Business Law Test 1

Zone of Privacy" Precedent that Supreme Court relied on

Griswold v. Connecticut, right to get contraception/interacial marriages

Hierarchy of Federal Courts

(from top to bottom) -U.S. Supreme Court-appellate jurisdiction, limited orig jurisdiction -U.S. Courts of Appeals-appellate jur -U.S. District Courts-orig jurisdiction

Civil Procedure

(order) Summons Complaint Answer Discovery (Demands/Interrogatories/Admissions/EBTs) Duty to Preserve/Ethical Considerations Summary Judgment Motion Pretrial Conference Trial Voir Dire Jury Instructions/Deliberations Verdict/Directed Verdict/Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict Appeal Enforcing a Judgment

Composition of Congress

Senate/House of Representatives

Constitution/Bill of Rights

-consists of United States Constitution (federal)/State Constitution (state)

2nd Rule of Statutory Interpretation

plain meaning/lang in the statue, can they figure out legislative intent, precedent set

Matal v. Tam

- slant music group case,addresses 4 part test utilized in determ constitutionality of comm speech restrictions/illustrated rigor w/ supreme court has applied 3/4 parts of test recently, supreme court strikes down on 1st amendment grounds a provision in fed law that allowed gov to refuse to register a trademark thats disparaging to indvs/groups -Facts-Simon Tam and his band, The Slants, sought to register the band's name with the U.S. Trademark Office. The Office denied the application because it found that the name would likely be disparaging towards "persons of Asian descent." The office cited the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that "[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." Tam appealed the trademark officer's decision, and the name was refused a second time by a board comprised of members of the office. Tam appealed to a panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the trademark officials were within their rights to refuse the trademark application under the Disparagement Clause. The appellate court then reviewed the case en banc and found that the trademark office was incorrect in refusing the trademark application and that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment?' -Question-Is the Disparagement Clause invalid under the First Amendment? -Conclusion-The Disparagement Clause prohibits trademarks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group and violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that, the plain meaning of the text clearly indicated that the Disparagement Clause applied to racial and ethnic groups, and therefore the Clause applied to the mark at issue in this case

Fitzgerald v. Racing Association of Central Iowa

-2 comps w/ racetrack where Iowa will tax slot machines, violate equal protection cause fall under rational basis test (all other classifications) -Facts-A group of racetracks that earn revenue from gambling sued the state of Iowa, claiming that the state's practice of taxing racetrack gambling at a higher rate than riverboat gambling violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The group asserted that gambling at racetracks and riverboat casinos is is not substantially different, and that the state should therefore charge the same tax rate for both activities. A state district court sided with the state, ruling that important differences did exist between riverboat and racetrack gambling; the Iowa Supreme Court reversed in a 4-3 decision -Question-Do different tax rates levied against racetrack and casino gambling violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? -Conclusion-No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that Iowa's differential tax rate, which distinguishes between adjusted revenues from slot machines at racetracks and revenues from riverboat slot machines, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that the facts did not preclude an inference that the reason for the different tax rates was to help the riverboat industry or the river communities. Thus, the Court reasoned there was a rational basis for the law

Roe v. Wade

-Facts-In 1970, Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the plaintiff's identity) filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor's orders to save a woman's life. In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments -Question-Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? -Conclusion-Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court, The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state action the right to privacy, and a woman's right to choose to have an abortion falls within that right to privacy. A state law that broadly prohibits abortion without respect to the stage of pregnancy or other interests violates that right, In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of "viability," a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother

Appellate Divisions/Departments in NY

-LI=2nd dept. -NYC=1st dept. -upstate/bing=3rd dept. -north/west=4th dept

Gonzales v. Raich

-Necessary and Proper Clause Facts-In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court. The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act - which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - exceeded Congress' commerce clause power. The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress' commerce clause power - U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress Question-Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use? Conclusion-No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market

Functions of Law

-Peacekeeping-resolution of private disputes -Checking Government Power/Promoting Personal Freedom -Facilitating Planning/Realization of Reasonable Expectations -Promoting Economic Growth Through Free Competition -Promoting Social Justice-to correct perceived injustices/give all citizens equal access to lifes basic goods -Protecting Environment

Hierarchy of Laws

-United States Constitution -Acts of Congress/Treaties -State Constitutions -State Laws/Statutes -City and County Ordinances

Test for Constitutionality

-fed law must meet 2 gen tests in order to be const-1)must be based on enumerated power of congress, 2) must not collide w/ any indp checks -1st is law based on 1 of the enumerated powers on passing law and if so does it violate any const rights/bill of rights(independent checks) and if it doesnt violate an indv right then the statue is correct

Common Law-(Judicial Legislation)

-law made and applied by judges as they decide cases not governed by statute or other types of law, only exists at state level but both Fed/State courts r involved in applying it, flexible/evolves to meet changing social conds/norms, court can say the answer is A at 1 point in time but later on in time as new things happen in society-court can reverse/overrule old decisions, only applies when theres no applicable statue or other type of law so it fills in gaps left by other legal rules

Trial Courts

-not governed by subject matter restrictions or limits on civil damages or crim penalities that govern courts of limited jurisdiction, courts of record that keep detailed records of hearings/trials/other proceedings, parties nearly always rep by attorneys County Court-Felony Family Court-Child Custody/Visitation Supreme Court-Matrimonial/>$25,000

Enumerated Congressional Powers

-only powers that congress has in making laws, est/collect taxes, reg foreign/interstate commerce, powers Congress can exercise,specific powers granted to congress as outlined in article 1 section 8 of const, fed legislation cant be const if its not based on power specifically stated in const

Takings Clause

-private property shall not be taken for public use w/o just compensation stated by 5th amendment/incorp into 14th amendment due process, recognizes govs power to take priv property/limits exercise of that power, requires that when property is subjected to gov taking-taking must be for public use/property owner must receive just compensation 1) Property-personal/land/liens/trade/secrets/contractual rights 2) Taking-total/partial/diminished value/interference 3) Public Use-gov owned facility/improvements which public has broad access/meaningful public purpose/Kelo v. City of New London 4) Just compensation-fair market value at time of taking

Obergefell v. Hodges

-same sex marriages, fundamental right, personal choice as to marriage is inherent in indv autonomy, 2 person union unlike any other,safeguards children/fams /marriage is keystone to social order-symbolic recognition/expanded gov rights/benefits/responsibilities -Facts- Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process -Questions-(1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? (2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? -Conclusion-Yes, yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of social order. Because there are no differences between a same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law

Functions of Constitution

1)Set up struct of gov for pol unit they control (separation of powers)-relation btw fed and state govs, respects the principle of Federalism-gov marked by mixed or compound levels including central of federal level and 1 or more regional levels in a single system, recognizing states power to make laws in certain areas 2) Rights of citizens/limits of gov power-prevent gov from taking certain actions or passing certain laws by prohibiting gov action that restricts certain indv rights

Settlement

2 parties w an attorney that negotiate back and forth and each party gives up something and they arent getting everything they want but they settle, avoiding protracted litigation thats often a sensible compromise for parties, usually a contract whereby defendant w/o admitting liability agrees to pay plaintiff sum of $ in exch for plaintiffs promise to drop claim against defendant

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room Movie

Enron overstated revs and used questionable/fraudulent accounting practices to make it appear that the comp was doing much better than they were so stock price would go up, The Enron Scandal surfaced in October 2001 when it was revealed that America's seventh largest company was involved in corporate corruption and accounting fraud. The scandal surrounding the Enron energy company included political implications due to Enron's close links with the White House, the Deregulation of ENRON allowing the corporation to operate largely free from US government scrutiny, misrepresentation in earnings reports, a fraudulent 'energy crisis' and embezzlement undertaken by ENRON Executives. The Enron scandal eventually led to the bankruptcy of the corporation together with and the dissolution of the auditing company Arthur Andersen. ENRON shareholders lost $74 billion leading up to its bankruptcy, and its employees lost their jobs and billions in pension benefits. Enron CEO Jeff Skilling was sentenced to 24 years, former CEO Kenneth Lay died before serving time

In Rem Jurisdiction

based on presence of property within a state, against a thing/not against a person, concerning cond/status of a thing, empowers state courts to determ rights in that prop even if persons whose rights r affected r outside states in personam jurisdiction

Forms of Speech That Can Be Regulated

Fraud, Defamation, Incitement, Obscenity, Child Pornography

Hate/Offensive/Viewpoint Speech

IS protected by free speech clause of 1st amendment, cases involving so called expressive conduct thats so inherently expressive that its treated for1st amendment purposes the same as speech uttered verbally/comm in writing, key question is whether gov action restricts content of speech as opposed to operating in content neutral way, content restrictions r reviewed w/ strict scrutiny

What points did Justice Rehnquiest rely upon in his dissent?

Justice Rehnquist argues that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend for the rights to be extended to include abortion, he cannot conclude that the right of privacy is involved in this case bc a transaction resulting in an operation is not private, the courts invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the 1st trimester is imposs to justify, only conclusion poss is that drafters didnt intend to have the 14th amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate this matter, being abortion

Articles of Constitution

Legislative Power-Article= I Executive Power-Article =11 Judicial Power-Article=111

Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

Minor Criminal Matters-misdemeanors/violations/traffic tickets, Civil Cases/Disputes-involving small amts of $ r decided here (probate/small claims courts)

Does an unborn child have a constitutional right?

No, bc they aren't considered a person

Commercial Speech Regulation

Noncommercial, Commercial (honest/lawful)-speech that proposes comm translation, involved ads for promoting bus, informed consumer choice would be furthered by removal of barriers to flow of comm info in which consumers would find an interest, protected by 1st amendment if it deals w/ lawful activity/isnt misleading, speech comm by/behalf of a comp/indv for purpose of promoting a product/service/bus, eco in nature/usually has intent of convincing audience to partake in partic action like purchasing a specific product, Commercial (dishonest/unlawful)-no 1st amendment protection if it misleads/seeks to promote illegal activity, commercial speech receives 1st amendment protection but not full variety extended to pol/noncomm speech(books/movies/visual art/newspapers/etc.) r fully protected bc their ed/informational/entertainment components outweigh profit motive, gov found it more difficult to justify restrictions on comm speech, gap btw intermediate/full protection for pol/other noncomm speech has become smaller over time

Abdouch v. Lopez

Supreme Court of Nebraska explains each of these types of in personam jurisdiction/goes to address specific jurisdiction arguments made in case, Abdouch got copy of a book and the author Yated inscribed a note to Abdouch in it and the copy was stolen and KLB (Ken Lopez Bookseller) brought it and then sold it again to a customer not in Nebraska.Abdouch learned that Lopez used inscription/refs to her in ad on their website w a pic of the inscription/the word sold, Lopez/KLP didnt get abdouchs permission before so she filed an invasion of privacy lawsuit, lacked in personam jurisdiction, conclude that Abdouchs complaint fails to plead facts to demonstrate that Lopez/KLB have sufficient minimum contacts w/ Nebraska and contacts created by the website have r unrelated to Abdouchs cause of action, case dismissal for lack of personam jurisdiction affirmed, since the advertisement on the website was not directly targeted at Nebraska residents, the defendant could not be hauled into Nebraska court

In Personam Jurisdiction

based on Residence/Location/Activities of Defendant, against a person, state/fed court has in personam jurisdiction over defendants who r citizens/residents of state even if situated out of state/ who r within states borders when process is served on them even if nonresidents/who consent to courts authority

Separation of Powers

a characteristic of gov that vests the executive, legislative, and judicial powers in separate bodies, creating branches/subdivisions of gov/stating powers given/denied to each, U.S. Constitution estb congress

Concurrent Jurisdiction

both state/fed courts have jurisdiction over case, ex:plaintiff might assert state court in personam jurisdiction over an out of state defendant, state court may sometimes decide cases invol fed questions

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

case regarding the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under the provisions in question, the ACA required most individuals to maintain minimum health insurance coverage and required states to expand their Medicaid programs or else lose federal Medicaid funds. The court upheld the individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of Congress' Article I taxing power and found that state participation in the Medicaid expansion program was voluntary -Question-Whether Congress had the power to require individuals to purchase health insurance, whether the individual mandate could be severed from the rest of the law, and whether the Medicaid expansion provision was unconstitutionally coercive to states -Conclusion-In a 5-4 decision issued June 27, 2012, the court upheld the individual mandate as constitutional under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause

Forum Selection Clause

contracts sometimes contain clause reciting that disputes btw parties regarding matters connected w/ contract must be litigated in courts of partic state, may have effect of addressing both jurisdiction/venue issues, found in form agreements whose terms werent product of actual discussion, an agreement that determines the location and/or the court where the legal dispute will be settled

Procedural Law

controls behav of gov bodies mainly courts as they est/enforce rules of substantive law

(Full) Strict Scrutiny

court might say challenged law must be necessary to fulfillment of a compelling gov purpose, might say that challenged law must be narrowly tailored to fulfillment of govs compelling purpose, gov action thats subjected to this rigorous test of const is usually struck down, law must be necessary to achieve compelling gov purpose, categories-Race, National origin, Alienage-generally, Fundamental Right-added later on bc of Obergefell v. Hodges for things like right to marriage

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

courts power to decide type of case/dispute involved in the case, ex: crim courts cant hear civil matters, $500,000 claim for breach of contract cant be pursued in small claims court

Jurisdiction

courts power to hear a case/issue decision thats binding on parties, something a court must have if its decision in a case is to be binding on the parties, a courts power to hear a case/issue a decision binding on the parties, power of a court to hear/decide a case

Defendant's Removal Option

defendant has opt to remove case to an appropriate fed district court assuming defendant acts promptly, can do this where concurrent jurisdiction exists/plaintiff opts for state court, ex: Hertz Corp v. Friend

Independent Checks

est that even if congress has an enumerated power to legislate a partic matter/state const authorizes state to take certain actions-theres still certain protected spheres into which neither fed gov/state gov may reach

Procedural Due Process

estb procedures that gov must follow when it takes life/liberty/property, core idea is that 1 is entitled to adequate notice of gov action to be taken against him/to some sort of fair trial/hearing before that action can occur

Federal Question Jurisdiction

exists when case arises under Const/laws/treaties of US, no amt in controversy requirement

Checks and Balances

fund principle of American gov guaranteed by Const whereby each branch of gov has some measure of influ over other branches/may choose to block procedure of other branches, articles 1,2,3 set up this system among Congress/pres/courts,exs:article 1 gives pres power to veto legislation passed by congress but allowes congress to override such a veto by 2/3s vote of each house

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

gen name applied to many nonjudicial means of settling priv disputes, benefits-quicker resolution of disputes/lower costs/lessening strain on court/specialized expertise of decision makers/pot for compromise decisions that promote/reflect consensus btw parties

Appellate Courts

generally decide only legal questions, review record of trial court proceedings, correct legal errors made by trial judge but usually accept trial courts findings of fact

Legislative

gives it power to make law in certain areas, write laws, exs: NYC city council

Long Arm Statutes

grants court jurisdiction over out of state defendant but need Minimum Contact, designed to give their courts in personam jurisdiction over out of state defendants in certain instances, nonresident indvs/bus may become subject to jurisdiction of states courts by committing a tort (civil wrong) within a state/committing tort outside that state if it produces harm within state, fed law permits fed courts to rely on long arm statues as basis for obtaining in personam jurisdiction over nonres defendants, even if this applies-must also meet due process standards

Fundamental Rights

group of rights that have been recognized by supreme court as requiring high degree of protection from gov encroachment, specifically id in const like under bill of rights or found under due process, laws that discriminate these or suspect classes must undergo more rigorous review,added later on under Strict Scrutiny bc of Obergefell v. Hodges for things like right to marriage regardless of couple genders/right to vote(Bush v. Gore)/interstate travel

Mediation

health counseling w/ a mediator and says how can we all be happy and work something out but if u cant get there then lets go to trial, a neutral third party called mediator helps parties reach cooperative resolution of their dispute by facilitating comm btw them/clarifying areas of agreement and disagreement/helping them see eachothers viewpoints/suggesting settlement opts, mediators cannot make decisions that bind parties but results in mediation agreement, used in diff sits like labor/comm/fam/enviro

Judicial

helps create fed judiciary to interpret laws, interprets the const/other laws, reviews lower court decisions, exs: small claims court, chief judge of ny, NY idv court

Means-Ends Test

judicially created bc no const right is absolute/bc judges must weigh indv rights against social purposes served by laws that restrict those rights, determine how courts strike balance btw indv rights/social needs that may justify restriction of right, ends part states how signif a social purpose must be in order to justify restriction of right, means part states how effectively challenged law must promote that purpose to be const

Price v. High Pointe Oil Co.

know legal rule/decision, cannot seek noneco damages, court surveys relevant legal landscape and concludes that longstanding common law rule should remain in effect, Beckie Price canceled her contract for oil refills with High Pointe Oil Company but Price got added back to the keep fill list and a High Pointe worker pumped 400 gallons of fuel oil into Price's basement and her house and belongings were destroyed and she was fully compensated for all her eco losses but only claim of hers to survive was 1 focused on her noneco losses like pain/suffering/humiliation/etc. question is whether noneco damages r recoverable for negligent destruction of real property?, relies on common law, Court ruled in favor of the defendant stating that noneconomic damages for the negligent destruction of property are not recoverable and the appropriate measure of damages is simply the cost of replacement or repair of the destroyed property

Comer v. Kansas City Royals Baseball.

know legal rule/decision-ppl assume the risk of a baseball/bat flying at u (inherent risks) of going to a baseball game and court ruled that getting hit by a hotdog is not an inherent risk of going to a baseball game, provides a further illustration of process of Case Law Reasoning, Missouri Supreme Court scrutinizes various precedents as it attempts to determ whether Missouris courts should extend the baseball rule that injuries suffered as a result of certain risks that r inherent to an activity like being struck by a foul ball, court decides not to expand baseball rule to facts of Coomers case-finding his injury from a hotdog didnt result from a risk inherent to attending a baseball game

Intermediate Scrutiny

law must be substantially related to an imp gov purpose, comes in many forms, ex: sex discrimmination test, categories-Gender, Illegitimacy, Undocumented alien children

Statutes

laws created by elected reps in congress/state legislature, stated in an authoritative form in statue books/codes, fed and state

Stare Decisis(Precedent)

let the decision stand, judges follow decisions of other judges in similar cases, appropriate legal rules in prior cases, standard for choosing/applying prior cases to decide present cases, cases should be decided alike, the present case should be decided in same way as past cases presenting same facts/same legal issues, its flexible enough to allow common law to evolve to meet changing social conds, if 1 court rules one way and later on if a court has a similar case come up again they should use the same decision they did earlier except if its overturned, current ex:(Roe v. Wade), first rule of statutory interp

Federal Supremacy(Preemption)

makes const/laws/treaties of US supreme over state law, abil of fed laws to defeat inconsis state laws in case they conflict, may cause fed statues to preempt inconsis state laws, const puts limits on states lawmaking powers, article 6 of const, dictates that when state law conflicts w valid fed law-fed law is supreme and state law is said to be preempted by fed reg -Literal conflict in laws/measures -Fed law explicitly states it is preempting state laws/regs -Fed law is pervasive/shows intent to displace state laws/regs -State laws/regs present as roadblock to fulfilling purpose of fed law

Diversity Jurisdiction

may help protect out of state defendants from potentially biased state courts, exists when 1) case is btw citizens of diff states/2) amt in controversy exceeds $75,000, also exists in certain cases btw citizens of a state/citizens/gov of foreign nation if over $75000, a corp is a citizen of both state where its been incorporated/state where it has principal place of bus

Federal Spending Power

must serve gen public purps, cond receipt of fed monies must set forth conds clearly, conds must be reasonably related to fed expenditures,cond grants of funding can encourage reg actions but cant compel/coerce, articles ⅛ gives congress broad abil to spend for gen welfare, by basing receipt of fed money on perf of certain conds-congress can use spending power to encourage states to take certain actions and advance specific reg ends

Did Supreme Court rule that privacy right to abortion is absolute?

not absolute bc after certain terms they would restrict the right to get an abortion

Daimler Ag v. Bauman

not significant minimum contacts so not general jurisdiction, 22 residents of Argentina filed suit in California against Daimler which was a German Mercedes Benz manufacturing company, plantiffs contended that during Argentina's Dirty war from 1976-1983-Merceds Argentina collab w/ state security forces to kidnap/detain/torture/kill certain Merceds Argentina worker, no part of MB Argemtina took place in cali or anywhere else in the US, The workers and relatives of workers in the Gonzalez-Catan plant of Mercedes Benz Argentina, a wholly owned subsidiary of German-based DaimlerChrysler AG ("the company"), sued the company for violations of the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991. They argued that, during Argentina's "Dirty War" of 1976-1983, the company sought to punish plant workers suspected of being union agitators and worked with the Argentinean military and police to do so by passing along information and allowing the plant to be raided. The plaintiffs also argued that the company stood to gain from these actions as they ended strikes and allowed the plant to continue operating at maximum production levels, the plaintiffs sued the company in district court in California, where some of the company's major subsidiaries are located under the Alien Torts Act, and the company moved for dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction, question-Can a court exercise jurisdiction over a foreign company based on the fact that a subsidiary of the company acts on its behalf in the forum state? No-The Court held that the company's slim contacts in California, relative to its other national and international contacts, are not sufficient to render it "at home" in the state for the purpose of general jurisdiction, it was an error to conclude that Daimler even w US contacts was at home in cali and subject to suit there on claims by foreign plaintiffs having nothing to do w anything that occurred/had its principal impact in cali

Minimum Contact

only can sue an out of state comp in ur state if the comp has minimum contact w/ that state and u can check a list to see, must be significant enough that it could not offend trad notions of fair play/substantial justice to require non resident defendant to defend case in forum state/fed district

Disparagement Clause

part test, "the likely meaning of the matter in question, taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but also . . . the manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or services", if identifiable Persons/Institutions/Beliefs/National Symbols-"whether that meaning may be disparaging to a Substantial Component of the referenced group"

Original Jurisdiction

power to decide a case as a trial court, acts as trial court, exs:foreign ambassadors/ministers

Federal Diversity

ppl in diff states that have a federal dispute and we wanna dispute we can but has to be over $75

Due Process

principle that an indv cant be deprived of life/liberty(freedom)/property w/o due process of law or appropriate legal procedures/safeguards being a trial/hearing, principle that an indv cannot be deprived of life/liberty/property w/o appropriate legal procedures/safeguards, 4th/5th amendments require govs to observe this when they deprive a person life/liberty/property, has both procedural/substantive meanings

Executive

provides for chief executive (pres) whose func is to execute/enforce laws, proposes laws/administers laws -exs: mayor, police,U.S. attorney, jail or prison, NY comptroller, state governor, FBI agents, DMV

Necessary and Proper Clause

provision granting Congress further power to "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers", dept on article ⅛ (taxing/spending power) but augments them by permitting congress to enact laws that r useful/conductive to exercise those enumerated powers, ex: Gonzales v. Raich

Federal Taxing Power

raise rev for fed gov, used as a reg device, articles ⅛ states congress shall have power to lay/collect taxes/duties/imposts/excises, main purpose is to provide means of raising rev for fed gov, may also serve as reg device of a disfavored activity by taxing it heavily/opt to encourage a favored activity by taxing lowering/elim tax, ex: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Rational Basis Test

relaxed test of constitutionality where challenged laws usually pass w/ ease, typically say gov action need only have a reasonable relation to achievement of legitimate gov purpose to be const, is basic equal protection, law must be rationally related to a legitimate gov interest, categories-Alienage classifications related to self gov and dem process, Congressional reg of aliens, Age, Disability, Wealth, All other classifications

Venue

requirement distinct from jurisdiction that the court be geo situated so that its most appropriate/convenient court to try the case, before venue is addressed-must be jurisdiction, must be territory fair/convenient forum, even if court has jurisdiction-applicable venue requirements must also be satisfied for case to proceed in that court (even if a court has jurisdiction-may be unable to decide case bc venue requirements set by statues that have not been met), court has venue if its a territorially fair/convenient forum in which to hear case

Citizens United v. Federal Election Corporation

ruled on 1st amendment based challenge to fed statue that restricted uses of corp funds for a "electioneering communications" close to time of an election/for ads amounting to express advocacy for/against a candidate who was seeking office, treating funding restrictions as speech restrictions as speech restriction- a 5 justice majority of court held that they violated 1st amendment bc they couldnt withstand strict scrutiny

Equal Protection Clause

says that "no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws", applies to all sits gov distinguishes as ppl, set standards for being const, rational basis test is basic equal protection

Commerce Clause

serves as an indp check on state reg that unduly restricts interstate commerce, empowers congress to reg commerce that occurs among states, 3 cats-1) reg channels of interstate commerce, 2) reg/protecting instrumentalities of interstate comm/persons and things in interstate comm, 3) reg activities that substant affect interstate comm, gov action, reg channels of interstate commerce, reg/protect instrumentalities of interstate commerce (persons/things), reg activities that substantially affect commerce "Affecting Commerce Doctrine", limits states ability

Substantive Law

sets the rights/duties of ppl as they act in society

Concurrent Powers

shared powers btw national/state,both nat/state can make law within those areas unless congress preempts state reg under supremacy clause, exs: maintain law/order, levy taxes, borrow $

1st Rule of Statutory Interpretation

stare decisis/already an appellate case that addresses the issue, plain language

If Plain Lang Not Clear/No Precedent

stated legislative intent, compare/contrast, courts view of legislative intent, *prac commentary

Federalism Venn Diagram

structures power relations btw fed gov/states, gov marked by mixed/compound levels inclu central of fed level/1 or more regional levels in single system, National/State/Shared Powers, est/collect taxes, reg foreign/interstate commerce

Arbitration

table w/ judge thats very informal and the arbiturur makes the decision, submission of dispute to neutral/nonjudicial third party (arbitrator) who issues binding decision resolving dispute, usually results from parties agreement, may be compelled by other statues, less formal than reg court proceedings

Appellate Jurisdiction

the power of an appellate court to review, amend and overrule decisions of a trial court or other lower tribunal, the power of a higher court to hear cases from a lower court