LEGL test 1 study guide PDF

Preview

Summary

Download LEGL test 1 study guide PDF

Description

Quizlet link https://quizlet.com/252478748/legl-test-1-roessing-flash-cards/

Chapter 3—The Court System Personnel 1. Trial judges determine the applicable law, and in cases without a jury, they also are responsible for finding the facts. 2. Appellate courts act as reviewing courts and generally are concerned with issues of law. 3. The petit jury is the trial jury that returns a verdict. 4. The nation’s top 10 jury verdicts include three over $500 million. 5. Lawyers serve three roles: counselor, advocate, and public servant.

Organization of the court system 1. The court system—both at the federal and state level—operates on three levels: the trial court, the court of appeals, and the supreme court. 2. Trial courts focus on the law and facts while reviewing courts focus only on the law. 3. The parties to litigation are entitled as a matter of right to one review of their case by a higher court. 4. Subject matter jurisdiction must exist for a court to hear a case. 5. Federal courts typically obtain jurisdiction upon diversity of citizenship or federal questions. 6. The highest legal authority in the United States is the U.S. Supreme Court. 7. Parties seek permission to bring their case to the Supreme Court through a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Judicial Review 1. Judicial review allows the courts to review actions taken by legislative and executive branches of government. 2. The philosophy of judicial restraint is sometimes referred to as strict constructionism or a conservative approach. 3. Supporters of judicial activism believe the courts are the appropriate body to bring about social, political, and economic change. 4. The Supreme Court is deeply divided between these two competing views of judicial decision making.

Chapter 4—Litigation Litigation-an overview 1. The party who files a civil action is called the plaintiff and the party sued is known as the defendant. 2. To establish standing to sue, a plaintiff must establish that a case or controversy exists and that he or she has a personal stake in the resolution of the case. 3. Long-arm statutes are constrained or limited by the requirement the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state. 4. Many requirements must be met to bring a classaction suit, particularly in a federal court.

Pretrial Procedures 1. Lawsuits typically are won and lost at the discovery stage of litigation. 2. Interrogatories are a series of written questions that must be answered by the opposing party. 3. Substantial penalties can be imposed by courts for abusing the discovery process. 4. Abusive discovery is one of the primary reasons for the high cost of litigation. 5. A motion for summary judgment seeks to resolve the case without a trial. 6. Frivolous cases are not a significant problem and can be redressed.

The Trial 1. Peremptory challenges may not be based upon race or gender discrimination. 2. A directed verdict or judgment as a matter of law may be granted when the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that the moving party is entitled to a verdict. 3. Jury instructions are used to acquaint the jury with the law applicable to the case. 4. In most civil cases, the preponderance standard is used to evaluate the case. 4. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be entered if the verdict is erroneous as a matter of law.

Chapter 6—Constitution First 14 Amendments to the US Constitution I.

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition (1791)

II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV.

Right to Keep and Bear Arms (1791) Conditions for the Quarters of Soldiers (1791) Right of Search and Seizure (1791) Provisions Regarding Prosecution (1791) Right to a Speedy Trial, Witnesses, etc. (1791) Right to a Trial by Jury (1791) Excessive Bail and Cruel Punishment (1791) Rule of Construction of the Constitution (1791) Rights of States (1791) State Sovereign Immunity (1798) Electoral College (1804) Abolishment of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude (1865) Due Process and Equal Protection (1868)

Supreme Court Cases + Other Cases Sea Search Armada v. Republic of Columbia (D.D.C. 2011) 

Statue of limitations

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) 







Facts o Spokeo, Inc. (Spokeo) operated a website that provided information about individuals such as contact data, marital status, age, occupation, and certain types of economic information. Thomas Robins sued Spokeo and claimed that the company willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by publishing false information about him on the website. However, Robins was unable to allege any “actual or imminent harm,” so the district court granted Spokeo’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and Robins’ lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Robins then filed an amended complaint in which he alleged that he suffered actual harm to his employment prospects due to the website falsely claiming that he was wealthy. The district court originally denied Spokeo’s motion to dismiss but later reconsidered its order and dismissed the complaint for failure to state an injury in fact. Robins appealed and argued that the district court could not reconsider its previous decision and that he had sufficiently alleged an injury in fact to qualify for Article III standing. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and held that, although the district court could reconsider its ruling, the allegation of a violation of a statutory right is sufficient injury to qualify for standing. Question o Can Congress authorize a cause of action based on a violation of a federal statute and therefore confer Article III standing on a plaintiff who has not suffered concrete harm? Conclusion o The Ninth Circuit's Article III standing analysis was incomplete because it failed to consider both aspects of the injury-in-fact requirement. Key points o An individual must have standing to pursue a claim. o To have standing, the individual must suffer an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized. o Intangible injuries can be concrete if they actually occurred to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.

Mayer v. Belichick (2010) 

Key Points o To maintain a lawsuit, a plaintiff must have standing or a legally cognizable claim. o The Third Circuit found that, because the plaintiff did not have a legally protected right arising out of the alleged “dishonest” videotaping program, he did not state an actionable injury. o Accordingly, defendant’s motions to dismiss were granted.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 





Facts o Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart "greeter" at a Pittsburg, Calif., store, and five other women filed a class action lawsuit in which they alleged that the company's nationwide policies resulted in lower pay for women than men in comparable positions and longer wait for management promotions than men. The certified class, which in 2001 was estimated to comprise more than 1.5 million women, includes all women employed by Wal-Mart nationwide at any time after December 26, 1998, making this the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history. Wal-Mart has argued that the court should require employees to file on an individual basis, contending that class actions of this size – formed under Rule 23(b) of the federal rules of civil procedure — are inherently unmanageable and unduly costly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has three times upheld the class certification. Question o Can the small group of women who began the case represent a gigantic class of women? Conclusion o On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Walmart's favor by saying the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class. The Court ruled unanimously that because of the variability of plaintiffs' circumstances, the class action could not proceed as comprised. o The Court ruled 5–4 that it could not proceed as any kind of class action suit. Critics of the opinion allege that the decision makes it



incredibly difficult to certify a class without a prohibitive amount of work on the part of plaintiff attorneys. The requirement to look through the class to the merits requires an immense amount of discovery, which was not previously required. Key Points o “Commonality,” which requires a plaintiff to show that there are “questions of law or fact common to the class,” is an essential element to establish a class action. o Because the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate commonality, class certification was denied. o Even though class certification was denied, women in the potential class can still bring claims if they can demonstrate discrimination.

Saladin v. City of Milledgeville 

Summary o Given our conclusion that the appellants have standing to bring a challenge to the current uses of the city seal, the question of the seal's constitutionality under the Establishment Clause remains to be decided. Since this case was submitted and decided by the district court on a motion for summary judgment, it is inappropriate that we now reach and decide the merits of the constitutional claim. We therefore remand the case for trial on the merits under the principles of Establishment Clause law articulated by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), and by this Circuit in Rabun County, supra, 698 F.2d at 1109 et seq. Accordingly, the district court's opinion is REVERSED AND REMANDED. Saladin v. City of Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693-94 (11th Cir. 1987)

Snyder v. Phelps (2011) 

Speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".



Facts o The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of







emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment's protections on religious expression. The church members' speech is protected, "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature of the words." Question o Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased? Conclusion o Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Justice Stephen J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he wrote that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion in the case, "I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point." Justice Samuel Alito filed a lone dissent, in which he argued: "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case." Key Points o The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected the picketing because it pertained to a matter of “public concern.” Although many may consider the messages problematic, the Court found that they address a range of issues, including political and moral conduct, which pertain to broad public issues. o The Court declined to expand the captive audience doctrine to a situation such as this one, in which the protesters stayed in the authorized location, away from the memorial service, and there were no facts that suggested that the picketing disrupted the funeral service. o This decision underscores a level of protection afforded to the First Amendment. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito expresses a very different stance.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) 

Facts o Associations of companies that create, publish, distribute, sell and/or







rent video games brought a declaratory judgment action against the state of California in a California federal district court. The plaintiffs brought the claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments seeking to invalidate a newly-enacted law that imposed restrictions and labeling requirements on the sale or rental of "violent video games" to minors. The district court found in favor of the plaintiffs and prevented the enforcement of the law. o On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that: (1) violent video games did not constitute "obscenity" under the First Amendment, (2) the state did not not have a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm to minors allegedly caused by video games, and (3) even if the state had a compelling interest, the law was not narrowly tailored enough to meet that objective. Question o Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors? Conclusion o Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia. "Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection." Justice Samuel Alito concurred in judgment, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts. Alito noted that he disagreed "with the approach taken in the Court's opinion. In considering the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology, this Court should proceed with caution. We should make every effort to understand the new technology." Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer filed separate dissents. Adhering to his strict understanding of the Framers' intent with the Constitution, Thomas wrote: "The Court's decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment." Breyer argued that the California statute met current constitutional standards. Key Points o The Court was asked to determine the constitutionality of a California law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors and requiring their packaging to be labeled “18.” o The Court held that the law did not meet the requirements of strict

scrutiny. Although the law may have had worthwhile intentions, California did not demonstrate a compelling interest that is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. As such, the law was deemed unconstitutional. o Should the First Amendment protect violent speech? If not, where should the line be drawn?

Kelo v. City of New London 







Facts o New London, a city in Connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to seize private property to sell to private developers. The city said developing the land would create jobs and increase tax revenues. Susette Kelo and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation. Specifically, the property owners argued taking private property to sell to private developers was not public use. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled for New London. Question o Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause if the city takes private property and sells it for private development, with the hopes the development will help the city's bad economy? Conclusion o No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the majority held that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'" Key Points o The Supreme Court considered the scope of the “public use” requirement in connection with the taking of private property. The specific consideration was whether a city’s development plan serves a “public purpose.”

o The Court concluded that the city of New London designed its plan to provide significant benefits to the community, including new jobs and increased tax revenue. o Accordingly, the Court held that the public use requirement of the takings clause was satisfied because the development plan serves a public purpose. o In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas declined to view “economic development” takings as a “public use” and expressed concern about the ramifications of the Majority opinion.

Gibbons V. Ogden (1824) 

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation.

Wabash R.R. v. Illinois (1886) 



Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois, 118 U.S. 557 (1886), also known as the Wabash Case, was a Supreme Court decision that severely limited the rights of states to control or impede interstate commerce. It reversed the precedent set by Munn v. Illinois and led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Court held that Illinois had violated the Commerce Clause by placing a direct burden on interstate commerce. Under the Commerce Clause only Congress had the power to do so and states could only place indirect burdens on commerce.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) 



Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional. Production quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 were constitutionally applied to agricultural production that was consumed purely intrastate because its effect upon interstate commerce placed it within the power of Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) 



Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–1 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendmen...