Law and The Legal Process Exam 1
Pragmatic Theory
judges base decisions on potential consequences of their case, may ignore law and precedent and judge based on what feels right based on what they think will be the best result (utilitarian), equity
Strategic Theory
judges decision based on how they tis other judges, legislators and the ppl will react, ex: Shepard v Maxwell-judge let the media leak evidence so he could be reelected, makes more sense for state judges than federal judges bc federal appointed for life may sacrifice principles for political agenda
Lassiter v Northhampton
literacy tests for voting are allowed as long as they are given to all races, overruled by Voting Rights Act
frank Schubert law (authoritarian stance)
might makes right, those in power make laws
Duff Mcdonald on business ethics
much unethical behavior comes form Harvard focusing on maximizing profits and reaching little about social responsibility
attitudinal theory
judges make decisions based primarily on their own political preferences, political scientists support this view and focus on higher court decisions, (court is getting more polarized) really depends on the judge ex: (Roberts broke ranks with NFIB and Marshall with Marbury v Madison- wouldn't confirm midnight appointments)
Analytical Positivism
law is a self sufficient system of legal rules created by sovereign according to duly established procedures, law is not dependent on reason, ethics, morals, or social consequence, similar to legalist theory
legalist theory
law is a system of consistent rules that is separate from outside influence
universal/natural law
law is based on built in sense of right and wrong that ppl have at birth, used for universal human rights, prevalent in international law, not effective when society cannot come to a consensus on what is right and wrong (multinational corps) (Rome statute)
3 objectives of law
laws should be slow to change so ppl can understand and properly enforce them, guide for conduct laws should adapt to changes in society procedural process of law should be efficient laws should be based on benefit to furthering specific policy goals (banning discrimination, gay marriage)
psychological theory
many legal cases have vague facts and so their interpretation are purposefully vague, because of this-judges preconceptions and biases affect how they interpret ex: Justice Sotomayor's stamens on Latina women
us v knowles
merchant marine captain charged with manslaughter for not trying to reduce sailor that fell overboard, dusty omitted was a plain duty, must be bound to act for others by law
state v beam
mother guilty if manslaughter for letting her baby freeze to death
Gibbons v. Ogden
the commerce clause is very broad and any commercial activity deemed internal in same state that doesnt affect other states is outside of Congress' authority, commerce clause is complete in itself, and to be exercised to its utmost extent without limitations except those listed in the constitution contradicts Shreveport Rates which says if interstate and intrastate commerce are too intertwined, commerce clause does apply
Bretts v. Brady
the right to counsel is limited (Powell v Alabama), inspired Gideon v wainwright
licensing agreement are intended
to limit competition in industry and special interests to those who already have the credentials
Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic
torture alone is not a good enough reason for ATS because no consensus that international law applied to torture
Sheppard v. Maxwell
trial judge let media have free reign in doctor criminal case so he would be reelected
Regina v Istan
unmarried woman living with old sick aunt who couldn't move, didn't give her food or medicine and let her die, common law obligation
Max Weber defines law as
(look at quote), unless a rule is enforced it is not a law
Jesner v. Arab Bank
(more recent than nestle) courts can't extend ATS liability to foreign corps bc it creates diplomatic tensions, US corps or corps with enough ties for us gen jurisdiction can be sued for violating universal international laws
Common Law History (1066-1200)
-before 1066 9the Norman invasions)-England was separated into shires (overseen by shire reeve (sheriff) ) and further separated hundreds, hundreds were used for military, tax, and judicial purposes and overseen by a reeve -hundreds had court once a month -shires had court overseen by shire reeve and bishop and would have court on all matters too difficult for hundred court, based on local customs that differed in each shire and had no appellate process -with the Norman invasion-many English and French customs mixed which produced some of the legal jargon we use today and in 1066-1200 AD- England slowly developed a common law
Henry II
-created royal court made from members of Curia Regis, eventually known as Court of Kings/ Queens Bench -used writs that defined exact procedures to confer jurisdiction and resolve disputes, these writs were recorded in first law libraries (Henry Bracton year books)
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
1970s prohibits individuals from paying foreign gov officials in order to retain business in these countries- US v Castle says that this can only be enforced with us citizens and corps
Roper v. Simmons
8th amendment prohibits execution of minors no matter what the crime (inspired miller decision)
Powell v Alabama
9 illiterate African Americans unlawfully convicted and accused of rape, mob formed demanding their execution, court didn't give them counsel till day before, convicted sentenced to death, retried after NAACP and communist party stepped in, reversed betts v Brady
Posners nine theories on how judges make legal decisions
:
before a law gets passed...
1. must go through several committees before being put in floor for vote 2.passed by majority in house and senate 3. goes to president or governor for signature or veto 4 if vetoed, gies back to congress-who can overrule by 2/3ds vote (in both house and senate)
precepts
2 types: -Rule of Law: specific set of circumstances can be clearly defined, same rule will apply no matter the judge ex: if a happens court does b, something just exist for a contract to be enforceable (consideration) principle: circumstances are ambiguous and there is no definite action, court follows this process: 1:general situation of fact is established (court clumps similar cases together) 2. if the facts of this case are similar to those other cases, the same principles will be used in making the decision (precedent, stare decis) 3. if the facts are not similar enough, court must decide another way
bucklew v precythe
2018, 8th amendment doesnt prevent a painful death as long as death was not intended to be painful, defendant had lethal injection and hemorrhaged and choked on blood, punishments have to have been not long disused
Graham v. Florida
8th amendent prohibits life without parole minors that did non-himicide (inspired miller decision)
Kadic v. Karadzic
ATS can be applied when discussing genocide
Sweatt v. Painter (1950)
African American Herman Sweatt applied two University of Texas Law School, he was decided solely based on his race, he sued under equal protection, Texas agreed to make an equal law school for blacks but it was inferior, appealed and Supreme Court made UofT accept him
Article 1 Section 8
Clause 1-Congress has to power to collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States Clause 3- congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states and with Indian tribes clause 18-congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper
Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
Congress may not regulate a purely local act under its Commerce Clause powers.
Gregg v. Georgia
Death penalty is constitutional under both 8th and 14th amendment -death penalty was an accepted punishment when this amendment was written, limits formation of mobs and lawlessness
*Gideon v. Wainwright
FACTS: 1961, Clarence Gideon allegedly broke into a pool al and stole money , (someone saw him with lots of cash and wine the next day), Gideon was indignant (poor) and requested a lawyer, Florida dint provide lawyers for non-capital offenses, Gideon dfended himself and lost but later filed habeas corpus ISSSUE: was florida not providing him an attorney a violation of the 6th amendment? RULE/HOLDING: yes this violated 6th RATIONALE: (Brets v Brady precedent) (Powell v Alabama)
*Miller v Alabama
FACTS: 2012, 14 yr old Kuntrell Jackson robbed a convenience store and was charged with felony murder b/c his friend shot the clerk, even miller trigged his friend, robbed him, and set his trailer on fire, both kids charged with life w/o parole ISSUE: is giving a minor life w/o parole a violation of 8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment? holding (rule); RATIONALE: yes this violates 8th amendment, Roper and Graham precedent, social science says that children are not yet fully mature and can shape up DISSENT: the 8th amendment was intended fr actually cruel and unusual punishments, violates states rights, keeps general population safe
*People v Beardsley
FACTS: Beardsley had been having an affair with Blanche burns and she had been living with him for the weekend while his wife was away, they were intoxicated the whole time and spin him asking her to leave before his wife came back, she asked the servant to get her a large amount of morphine, Beardsley tried to prevent her form taking it but she did it an overdosed, instead oof calling the cops, Beardsley took her to the basement for his neighbor man to look after her, she died, Beardsley arrested for murder ISSSUE: its the omission of duty that results in someones death enough to charge someone with manslaughter RULE/HOLDING: the court ruled this was not manslaughter RATIONALE: Beardsley had no obligation to act because there was so special relationship (husband-wife, parent-child, master-seaman), she did this if her own free will, she is of sound mind, chose to be there Lord Coleridge-every moral obligation is not a legal duty but every legal duty is based on moral obligation
*NFIB v. Sebelius
FACTS: Congress passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010, Rick Scott sued saying ti was unconstitutional because congress cannot penalize ppl not buying health insurance with a tax, Florida won and district level but federal government appealed and case was consolidated with others form National Federation of Independent Business, government said this act was intended to increase numbers of ppl buying health insurance so that the price doesnt skyrocket and that it was constitutional b/c congress can tax, regulate commerce, and make laws necessary and proper ISSSUE:did ACA exceed congresses article 1 authority RULE/HOLDING: congress does have the authority to pass this act RATIONALE: only has this authority based on Congress' power to tax and not based in the other Article 1 powers the government claimed CONCURRING OPINION: states cannot do this (insurance providers would leave the state and those that didn't would be overwhelmed by sick ppl that move there for coverage, rational basis, didn't agree with Robert's vegetable analogy
*Marsalis v LaSalle
FACTS: Ms. Marsalis was scratched by the Lasalle's family cat in the Lasalle family store, the cat had no history of being aggressive (no liability for cat being in the store), Marsalis panicked after being scratches and asked laSalles to monitertheir cat for signs if rabies, the LaSalles accidentally let it escape and Marsalis then decided to get rabies treatment and had bad reaction to it, Marsalis sued LASalles and wanted them to pay her medical bills ISSSUE: does someone who voluntarily agrees to take action for injured person new that heron reasonable care RULE/HOLDING: defendants liable not because cat was in the store (previously never been aggressive), but because they had agreed to lock it up and monitor it and failed to do so, they ended up having to pay her medical bills, common law obligation RATIONALE: DISSENT:
*Washington v. Glucksberg
FACTS: Washington passed 1994 rule that bans people helping others commit self murder including doctors , Natural Death Act prohibited doctor assisted suicide, a group of doctors sued ISSSUE: is the right to commit suicide a fundamental right?, does banning it violate 14th amendment due process of law? RULE/HOLDING:n this does not violate the 14th amendment and suicide is not a right RATIONALE: this country has not historically considered suicide a right or history of being discouraged, fundamental liberty interest, (clarified cruzcan case) 1. preserved ppls right to live 2. protects integrity of doctors 3. protects vulnerable form abuse and neglect 4. protects disabled/terminal ill from societal indifference 5. slippery slope
* US v. Lopez
FACTS: congress passed Gun Free School Zones Act in 1990, Art 1 sec 8 clause 3 gives congress the power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, high school senior Alfonso Lopez Brough a loaded gun to school and was arrested and convicted for violating this act, he appealed saying the Act was unconstitutional because it exceeded congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce ISSSUE: Did Congress exceed its authority under the commerce clause in passing this Act? RULE/HOLDING: yes, this exceeds congress' authority under the commerce clause (first time since Carter v Carter Coal) (Gibbons v Ogden) (Ala poultry corp) RATIONALE: Congress can only regulate interstate commerce based on 1.channels of interstate commerce ex:roads, rivers etc, to keep them free form immoral injurious use 2. goods and merchandise being sold and shipped between states 3. activities that substantially affect interstate commerce gun free schools act needed to be compared to number 3 (Wickard v Filburn) this does not have enough of a tie to interstate commerce, not an economic activity DISSENT: guns in schools do affect interstate commerce because violent crimes affect education which affects commerce, education is intertwined with economy
*Brown v Board of Education
FACTS: consolidated many cases, African Americans , suing states for denying them equal access to schooling which had been justified under separate but equal (1896 plessy v Ferguson), said this violated their 14th amendment rights, not equal ISSUE: is separate but equal a violation of equal protection undertake 14th amendment RULE/HOLDING: yes this violates 14th RATIONALE: stare decis would've made it go the other way, schools at the time were not mandatory or good, only real precedent was Sweatt v Painter and McLaurin v Oklahoma, looked at social science-negative psychological effects due to segregation DISSENT:
*People v Belge
FACTS: defense attorneys Francis Belge and Frank Armani represented Robert Garrow-suspected of killing Phillip Domblewski while camping, suspected in other murders as well, Garrow confessed to attorneys that a he knew where other bodies were (Alicia Hauck) and told them where and drew a picture, attorneys found the bodies and burned the pictures, the bodies where later discovered, Belge accidentally let it slip during Garriw's trial that he had known where the bodies were, New Work law required people to report discovery of bodies, Belge said that he couldn't have revealed this info due to attorney client privilege ISSSUE: does an attorney given info from client that is relevant to an investigation have to report it RULE/HOLDING: he did not have to report this because of attorney client privilege (US v Funk) (US v Nixon), charge was dismissed RATIONALE: attorney client privilege, all criminal defendants have the right to remain silent (5th amendment)-this right is extended to the lawyer, client can wave this right but attorney cannot, DISSENT:
*Doe I v Nestle, Inc 2014
FACTS: many children are kidnapped and sold into slavery in the Ivory Coast, and are held as slaves for coach farms with really harsh conditions, plaintiffs suing nestle for aiding and abetting child slavery, nestle doesnt own the farms and farmers not their employees but a subcontractor, nestle know about the slavery, do yearly inspections, lobbied against a bill that would require a slave free label on goods, nestle suggested self policing system, nestle is based in Switzerland with execs here, Alien Tort Statute (US law that allows foreign defendants to sue corporations) ISSSUE: can foreign plaintiffs sue in a us court with ATS and foreign defendant for aiding and abetting child slavery RULE/HOLDING: -yes they can do this, prohibition of slavery is universal, COURTS CANT BASE ATS LAWSUIT ON ANY VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, HAS TI BE VIOLATION OF CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW, (BEHAVIOR IS SPECIFIC, UNIVERSAL, OBLIGATORY) RATIONALE: -ATS can be sued for international law violations, (filartiga, Sosa, Erie doctrine) -any defendant (corp or not) who violates international norms will be held accountable -war crime tribunals to prosecute nazis:no rule exempts corporations form engaging in slavery -nestle met highest standard of requisite intent (acted purposefully and offered support to the farms, lobbying effort) -requisite Actus Reus? (Sierra lione), court coulant answer this -plaintiff has to amend for presumption against extraterritoriality, actions have to be tied to Us (kiobel) DISSENT: defendants didn't necessarily aid and abet cocoa farmers just because child slavory is cheapest form of labor, corps are allowed to lobby, what's wrong with wanting ton make more profits
*Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections
FACTS: virginia passed a law allowing poll taxes, Annie harper sued saying this violated the 14th amendment ISSSUE: do poll taxes violate the 14th amendment RULE/HOLDING: violates the equal protection clause, economic standing of person should not determine electoral standard RATIONALE: (overruled breedlove v suttles) (separated form (Lassiter v Northampton) (based on Reynolds v simmons)- any infringement of right to vote must be scrutinized, politics should have no sway in interpretation of 14th amendment DISSENT: referred to dissent in Lochner v New York
Wickard v. Filburn (1942)
FDR was trying to stabilize the price of wheat and based the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 that limited the amount of land farmers could use to grow wheat , Roscoe Filburn violated this act but claimed he was not selling the excess and only using it for his own consumption, court ruled that this does affect interstate commerce because of the wheat he os not buying
aiding and abetting
New Mexico Statute 30-22-4: knowingly concealing an offender or giving them aid, while knowing that they committed a felony, and with the intent that they avoid arrest or trial or punishment, fought degree felony
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala
Paragyuan citizens sued paragyuan police officer for their sons murder, ARS designed to free all people from brutal violence
Mechanical Jurisprudence
Roscoe pound, willingness of court to make strict decisions that might have unjust outcome w/p regard to social impact
Buch v Armory Manufacturing Co.
factory foreman not responsible for injuries of child who got his arm ripped off playing in foreman factory because this man had no legal duty to this child
Historical Jurisprudence
The theory that law is only valid if the will of the sovereign is compatible with long held values, customs, and social practices if the people, Karl Marx's firewood argument, poachers argue this
Incorporation
applying the Bill of Rights to the states
policy
body of ethical, political, and philosophical ideas as to the end of law
US v Funk
confidential communications between an attorney and client are privileged form disclosure
you are obligated too help another person with
contractual obligation (master to seaman), special relationship (family, also master), common law obligation- you volunteered to care for a helpless person, cat case)
Rome Statute International law
corporations not held liable for violations under Rome statute (see nestle case, differs)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
court authority in channels if commerce is based on the need to keep these channels free form immoral ad injurious use
New York Central & Hudson River r co v us
defined vicarious liability, corporation can be held liable for employees actions, executives for a railroad company were charged for illegally paying rebates to sugar refining companies, prior to this case-corporations could not be charged with a crime because ti would violate 5th amendment shareholders right by taking property without due process
Henry I
developed curia regis in 1100 (while common law was still developing), the curia traveled and visited different courts
legal realists
distinguish between law in books and law in practice and says that judges make decisions based on personal biases/beliefs rather than legal rules and precedent
stare decis
doctrine of precedents, you reference past decisions pound says some judges follow precedent more than others (Scalia said Clarence Thomas doesnt believe in stare decis) because judges are always facing new situations, however, they often also use their own understand, background, and ethos in deciding just because legal terms don't change, doesnt mea the way we interpret them doesnt change
14th amendment
due process of law, equal protections of the law
Incorporated Amendments
enforced by both federal and state courts -1st amendment -2nd amendment -4th amendment -5th (double jeopardy) -5th (self incrimination) -5th (due process) -5th (takings clause) -6th (speedy trial) -6th (impartial jury) -6th (informed clause) -6th (confrontation clause) -6th (compel witnesses clause) -6th (counsel clause) -8th (cruel and unusual punishment)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
established separate but equal, mixed Homer Plessy purchased ticket for whites only rail car (Louisiana had previously passed Separate Car Act), plessy was arrested and argued equal protection but the judge said Louisiana could inly make rules for intrastate cars, he appealed, judge said 14th amendment was only intended to create absolute equality under the law and politically but said nothing about socially or commingling, African Americans are just choosing to put a label of inferiority
State v Mobbley
family exception to aiding and abetting doesnt apply if you are harboring an additional felon, even f you think this person will reveal your felon
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain
federal common law makes tort liability for violations of international law, ATS moved federal courts jurisdiction to hear this new common law - international tort law claims
Sarei v. Rio Tinto
genocide and war crimes satisfy requirements for ATS, universally despised everywhere
utilitarian law approach
government should weigh the positives and negatives of passing a law and create laws that promote the general publics happiness, maximize pleasure minimize pain, ends justify the means, problem is tat government does not always know what is best for the people
State v. Smith
husband didn't shelter or clothe insane wife, left her freezing in winter, charged with her death because has duty as a husband
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
if intrastate commercial activity only indirectly affects interstate commerce, regulation of this exceeds congress' authority, difference between direct and indirect activity
Oliver Wendell Holmes on law
if u want to know law, look at a bad man, law is a highly educated guessing game
exception to aiding and abetting (New Mexico)
if you are related to the felon (husband, wife, parent, guardian, grandparent/child, sister/brother
Massachusetts Good Samaritan law 238 40
if you know someone is a victim of rape, murder, manslaughter, or armed robbery and are at the scene of the crime and can report it without endangering yourself or others, you must report it asap
sociological theory
in high level courts, several judges may work together to decide and the racial, political, ideological, sexual, makeup of the panel affects decisions most non SCJ don't like to dissent and many judges views become more moderate overtime, judges don't get to chose who they work with ex: Souter became more liberal overtime
Reynolds v. Sims
infringement on right to vote must be scrutinized, you are not more or less of a citizen based ion where you live, equal protection
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents
intangible difference between educational facilities
SC Justice Benjamin Cardozo says law-
is a principle or rule of conduct so established as to justify a prediction with reasonable certainty that it will be enforced by courts if authority is challenged, some decisions can be predicted with a high level of certainty
utilitarian view of torture
it is ethical to torture someone if doing so saves lives, many international courts don't label certain acts as torture
Hugh Caperton v AT Massey Coal Co
judge wouldn't recuse himself in case involving influential campaign contributor, not allowed
organizational theory
judges act as agents of their principals (ppl who elect them, politician that appoints them
economic theory
judges are rational and self-interested and want to maximize payoff and efficiency, may be motivated by desire for leisure time (pressure ppl into plea bargains), or motivated by income (may want more cases so more pay) -doesnt make sense because most judges don't control their pay and don't have much of a chance to be promoted ex: Judge DeLaughter was bribed and later removed and went to prison, Judge Henry Lackey was also being bribed by Dickie Scruggs but reported it
Plutner v silver associates inc
no legal duty to assist someone sick or injured (unless one of the 3 obligations or you are responsible for the sickest/injury)
Breedlove v. Suttles (1937)
poll tax is a reasonable exercise if states police powers (overturned by harper)
Pound sates that the law is composed of:
precepts, policy, and precedent
legalist theory
preferred theory of lawyers/judges, decisions are based on the law which exists separate form outside factors
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum
presumption in the law against extraterritoriality , default assumption that legislation of congress is only meant to apply to us
Sherman Antitrust Act (before NYC railroad case)
prohibited illegal collaboration of parties to fix prices of goods
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
prohibits discrimination in employment and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, can't discriminate based on gender, race, religion, national origin
Americans with Disabilities Act
prohibits employers from discriminating based on disability, does not prevent employers from hiring/firing someone for legit reason
legal sociologists
quantify legal decisions, claim that discrimination and relational distance determine outcome more than legal rule, many legal socialists have gone too far in dismissing role of precedent
occupational health and safety act
required companies to ensure safe working conditions for their employees
furman v Georgia death penalty rationale
retribution is mans instinct and doing this legally promotes stability, Marshall disagree-ppl will not take the law into their own hands if the death penalty is outlawed
Magna Carta
signed by King John in 1215, giving citizens rights and power of self-governance, inspired many principles in constitution (Article 1)
US v. Nixon
some forms of privilege (executive), (attorney-client) is more important than courts need for this information
Martin Luther King on ethics
someone who breaks a law that they believe to be unjust and peacefully accepts the punishment so others will get upset about it is paying the highest respect to the law, many ppl who were once considered terrirists are now revered (mandela)
Rights not Incorporated
state courts to not have ti guarantee if they don't want to -3rd amendment -5th (grand jury clause) 6th (district clause) -6th (jury unanimity clause) -7th amendment -8th (bail clause) -8th (fines clause) -9th amendment
Lochner v. New York
state law tried to regulate number of hours that bakers can work, many bakers where getting white lung, decided based in laissez faire, dissent-decisions has nothing to do with majority opinion, but by various decisions of the court, spoke against Herbert Spencer book that said there shupldnt be regulations because of survival of the fittest, politics shouldn't have role in interpretation
Phenomenological theory
what does it feel like the minute a judge makes a decision, different life experiences may shape their perceptions whether or not a judge is aware of this, unawareness of biases may lead a judge to believe they are being objective
