CJL Exam 1 Modules 1-5

the pragmatic theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - judges base their decisions on the potential consequences of the case - aligns with utilitarian viewpoint - decisions are based on whatever outcome they believe will achieve the best result - may be completely ignoring the law and precedent regarding the issues before them and are just going with what feels right

the attitudinal theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - judges make their decisions primarily based on their own political preferences - most judges will not decide cases solely based on political beliefs

the legalist theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - the preferred theory of practicing lawyers and judges - judicial decisions are determined by the law - conceives of as a body or pre-exisiting rules found stated in canonical legal materials such as constitutional and statutory texts and previous decisions of the same or a higher court, derivable from those materials by logical operations - believe that outside factors such as ideology, political beliefs and personal experiences do not play a role in deciding legal cases - have no place in law - mechanical jurisprudence

mechanical jurisprudence

- Roscoe Pound argued against - a willingness of judges to make strict legal decisions in cases,which might result in unjust outcomes and without regard to the greater social impact

analytical positivism

- laws are not dependent on extraneous considerations ex: reason, ethics, morals - it's a law as long as established by proper procedures

Curia Regis

- members were required to travel around to visit and supervise the local courts - eventually became known. as the Court of King's - judges on royal court would apply the same laws. based on slowly evolving legal rules

Burnham v. Superior Court

tagging jurisdiction is sufficient even when individual has no other ties to the state

jurisdiction

the power of the court to determine the merits of a dispute and to grant relief - determine between state and federal court - different courts will apply different laws - power of the court to hear and determine a case - federal courts need both personal and subject matter jurisdiction

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

law that mandates that companies ensure safe working conditions for their employees - individual based on his or her disability

courts

lower level: 94 federal district courts intermediate level: 13 federal appellate courts highest level: 1 federal Supreme Court

doctrine of forum non conveniens

the decision to transfer a case is usually based on convenience, such as for the convenience of obtaining and presenting out-of-state witnesses which usually weighs in favor of the defendant

removal

the process of transferring a case in a state court to a federal court - it is the right of a defendant who is sued in state court to have the case transferred, so long as original jurisdiction exists in federal court - requires a federal question or diversity of citizenship - to start removal process the defendant must file notice of removal with the federal court within 30 days after service of the complaint

People v. Beardsley

- 1907 in Michigan Supreme Court - state case - Beardsley (defendant) and Blanche Burns were having an affair while his wife was out of town - Burns took morphine and died in his house - Beardsley out of fear his wife would see her put her in basement to be watched by neighbor - neighbor called police in fear she was dead - Beardsley was arrested and charged with murder due to fact that it was his duty to care for her which he failed to perform - this was sufficient enough to be an act of omission - Beardsley was convicted and appealed his case Issue: - Is the omission of a duty owed by one individual to another, where such omission results in the death of the one to whom the duty is owing, sufficient to make the other chargeable with manslaughter? - will the failure of the defendant to save this woman's life when he was able to do so w/o putting himself in danger, be enough grounds to find him guilty of murder when the woman later died due to his failure to act? Holding: - no, where no relationship exists and the defendant does not voluntarily accept responsibility to care for the other person, they will not be held to have a legal duty to act Reasoning: - some categories of individuals who may be required to do something, individual is required under a statutory, contractual or common law obligation or duty to do so - statutory obligation: a parent to a child or a husband to a wife - was no statutory obligation or contractual obligation - multiple court cases - look at textbook - not every moral obligation is a legal duty but every legal duty is a moral obligation - in absence of such obligations it is undoubtedly the moral duty of every person to extend to others assistance when in danger - if they do not their only punishment will be subjected to by society

Brown v. Board of Education

- 1954-1954 - consolidation of cases from Delaware, Kansas, South Caroline and Virginia Facts: - black minors seek the aid of courts in obtaining admission to public schools on a nonsegregated basis - segregation deprived plaintiffs of equal protection of laws under 14th amendment - before appeal - all cases were denied relief due to separate but equal doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson - plaintiffs contend segregated schools are not equal and can't be made equal Issue: - does segregation violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? - does it deprive the children of minority groups of equal educational opportunities? Holding: - yes, separate but equal has no place - separate educational facilities are inherently unequal Reasoning: - court overrules Plessy v. Ferguson - history of education of 14th amendment - legal precedent regarding equal rights to education: Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents - social science research

Marsallis v. LaSalle

- 1957 Facts: - LaSalle's ( defendants) cat scratched Mrs. Marsalis when she was visiting their store - cat was not known to be an aggressive cat so it had no prior disposition that would give the defendants notice that the cat was somehow dangerous - so no liability on the basis of the cat being in the store - therefore defendants did not owe plaintiff any duty of care in that regard - defendants agreed to hold onto and monitor the cat until it could be determined that it did not have rabies - cat accidentally got out - Marsalis worried has rabies - undergoes treatment from Dr. Kirgis and starts experiencing symptoms - led to expensive hospital bills so sued defendants b/c if cat had not escaped would not have needed treatment Issue: - is a defendant who voluntarily agrees to take some action for an injured/ill person considered to then owe a duty of reasonable care to that person in the performance of that action? - can defendants be liable for the plaintiffs injuries b/c of their failure to do the thing they agreed to do? Holding: - yes, they will be found liable - one who voluntarily undertakes to care for or to afford relief to, an ill, injured or helpless person is under a legal obligation to use reasonable care and prudence in what he does Reasoning: - no liability in the defendant merely because the cat bit or scratched Mrs. Marsalis - unless a man is responsible for another person's injury or distress ordinarily he is under no legal duty or obligation of giving him aid, help or assistance or to go to his relief ex: Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co. - factory foreman was not responsible for the injuries suffered by a child playing around in factory b/c it wasn't his kid - unless there is a duty to do something the law does not care - but here the defendant VOLUNTEERED to help - so then subject to liability for bodily harm resulting from the actor's failure to exercise reasonable care to carry out his undertaking - if you agree to help someone but you only make the situation worse you may be held liable

Gideon v. Wainwright

- 1963 Facts: - Gideon (defendant) commits felony offense under FL law - broke into pool hall and stole money from cash register - Gideon was an indigent - meaning he could not afford to appoint defense lawyers - he requested to have a court-appointed attorney defend him - but florida state law did not have to appoint counsel unless it was a capital offense ( like murder or rape) - was forced to represent himself and found guilty - later he issued a habeas corpus petition claiming state of FL violated his rights Issue: - Is a state's refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a criminal offense a violation of that defendant's right to an attorney under the 6th amendment? Holding: yes, all should have a right to court-appointed attorneys Reasoning: - this overruled Betts v. Brady which said counsel should only be appointed if there were specific circumstances - Powell v. Alabama - any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

- 1966 Facts: - state of Virginia has a poll tax in state elections - Annie Harper sued Virginia State Board of Elections - she believed that the tax violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause Issue: - Does the imposition of a poll tax violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment? Holding: - yes, it is unconstitutional as the poll tax discriminates against those who may not be wealthy - the right to vote is "too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned" - a state violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard Reasoning: - had to overrule prior decision made in Breedlove v. Suttles: which held that a poll tax was a reasonable exercise of the state's police powers - had to distinguish case from Lassiter v. Northampton which held that literacy tests were ok so long as all races are given the test - this was overruled when Voting Rights Act was passed - decision was partially based on Reynolds v. Sims - which held that any infringement on the right to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized - voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax

Gregg v. Georgia

- 1976 - held that the death penalty was not unconstitutional under the 8th and 14th amendments

Washington v. Glucksberg

- 1997 Facts: - state of Washington had passed a law that prevented doctors from assisting in suicide of mentally competent, terminally ill patients Issue: - Should the right to commit suicide be considered a fundamental right, so that a law depriving individuals of that right should be seen as a violation of the 14th amendment right to due process of law? Holding: - no, Washington state law does not violate the 14th amendment - individuals do not have the fundamental right to commit suicide - doctor-assisted or otherwise Reasoning: - court examined history, legal traditions and practices - court found that suicide was not only seen as fundamental it has also been discouraged throughout most of our history - had to clarify position in Cruzan v. Director of Missouri Dept. of Health - which held that individuals do have the fundamental right to be free from unwanted medical procedures, such as life support and feeding tubes- fundamental right to not be subjected to battery

applies to federal and state government

- 1st amendment - 2nd amendment - 4th amendment - 5th amendment self incrimination clause - 5th amendment due process clause - 5th amendment double jeopardy clause - 5th amendment takings clause - 6th amendment speedy trial clause - 6th amendment impartial jury clause - 6th amendment jury unanimity clause - 6th amendment informed clause - 6th amendment confrontation clause - 6th amendment compel witnesses clause - 6th amendment counsel clause - 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment clause - 8th amendment excessive fines clause

applies to federal government only

- 3rd amendment - 5th amendment grand jury clause - 6th amendment district clause - 7th amendment - 8th amendment excessive bail clause - 9th amendment

due process of law

- 5th and 14th amendments are due process amendments - the Bill of rights as it was originally written only applied to the federal government - due to fear of the power of centralized authority - government must follow fair procedures in taking action with respect to an individual - designed to ensure that government policies and rules of law are carried out fairly and consistently

sufficient minimum contacts

- method to determine if state court has jurisdiction in a civil matter over a non-resident of the state - court finds that there was a sufficient minimum number of contacts between the individual defendant and the state where the case is being heard

the psychological theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - a judge's preconceptions and inherent bias may affect how they read a statute or interpret a chain of events - different life experiences have helped to shape how perceive and interpret events

the strategic theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - a judge's vote reflects the worries they have about the reactions their decisions will get from other judges, legislators and the public - they may sacrifice their own principles for effectiveness or to achieve some goal, which may be to further a political agenda or to win re-election

the sociological theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - appellate judges are members of multijudge panels - judges may moderate their views over time in order to get along - most judges do not like to dissent or to have another judge dissent

the phenomenological theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - focuses on the experience of judges as it presents itself to their conscious minds - what does it feel like at the moment the judge makes a decision in a case?

the organizational theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - judges act as agents of their principals ex: the government, the public that elects them or the specific politician who nominated them to their position - their may be a conflict with the role of the judge as an independent actor and their principals - these two groups will have divergent interests - the principals will try to minimize that some control over the judge and the judges will try to resist

the economic theory

- Richard Posner judicial decision making - judges are rational, self-interested actors seeking to maximize their payoff and/or efficiency on individual cases based on whatever incentives or disincentives are driving their decisions ex: some judges may be motivated by a preference for leisure - hence may pressure individuals to settle or to accept plea bargains in order to avoid a trial

Miller v. Alabama

- SC decision in 2012 Facts: - Miller and Jackson (two 14 year old boys) are defendants - convicted of felony murder and sentenced to life in prison w/o parole legal precedent: Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida Issue: - Is a mandatory sentence of life without parole for a juvenile defendant convicted of capital murder a violation of the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? Holding: - yes, mandatory LWOP for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes (even homicide) violated 8th amendment Reasoning: - Roper and Graham - juvenile defendants are constitutionally different from adult defendants for sentencing purposed - children have lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility - children more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures - lack of ability to extricate themselves from horrific settings - b/c juveniles have a diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform they are less deserving of the most severe punishments Dissenting opinion: - Chief Justice Roberts: said LWOP is not unusual - Justice Thomas: if it is not torture it is not cruel - Justice Alito: opinion violated states' rights to determine their own sentencing policies

legal ethics

- a lot of professions have established licensing requirements - limits competition to try to carve out special interests in favor of those privileged few who already possess the credentials - required to adhere to strict code of ethics ex: taking bar exam and passing to receive law license all lawyers have to adhere to a strict code of ethics - Capperton v. Massey Coal Co, Inc: a judge refused to recuse himself in a case involving a highly influential campaign contributor who had donated more than all other contributors combined - according to court this was not okay - what is moral and what is ethical are not always the same thing

precept

- a number of legal principles and rules of law 1. rule of law: a specific set of circumstances are clearly defined and the court will have a definite action that follows - if A happens then court will do B - the same rule will apply regardless of whatever life experiences they may have had 2. principles: where the set of circumstances are ambiguous and no definite action is able to be automatically determined the court will follow a 3 step process where rely upon legal precedent and stare decisis

justice, speed and economy

- an objective of law - law or at least the procedural law should be efficient - "Rule 1. of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure provides that procedural rules should be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action

adaptability

- an objective of law - laws should be able to adapt to changes in society - law makers cannot anticipate every possible outcome in a decision so laws should be able to evolve and adapt to social, environmental and political changes within our society ex: US Constitution is very vague - Supreme Court can interpret it as society changes over time

continuity and stability

- an objective of law - laws should be slow to change - so that people can learn/ understand more about them - for the laws to be applied more uniformly and understood better by those who have to enforce them and encourage a healthy economy by establishing a predictable guide of conduct

public policy

- an objective of law - laws should be based on the benefit they might have to further specify public goals such as banning discrimination or allowing same-sex marriage - what someone wants might not be what the other wants

natural/universal law

- based on morals - reflects the built in sense of right and wrong that exists within every person at birth - helped establish concept of universal human rights - when there is no consensus in society about what is morally right and wrong, it loses its effectiveness as a basis for law

The Erie Doctrine

- case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins - 1938 in Pennsylvania - Tompkins was walking home along a foot path that ran parallel with a set of railroad tracks - was not walking on top of railroad tracks - was walking alongside the tracks when a train began to approach from behind - unknown object sticking out from the side of the train - when train passed by it struck Mr. Tompkins and cut his arm off - Tompkins sued railroad company - ended up in federal court due to diversity of citizenship - Tompkins citizen of Pennsylvania and railroad from Ohio Holding: - for federal court cases based on diversity of citizenship required to apply state substantive laws

Powell v. Alabama

- concerned unlawful conviction of nine African American defendants who had been falsely accused of rape - all were illiterate and uneducated and court refused to appoint them counsel until the day before trial - were convicted and sentenced to death -appealed to SC for retrial - stressed importance of appointment of counsel - "the right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel"

trial courts

- courts of original jurisdiction - judges and juries decide matters of fact - have one judge - juries present in certain cases - evidence is presented - witnesses testify - initial determination of guilt/liability is made - hears civil and criminal casers - state or federal

America Online v. Superior Court of Alameda County

- decision to transfer may also be based on the grounds that a transfer or a failure to transfer could constitute a violation of public policy - California court refused a defendants request to transfer a case to Virginia b/c applying the laws of Virginia against California residents would deprive them of protections afforded to them under California law - substantially diminishing their rights - so the court refused to transfer the case to Virginia - held that a forum selection clause will be enforced if it is entered into "freely and voluntarily" has a logical nexus to the parties or the dispute and does not violate a state's public policy

service of process

- method to determine if state court has jurisdiction in a civil matter over a non-resident of the state - individual has been personally served a summons to appear in court while they were physically located in that state - aka tagging jurisdiction

choice of law

- generally regards what jurisdiction's law should be applied in a particular dispute - what state law should be applied or should federal law apply? - choice itself regarding where a case should be brought based on: 1. convenience for one of the parties 2. public policy of the state 3. on the grounds that a transfer or failure to transfer would be a violation of one of the party's substantive due process rights - the ultimate court that hears the case must be one where the case could have been brought originally - no jurisdiction, no transfer

utilitarian law

- government should weigh out the positives and negatives of passing a law - should enact laws that promote the general public's happiness - laws that encourage people to act in ways that maximize pleasure and minimize pain - best outcome for everyone - ends justify the means - government knows what the best outcome is

vicarious liability

- if the illegal act is done for the benefit of the principal, while the agent is acting within the scope of their employment in the business of the principal the corporation can be held liable for that employee's actions - an employer is held responsible for the actions of their employee - New York Central & Hudson River R. Co. v. United States - before this corporations could not be charged with a crime - many laws have been enacted to hold corporations accountable for their unethical behavior

Magna Carta

- in 1215 King John granted citizens their rights and power of self-governance - inspiration for US Constitution

Well Pleaded Complaint Rule

- it is not enough for a case to simply involve a constitutional or federal statute - if a complaint does not present a federal question the case will be heard in a state court

Holmes view of law

- law is what the judges say it is - nothing more - judges trying to predict outcome of cases simply based on how this or that court has decided similar cases in the past - law is a highly educated guessing game

consent

- method to determine if state court has jurisdiction in a civil matter over a non-resident of the state - the individual (explicitly or implicitly) agrees to appear in court in that state by: showing up at the court without informing the court that the only reason they decided to show up was to specifically argue the merits of jurisdiction; committing a tortious or criminal act in that state (only way to obtain jurisdiction in a criminal case) and driving a motor vehicle in that state and getting into an accident

Fifth amendment

- no person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property w/o due process - government must follow fair procedures in taking action with respect to an individual

writs

- often used to confer jurisdiction and to direct the resolve disputes, often specifying the exact procedures to be followed - recorded in registers, establishing the first law libraries

historical jurisprudence

- only practices that have endured over time can be law - sustain staus quo - "law is only valid to the extent that the will of the sovereign is compatible with long-standing social practices, customs and values" - elite favored this to keep their status

14th amendement

- passed after Civil War - required that states recognize the rights of citizens and afford them 1. due process of the law 2. equal protection of the law - extends freedoms in Bill of Rights to the states - "selective incorporation"

general jurisdiction

- personal jurisdiction for corporations - the power of the court to hear any case involving the defendant - may also be held to apply to individuals so long as there are sufficient enough number of ties between the individual and the state to establish personal jurisdiction - usually will reside in state where business is incorporated or where headquarters

specific jurisdiction

- personal jurisdiction for corporations - the power of the court to hear only specific types of cases, based on the specific actions committed by the defendant related to the forum state ex: the reason the corporation is being sued has to be related to the activities the corporation is conducting in that state - even if a court finds sufficient grounds for specific jurisdiction this does not mean the court can hear any kind of case or controversy not involving the specific actions by the defendant

appellate courts

- reviews proceedings of lower court to determine if law was applied correctly and/or if trial was fair - judges decide if matters of law - panel of judges - no jury - hears civil and criminal cases - state or federal - Supreme court has power of certiorai: have the privilege to choose whether or not they want to hear a case

forum selection clauses

- the contractual terms usually negotiated by the parties in a contract - specific provision in a contract stipulating the exact location of court where venue will exist in the event of a breach of the contract or regarding some form of liability in a tort case

selective incorporation

- the court examines each provision and selectively incorporates the most important ones

stare decisis

- the doctrine of precedents - a traditional art of judicial decision - a traditional technique of developing the grounds of decision of particular cases on the basis of reported judicial experience - "stand by its decisions" - coming to decisions based on previous decisions - only majority opinion has stare decisis effect - promotes predictability, stability, uniformity, justice - not a binding rule - but os preferred to follow precedent

Good Samaritan Laws

- the law does not impose a duty on the people to help those in need but Massachusetts General Law Ch. 268, Sec 40: you have to intervene/mitigate (call police) if know a person is a victim of rape, murder, manslaughter and armed robbery and you are at scene of crime as long as you can't bring dancer unto yourself

doctrine of incorporation

- the process of making specific provisions in the Bill of Rights applicable to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment - it is an ongoing process - U.S. constitution and amendments consist of clauses

ethics

- the study of morality - ethicists examine the application of ethical principles to the practice of professions ex: law and death penalty - is there an ethical way to commit state sanctioned murder? - concepts change based on the values and views held by the people who control the government at any given time

Cardozo view of law

- there are legal precedents that are followed - some principles or rules are so well ingrained and accepted that most if not all judges would come to the same conclusion

law as power

- those who have power make the laws - regardless of whether it is socially good or bad - view expressed by authoritarian regimes -

Max Weber view of law

- unless a rule is enforced by people it is not a law

change of venue

- venue requirements determine the place where judicial authority should be exercised; after establishing a personal and subject matter jurisdiction - for criminal cases in federal court: venue required by 6th amendment to be restricted to district where crime occurred - for civil cases : no requirement that venue must reside in one location

history of England's legal system

- was primitive and citizens had very few rights - was separated in shires based on population overseen by the sheriff - which were then separated into hundreds overseen by the reeve and bishop - hundreds would hold court twice a month to handle legal disputes dealing with both civil and criminal matters - shire would hold court twice a year and would handle all criminal, civil and religious matters deemed too difficult for the hundred court - based decisions on local customs - differed from shire to shire - no appellate process - no uniform system of law that applied across the entire country 1066: transition from courts being based on local customs to national common law

subject matter jurisdiction

- without this cases (civil or criminal) must be filed in state court - court has been vested with a particular subject matter in which they can hear disputes ex: taxes, small claims, or surveillance for federal courts need: 1. the federal question (that grants court jurisdiction over matter) 2. diversity of citizenship - if the court assumes the cased based on diversity, the court must also find that the amount of controversy exceeds $75,000 - this prevents federal courts from becoming a small claims court, dealing with individuals petty issues

3 things law is composed of

1. precepts 2. precedent 3. policy

federal powers

1. Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States 2. to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the Indian tribes 3. to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this constitution

legislative process

1. must pass through several committees before can be put up on floor for a vote 2. if it passes by majority in House and Senate, the goes to president (or governor if state) to sign 3. president/governor choose to sign or veto 4. if bill is vetoed - Congress can overrule by a 2/3 vote in House and Senate

International Shoe v. Washington

1945 Facts: - state of Washington had a corporate tax that required any companies doing business in that state to pay a tax on their profits - International Shoe, a foreign corporation (not a resident of Washington) refused to pay the Washington state taxes - it had salesmen that lived in Washington and solicited business from people living in Washington, but had its corporate operations in Missouri and was incorporated in Delaware Issue: - can a Washington state court claim personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation without violating the corporation's 14th amendment right to due process? Holding: yes Reasoning: - to claim jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant must have minimum number of contacts - even though corporations are considered to be "legal persons" they don't actually have a physical body - their presence in and out of the state is based on the activities of its employees or agents - if corporation regularly conducts business in a state, it doesnt matter whether they have a registered agent to accept notice of any impending legal matters so long as the reason they are being sued has something to do with the business they are conducting in that state - minimum requirement for specific jurisdiction - International Show was considered to have a sufficient number of contacts to subject them to jurisdiction in the state

People v. Belge

1975 Facts: - Belge (defendant) was defense attorney for Robert Garrow - Garrow told Belge the location of one of his victims - Belge found the body but told no one - at Garrow's trial - it was revealed that Belge knew the location of the body and charges were filed against him - Belge argued that he could not have ethically divulged this information b/c it was privileged communication between him and his client Issue: - can an attorney who receives information in confidence from a client that may be deemed relevant for an ongoing criminal investigation be required by the court to divulge that information when faced with potential criminal charges for failing to do so? Holding: - no, confidential communications between an attorney and his client are privileged from disclosure as a rule of necessity in the administration of justice Reasoning: - all criminal defendants have the right to remain silent - this right would be meaningless if a client's lawyer can be forced to divulge information the client gave him in confidence - "the effectiveness of counsel is only as great as the confidentiality of its client-attorney relationship" - "the client's 5th amendment rights cannot be violated by his attorney"

Helicopteros Nacionales de Columbia v. Hall

1984 Facts: - the case originated as a wrongful death law suit because a helicopter belonging to the defendant crashed in Peru killing four American citizens from Texas - Helicol is a Colombian corporation that owns and operates helicopters and they had conducted business in Texas with Consorcio, a Peruvian oil corporation with headquarters in Texas - Helicol's contacts w/ Texas include a contract with Consorcio, banking transactions from Consorcio's account in Texas to Helicol's account in NY and purchases and training from Bell Helicopter , a Texas based corporation - the parties in the wrongful death law suit already conceded the fat that the matter of the lawsuit does not arise out of the activities between Helicol and the state of Texas - what type of jurisdiction will the court need to have to claim personal jurisdiction over the defendant? Issue: - whether there are a substantial enough number of contacts between Helicol, a Colombian corporation, and the state of Texas, in order for the court to be able to claim general jurisdiction? Holding: no, Helicol conducted a number of activities in Texas, but none were deemed to be sufficient enough for the court to claim general jurisdiction over the defendant Reasoning: - with specific jurisdiction you must have a sufficient number of contacts between the defendant and the state, but to claim general jurisdiction you need something more substantial ex: Perkins v. Benquet Consolidated Mining Co.: the contacts between the corporation and the state must be considered to be "continuous and systematic" for the court to exercise general jurisdiction over the defendant - Helicol did not have near this number of contacts with the state of Texas - corporations cannot be dragged into a court because they bought something from that state

Doe I v. Nestle

2014 - child slave labor being used in cocoa farms in the Ivory Coast - Nestle did not own or operate the farms but made field visit and provided financial support and was said to have had knowledge of the conditions of the child slaves - Nestle lobbied against a bill that would require slave free labels on products - favored self policing - plaintiffs (former child slaves, not US citizens) sued the Nestle Corporation (Swiss company with executives in the US) for aiding and abetting child slavery through US courts through the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) Issue: - can foreign plaintiffs sue in a US court through the ATS a foreign defendant corporation for aiding and abetting child slavery? Holding: - yes, the prohibition against slavery is universal and may be asserted against the corporate defendants in this case Reasoning: 1. can ATS be used when the violations are based on international law? - yes - ATS provides federal courts with jurisdiction - the behavior being discouraged by the law has to be specific, universal and obligatory (ex: slavery) 2. can corporations be held liable for violating international law? - yes - the court examined the violations in previous cases where the ATS had or had not been applied - "allowing an actor to avoid liability merely by incorporating would be inconsistent with the universal quality of these norms - violations of child slavery should be considered universal and absolute norms 3. did the defendant have requisite intent (mens rea) to be found guilty? - yes - the court had to determine what standard of intent is required by the law and whether the defendant has that requisite intent - defendants met the higher standard and could be said to have acted purposefully in three ways 4. did the defendant in this case have the requisite actus reus to be held accountable? were the defendants actions enough for them to be considered in the cause of the plaintiff's injuries? - court was unable to answer - more information is needed 5. should the US courts even be allowed to deal with this sort of issue and should the ATS be allowed to have this kind of extraterritorial application? - was unable to answer this question - more information is needed Dissent: - taking advantage of a favorable existing market while perhaps morally repugnant does not equate to the specific intent to aid and abet child slave labor

Carnival Cruise Lines

Facts: - Shutes (respondents) were residents of Washington and went on a cruise departing from California - respondent was injured while on the ship owned by the Carnival Cruise Lines (petitioner) and sued petitioner in a US District court in Washington - petitioner, as a resident of the state of Florida, filed a motion for summary judgement, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction in Washington - petitioner argued respondent has agreed to a contractual provision when they purchased their cruise tickets regarding a "forum selection clause" which required that all lawsuits against Carnival could only be filed in Florida - respondents argued they never agreed to the terms (never had opportunity to negotiate the contract) Issue: - is the enforcement of a forum selection clause that was not "freely bargained for" still enforceable? Holding: yes Reasoning: - differed from MotorShip Bremen v. Zapata Off-shore Co - common sense dictates that a ticket of this kind will be a form contract the terms of which are not subject to negotiation and that an individual purchasing the the ticket will not have bargaining parity with the cruise line - what are the three reasons given by Justice Blackmum for why the clause is reasonable? Dissent: - Justice Stevens argued that the contract was not reasonable

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York

Facts: - Van Sweringen Corporation needed money to keep business from failing so they sold bonds - Guaranty Trust was appointed as the trustee to enforce the rights of the bondholders to make sure they got their money back - the company was going to go into bankruptcy - Guaranty worked with the company; decided they could pay back 50% of the face value of the bonds to bondholders - plaintiffs who had not acted fast enough to redeem their bonds then sued Guaranty in federal court based on diversity of citizenship - Guaranty filed a motion for summary judgement, claiming New York state's statute of limitations a procedural law had expired - district court granted the motion - plaintiffs appealed - under the federal procedural rule they still had time - they claimed that the federal procedural rule should apply not the state rule - court of appeals agreed with plaintiffs and reversed district court's decision claiming that the Erie Doctrine only required federal courts to apply state substantive laws not procedural laws Issue: - is a federal court claiming jurisdiction in a case based on diversity of citizenship required to apply state procedural law if the outcome in the case would differ based on this decision? Holding: yes, if the outcome of the case would matter based on whether to apply a state procedural law or a federal procedural law, the court should apply the state law Reasoning: - the difference between substantive law and procedural law doesn't matter - Erie doctrine - the federal court in diversity cases is acting as a stand in for state court - "if a plea of the statute of limitations would bar recovery in a state court, a federal court ought not to afford recovery"

US v. Lopez

Facts: - in 1990 Congress passed the Gun Free School Act - made it illegal for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that an individual knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be a school zone - a student Lopez in Texas brought a handgun to school and was arrested and charged by federal agents with violating the Act - Lopez appealed his conviction on grounds that the Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded Congress's authority to regulate commerce Issue: - did Congress exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause by making it illegal for a person to possess a firearm near a school zone? Holding: - yes Reasoning: - Wickard v. Fillburn: even if appellees activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce it may still whatever its nature be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce - the possession of a gun in a local school zone do not substantially affect interstate commerce b/c is not an economic activity Dissent: - said they could affect interstate commerce - guns near school zones relate to violent crime in school zones which has an effect on quality education substantially effecting interstate commerce

National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius

Facts: - in 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - the state of Florida files suit against the Department of Health and Human Services in order to prevent having to implement the Act - the argument was the section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code, which penalized individuals who did not purchase health insurance by having to pay a tax, exceeded Congress's authority - FL won at federal district court level and the federal government appealed - case was consolidated with others from other states and a lobbying group - government argued that the individual mandate helps to keep the price of insurance down Issue: - did the ACA exceed Congress's authority under its powers to "lay and collect taxes, " to "regulate interstate commerce," or to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" Holding: 1. no 2. yes 3. yes Reasoning: 1. according to Chief Justice Roberts, "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance, rather it makes going without insurance just another thing the government taxes like buying gasoline or earning income - the language of the constitution reflects the natural understanding that the power to regulate assumes there is already something to be regulated. the individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity 1. construing the commerce clause to permit congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority 2. Wickard v. Fillburn - the necessary and proper clause allows congress to pass laws that are incidentally based on other powers thay already have, but they cannot use it to pass laws that are incidentally based on powers that they dont have Concurring opinion: - Justice Ginsburg: the main problem in this case is something that only the federal government can fix - the majority of the court should have just deferred to congress's rationale for passing the law because there was a rational basis behind it

Alien Tort Statute

US law that allows foreign defendants to sue corporations who are deemed to be within the courts jurisdictional reach

precedent

a body of traditional ideas as to how legal precepts should be interpreted and applies and causes decided

Hawkins v. Masters Farms

a federal court in Kansas found there was sufficient ties to a state when the individual was domiciled in the state (moved to a new state but not yet a resident but you are intending to stay) - this is good enough to establish jurisdiction

aiding and abetting

anyone who knowingly conceals any offender or gives such offender any other aid, knowing that he has committed a felony, with the intent that he escape of avoid arrest, trial conviction or punishment, is guilty of a fourth degree felony - want to encourage to report criminal activity instead of making it worse - New Mexican State Statute says: there is an exception if the person is related to the felon - husband, wife, parent, grandparent, child, sibling etc.. - they will not be subject to this crime - helping a family member should be different than helping a random criminal - but not exempt if harbor a random felon even if revealing random felon will revel their relative - this is in State v. Mobbley

Swift v Tyson

established the practice for federal court judges regarding whether to follow state of federal law, to ignore state law and apply federal - this created problems: forum shopping - disrespected sovereignty of state court decisions - violating states rights under 10th amendment

legal sociologists

ex: Donald Black - began to statistically quantify legal decisions, studying the outcome of cases based on the sociological characteristics of those involved in disputes - studying the outcome of cases based on financial standing, race, social class, respectability and cultural differences - "the nation and relational distance between litigants dictate the outcome in cases more than specific legal rules - despite some validity of their claims - many go too far in dismissing the significance of legal rules and precedent

legal realists

ex: Jerome Frank and Karl Llewellyn - distinguished what they saw as law on the books from the law in practice - believed many judges were making decisions based on their own personal biases and beliefs rather than on legal rules and precedent

forum shopping

excessive federal claims based on diversity of citizenship

outcome determinative test

for all cases based on diversity, if the outcome would be considered determinative based on applying state or federal law, the federal courts must apply state laws

Graham v. Florida

held that 8th amendment prohibits the court from sentencing a juvenile defendant to life without parole for a non-homicide offense

Roper v. Simmons

held that 8th amendment prohibits the execution of juvenile defendants, regardless of the heinous nature of the crimes they may commit

Piper Aircraft v. Reyno

if there are multiple venues where it could be convenient for a case to be sent - the court must weigh the private and public interests of both parties to determine which court is more convenient and mere inconvenience of law is not enough by itself to stop a transfer from occurring - even though it could be convenient in either location, after weighing both sides, one side was more obviously convenient location than the other

Avitts v. Amoco Production Co

in cases where there is no diversity of citizenship in order for the defendant's request for removal to be granted, the plaintiff must have raised a federal question in their initial complaint -if for some reason plaintiff did not include federal question in initial complaint defendant would have to convince plaintiff to amend complaint if they want case removed

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley

in order for a civil case to be heard at the federal level, the initial complaint must show prima facie evidence of a federal issue - Well Pleaded Complaint Rule

to have subject matter jurisdiction in federal court

need 1. a federal question in your complaint 2. diversity of citizenship

Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co

precedent to refuse to enforces these clauses was no longer valid so long as parties "freely negotiated" the terms of the contract and enforcement of the clause would not be considered unreasonable and unjust

Hoffman v. Blaski

regardless of whatever choice is made the district where the case is being transferred must be one in which the action might have been brought initially by the plaintiff - the court receiving the case must have jurisdiction to hear the case

policy

what legal precepts should be in view thereof

extraterritorial application

where a US Law is being applied for a lawsuit involving foreign plaintiffs suing foreign defendants for actions committed in a foreign country

personal jurisdiction

where the court has the power to hear disputes involving particular plaintiffs or defendants (human or corporation) - can be divided into ways to obtain jurisdiction over individual persons and ways to obtain jurisdiction over corporations and businesses

in rem jurisdiction

where the court has the power to hear disputes involving property (not the individual) located within its geographical boundaries