue working on the two case briefs, and to read in the text pp.164-175 (including Idani and Timmermann).
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
November 30, 2016
POS 383 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In class today, Wednesday 11/30, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and two newspaper articles about the subject of the assignment, a proposal to have all Muslims in the country register with the federal government. I went over the assignment. We then started in on the cases for today. We discussed the Prize cases, Milligan, Quirin, Korematsu, Youngstown, Dames & Moore, and Zivotofsky. We will begin next week, with Hamdi and the cases that follow it, previously assigned. The assignment for Wednesday 12/7, is to begin working on your Assignment, and to read in addition pp. 270-289 of the text.
Assignment due at the beginning of the Exam on Friday, December 16, 2016
Congratulations! President-elect Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly-created position analyzes Trump’s ideas to determine if they’re in accord with the Supreme Court’s idea of what’s constitutional.
Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the constitutionality of a possible plan by Trump to have all Muslims in America, citizen and non-citizen, immigrant and native-born alike, register with the federal government. (See the news articles on the subject also distributed today.)
But the plan is not popular with Congress, which has gotten a lot of negative feedback from the voters. It’s possible that Congress will pass a law forbidding such a registry (which law Congress could uphold over the President’s veto).
Trump believes that the President has the power to implement the plan, regardless of Congressional objections, because the President has full authority in this area of immigration and war-making powers. Trump says that we are engaged in The War on Terror, a war authorized by Congress, and that he has the right to use his wartime powers to fight terrorism, and this registry is an important tool in that fight.
Analyze whether Trump would be correct about the constitutional powers of the Executive. Include in your analysis both a situation in which Congress explicitly approves and authorizes the registry, and the situation in which Congress explicitly rejects the registry. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the registry.
Use the following authority from the textbook: pp. 263-267; 289-340; and Arizona v. U.S. pp. 407-414. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what’s in the textbook.
To cite authority, use the textbook page numbers: e.g. “As the Court majority stated in Arizona v. U.S., ‘aliens are required to register with the Federal Government’. (Arizona at p. 409).”
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your analysis. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
Please make two copies of your paper, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion. I would expect the paper to be in the neighborhood of three pages long.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
The assignment is due at the beginning of the exam on Friday 12/16. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the exam time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
In class today, Wednesday 11/30, I distributed two handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below) and two newspaper articles about the subject of the assignment, a proposal to have all Muslims in the country register with the federal government. I went over the assignment. We then started in on the cases for today. We discussed the Prize cases, Milligan, Quirin, Korematsu, Youngstown, Dames & Moore, and Zivotofsky. We will begin next week, with Hamdi and the cases that follow it, previously assigned. The assignment for Wednesday 12/7, is to begin working on your Assignment, and to read in addition pp. 270-289 of the text.
Assignment due at the beginning of the Exam on Friday, December 16, 2016
Congratulations! President-elect Trump has summoned you to Trump Tower, and offered you the position of Constitutional Analyst. This newly-created position analyzes Trump’s ideas to determine if they’re in accord with the Supreme Court’s idea of what’s constitutional.
Your first assignment is to do an analysis of the constitutionality of a possible plan by Trump to have all Muslims in America, citizen and non-citizen, immigrant and native-born alike, register with the federal government. (See the news articles on the subject also distributed today.)
But the plan is not popular with Congress, which has gotten a lot of negative feedback from the voters. It’s possible that Congress will pass a law forbidding such a registry (which law Congress could uphold over the President’s veto).
Trump believes that the President has the power to implement the plan, regardless of Congressional objections, because the President has full authority in this area of immigration and war-making powers. Trump says that we are engaged in The War on Terror, a war authorized by Congress, and that he has the right to use his wartime powers to fight terrorism, and this registry is an important tool in that fight.
Analyze whether Trump would be correct about the constitutional powers of the Executive. Include in your analysis both a situation in which Congress explicitly approves and authorizes the registry, and the situation in which Congress explicitly rejects the registry. Examine the arguments both for and against the constitutionality of the registry.
Use the following authority from the textbook: pp. 263-267; 289-340; and Arizona v. U.S. pp. 407-414. Use no other cases, and do no outside research. This assignment is totally based on what’s in the textbook.
To cite authority, use the textbook page numbers: e.g. “As the Court majority stated in Arizona v. U.S., ‘aliens are required to register with the Federal Government’. (Arizona at p. 409).”
The assignment will be graded on both the structure and the content of your analysis. The paper will also be graded on how well you write English, and how clearly you organize your thoughts. I like short clear sentences better than long complicated ones. I like correct grammar.
Please make two copies of your paper, one to hand in at the beginning of class, and the other for you to have during class for our discussion. I would expect the paper to be in the neighborhood of three pages long.
You may e-mail me if you have specific questions about the assignment. The more time that I have to answer your questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
The assignment is due at the beginning of the exam on Friday 12/16. If you cannot be in class on that day, you should still e-mail me your assignment by the beginning of the exam time. If you do that, you will not have any grade deducted from your grade for the outline. If you do not, you should still contact me as soon as possible to see what options are available to you. See the Syllabus for the class rules regarding late papers.
The work should be entirely your own, with no collaboration or plagiarism. Do not show your paper to anyone. Do not look at anyone else’s paper. See the syllabus regarding plagiarism and collaboration.
IMPORTANT: If you e-mail your assignment to me, I will reply to confirm that I have received your assignment. If you do not get a reply, then I have not received the assignment.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
November 29, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/29, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below); TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042; Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113; and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We went over the assignment. We then finished up Chapter 4 of the text by going over subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts in diversity cases. We covered St. James Apartments in terms of diversity of citizenship, and Frump in terms of the amount in controversy. The assignment for Thursday 12/1 is to read the cases to brief, Hawkins and Brown, and to read in the text pp. 154-164 (including Salmon, p. 156 and Johnson p. 162).
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 8, 2016
The assignment is to do two case briefs: the first is of the case of Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113 and the second is of TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042. The cases were distributed to class today.
For the Hawkins case, only do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings through Section II (A) of the opinion, “Service of Process”. Do not do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for Section II (B) “Amendment of Complaint” (¶ 18-25). Do include Section II (B) for the remainder of the brief (everything but Facts, Issues and Holdings).
These are both cases in which the brief is more useful if you utilize an “even though...” portion of the Issues, and Holdings (and include any facts used there in your Facts section). This means that you include the loser’s facts (opposite to what the Court holds) to show what the losing side was arguing. For example: “Under the rules of our class, may a student make cell phone calls during the class when such calls are disruptive, even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus.” The “Facts” would include “ such calls are disruptive even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus”.
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 our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 12/8, 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.
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.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
In class today, Tuesday 11/29, I distributed four handouts: Assignment #2 (reproduced below); TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042; Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113; and an excerpt from the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. We went over the assignment. We then finished up Chapter 4 of the text by going over subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts in diversity cases. We covered St. James Apartments in terms of diversity of citizenship, and Frump in terms of the amount in controversy. The assignment for Thursday 12/1 is to read the cases to brief, Hawkins and Brown, and to read in the text pp. 154-164 (including Salmon, p. 156 and Johnson p. 162).
Assignment due at the beginning of class on Thursday, December 8, 2016
The assignment is to do two case briefs: the first is of the case of Brown v. Thaler, 2005 ME 75, 880 A.2d 1113 and the second is of TD Banknorth v. Hawkins, 2010 ME 104, 5 A.3d 1042. The cases were distributed to class today.
For the Hawkins case, only do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings through Section II (A) of the opinion, “Service of Process”. Do not do the Facts, Issues, and Holdings for Section II (B) “Amendment of Complaint” (¶ 18-25). Do include Section II (B) for the remainder of the brief (everything but Facts, Issues and Holdings).
These are both cases in which the brief is more useful if you utilize an “even though...” portion of the Issues, and Holdings (and include any facts used there in your Facts section). This means that you include the loser’s facts (opposite to what the Court holds) to show what the losing side was arguing. For example: “Under the rules of our class, may a student make cell phone calls during the class when such calls are disruptive, even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus.” The “Facts” would include “ such calls are disruptive even though there was no specific prohibition on such calls in the syllabus”.
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 our questions, the more likely it is that I can be helpful.
If you cannot be in class on Thursday 12/8, 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.
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.
Remember to work by yourselves; do not collaborate. Do not show your work to anyone else; do not look at anyone else’s work. Do not discuss your case brief with anyone but me.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
November 22, 2016
POS 282 INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN LAW
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm (personal jurisdiction) statute. We began by reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction enough to contrast it with personal jurisdiction. We talked about four avenues for assertion of personal jurisdiction over a defendant: domicile of the defendant, service of process within the state, minimal contacts, and consent. We discussed special appearances to contest jurisdiction. We went through the Swoboda case and put it into a case brief format. I then discussed two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding personal jurisdiction: McIntyre v. Nicastro and Walden v. Fiore. We looked at the Maine long-arm statute, and questioned whether one of its provisions is consistent with constitutional requirements. On next Tuesday I plan to distribute assignment #2, another case brief, which will be due the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. The assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to finish Chapter 4 of the text, which includes reviewing the previously assigned St. James v. Coinmach, and adds Frump v. Claire's Boutiques. Have a good and a safe Thanksgiving.
In class today, Tuesday 11/22, I distributed one handout, the Maine long-arm (personal jurisdiction) statute. We began by reviewing subject-matter jurisdiction enough to contrast it with personal jurisdiction. We talked about four avenues for assertion of personal jurisdiction over a defendant: domicile of the defendant, service of process within the state, minimal contacts, and consent. We discussed special appearances to contest jurisdiction. We went through the Swoboda case and put it into a case brief format. I then discussed two recent U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding personal jurisdiction: McIntyre v. Nicastro and Walden v. Fiore. We looked at the Maine long-arm statute, and questioned whether one of its provisions is consistent with constitutional requirements. On next Tuesday I plan to distribute assignment #2, another case brief, which will be due the last day of class, Thursday 12/8. The assignment for Tuesday 11/29 is to finish Chapter 4 of the text, which includes reviewing the previously assigned St. James v. Coinmach, and adds Frump v. Claire's Boutiques. Have a good and a safe Thanksgiving.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)