LGST 101 Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

All Lecture Notes....

Description

LGST 101: Introduction to Legal Studies August 29th, 2017 LectureNotes Supreme Court Justices: ● Kagan ● Sotomayor ● Ginsburg ● Thomas ● Kennedy

● ● ● ●

Gorsuch Roberts Alito Breyer

Civil Law: Matters generally affect just the individuals suing - Private entities - For compensation of either party - Money as substitutional relief - Equitable relief: injunction- Mandatory injunction: compels action - prohibitory injunction: - Compensatory and punitive damages - If the defendant commits an act that reckless/ malicious = punitive/ exemplary damages - Burden of proof: preponderance of evidence to the plaintiff Criminal Law: Violation against society all together - Enforced by the state via prosecutor - Unbiased to upholding the law - Don’t want individuals to be taking the law into their hands - mob justice - Public/ government representing the community - Punishment, - Deterrence- deter crime on a larger level, deter individuals who have shown a record of not respecting the law - Rehabilitation -penitentiary = time alone to reflect upon your bad deeds - Larger burden of proof- beyond a reasonable doubt - Societal implications-- can’t rob someone of life, liberty or property without near certainty Constitutional Amendments Relating to Criminal Law: ● 4th- protection against unreasonable search and seizure ● 5th- protection against self incrimination, government cannot take property except for public use and if so, with just compensation Assignment for Thursday: ● Property Law and personal property 51-56

● Reading legal cases: 67-72 ● Papa vs hayash case: August 31st, 2017 Reading Notes: How to Read Legal Cases: Part 1: Read through the case once to get a sense of what happened Part 2: Read and write a brief based on: 1. What are the facts of the case a. Chronology b. Quick summary- need to decide what the important facts are 2. What are the legal issues to be decided a. Start with “whether” or “whether or not” b. Usually reading cases from appellate courts who take facts as they’re presented 3. What did the court decide regarding the issue (what was the holding) 4. What reason did the court use to justify the holding a. Prior case/ precedent b. Language of the statute c. Makes sense in terms of public policy (society will be better off with the rule than the alternative) or judicial efficiency d. Morality, fairness, or justice compell the result 5. Does the holding make sense? a. In terms of logic, justice, precedent, Popov v. Hayashi: 1. Facts: a. On October 7th, 2001 Barry Bonds hit a record breaking home run into the crowded arcade section above right field. Much, but not all of what follows was caught on tape. Alex Popov caught the ball in the webbing of his glove. While completing the catch he was overcome by a crowd, was thrown to the floor, and violence ensued. In the process, the ball fell out of his glove onto the ground. At the same time, Mr. Hayashi was walking by and was overcome by the crowd as well. In the maylay he found the ball and took it into his possession. Mr. Popov confronted Mr. Hayashi about the ball, and Mr. Hayashi was escorted to a secure area. 2. Legal Issue: a. Whether or not Mr. Hayashi exercised wrongful dominion over Mr. Popov’s personal property. i. Whether or not the ball was in Mr. Popov’s possession 1. What constitutes possession (absolute dominion?) 2. Did Mr. Popov intend to possess the ball, and communicate that to

the world 3. Did Popov exercise absolute control/ dominion over the ball? b. Whether or not a conversion case go forward where possession has not been proven? c. Whether Mr. Hayashi knowingly withheld Mr. Popov’s personal property. 3. Ruling: a. Gray’s Rule: In a baseball stadium custom and practice dictates that there is a reasonable expectation that a fan must achieve full control over a ball before claiming possession b. A conversion case can go forward if the actor has made a legally cognizable “prepossessory interest” in the abandoned property. In this case, the “pre-possessory interest” serves as right to possession to support the action of the case. c. Equitable division 4. Reasons for Ruling: a. Gray’s rule: i. Precedent: Gray’s Rule ~ Mr. Popov did not prove that he retained control of the ball after incidental contact with other fans.and thus did not achieve possession. However, this is due to the activities of wrongdoers. 1. Common Law System: custom and practice of the environment becomes the law of the game ii. Public Policy- society governed by law not mob rule → high profile case, will dictate how people behave in stadiums. Need order iii.

Morals: Mr. Popov has a right to attempt to complete the catch without being attacked b. Possession could be proven or disproven were it not for the unlawful activity of the crowd. So “pre-possessory interest” serves as right to possession for a conversion case to proceed; c. Equitable division: i. Precedent: Arnold vs. the Producers fruit company, Keron v. Cashman 1. Each man intended to possess the ball at the time they were in contact with it. --- legal quality of the claims are equal. ii. Justice: it would not be fair or just to deny either man the ball because it would assume that Mr. Popov would have dropped the ball for it to come into mr. Hayashi’s possession, or that Mr. Popov would have retained the ball for it not to come into Mr. Hayashi’s possession August 31st, 2017 Lecture Notes Common law system: law evolves over time based on court decisions, bound by precedent (within reason)

-

-

Stare decisis: standing by the decision Recognizes that law can change- so judges aren’t blindly paying attention to precedent. Taking into consideration changes in facts Judges can only decide cases brought in front of him-- can’t have a judicial agenda - Contrast to civil/ statutory law (passed by the legislature) ~ supplements or supersedes judge made law. - Legislatures have the ability to convene committees/ investigate whether or not the law makes sense - Judge still needs to interpret this law Constitutional Law: Law based in the constitution

Identifying Parties: - Criminal and Civil Court - Who brought the lawsuit (plaintiff) - Who is defending the complaint (defendant) - Counterclaim: - If the plaintiff sues the defendant, the defendant can counter sue the plaintiff - Become the counterclaim plaintiff, counterclaim defendant - Appellate Court: - The person bringing the appeal is the appellant/ petitioner (former defendant), the person against whom the claim is lodged is the appellee/respondent - Conditional on the court accepting your appeal - Supreme court accepts 80-100 cases per year Level of Courts: - State court - Federal court - Courts of limited jurisdiction: open only under certain circumstances. Don’t have automatic claim to bring a case. Notion of Equity: - Legal system uses money as a substitute for justice/ equity - Take your judgement and execute on it ~ have a sheriff take his house/ possessions to satisfy the possessions - Responsibility lies on the plaintiff - Injunction: to stop illegal action - Mandatory injunction: force action - Writ of Specific Performance: in a contract, you are suing for the other party to perform the contract - Mandates that which they agreed to do in the contract - Ex: if you wanted to buy someone’s house and they backed out; there’s no money damages. Under equity, you could get a writ of specific performance which is an order from the court requiring the other party to sell them the house.

-

When you bring a case in equity, you do not have the right to a jury trial ~ only a “chancellor” - Fight over whether or not it was an equity claim or a law claim (jury) - Equity acts “in personam” ~ if you violate an equitable decree - Judge will get pissed if it’s violated and you will be in contempt - Acts on the person, your failure to obey that decree will affect you personally, unlike your failure to follow a legal judgement Popov v. Hayashi: - State court case - Doesn’t involve any federal questions - Doesn’t seem to be any diversity between the parties (in terms of residency) - Federal courts are not known as “superior courts” - Federal courts are “district courts” - McCarthy is the judge - Only one judge because this is a trial decision - Trial court opinion-- judge is deciding what the facts are - Wanted equitable claim - Opinion written on December 7th, 2002 - 400545 = case number - System for finding cases - Seeking equitable remedy: not seeking money - When you’re fighting over something that’s unique they want the object, not a payout - Claim of Conversion; when someone wrongfully exercises control over property - Interfered with right of August 3rd, 2017 Readings: Property Law – Swift v. Gifford (83-87); Keron v. Cashman (89-92). · Property Law: Real Property. Readings: Real Property (149-152); Sturges v. Bridgman (153-157). Swift v Gifford: 1. Facts of the case: a. Rainbow = gifford, hercules = swift b. Rainbow harpooned a whale which escaped them. It was then caught and captured by Hercules who didn’t know of Rainbow’s attack and pursuit of the whale. Rainbow asserted that one of his harpoons would be found in the whale and it was. It’s custom that the whale belongs to the ship whose iron hits it first and remains in it provided he makes the claim before cutting into the fish. The question in dispute is if the whale would have been caught by Rainbow if Hercules didn’t capture it.

2. Legal Issue a. Possession and Property law. Whether the whale belongs to Gifford or Shift. Whether common law should be followed or custom? i. Common law says that the game belongs to whoever captures the animal no matter if it has been shot before by another party. Custom in whaling says that the first person to harpoon the whale has claim. 3. Ruling a. Rainbow/ Gifford has a right to the whale 4. Reason for Ruling a. The customary rules of whaling were understood by all parties as evidenced by Swift yielding to it before bringing this case. b. Bourne v. Ashley follows the custom as well c. Would have limited application Keron v. Cashman 1. Facts of the case: a. Five boys were walking home along a railroad track when Crawford, picked up a stocking on the ground and began swinging it around. Each boy took possession of the bag at one point or another. Afterwards, the stocking burst open and it was revealed that it contained $775 in bills. The stocking was turned over to the police who were unable to locate the owner. 2. Legal Issue a. Personal property, right of ownership i. Whether possession belongs to the person who first finds the object, or whether all parties who had possession have an equal claim b. Lost property i. Whether or not the stocking should be treated as lost property. ii. Whether or not the money within the stocking should be treated as lost property or not. iii. At what point was the stocking/ money considered found? c. intention/ state of mind i. Whether Crawford’s state of mind when finding the stocking was one of ownership. ii. Crawford’s state of mind in finding the money. 3. .Ruling a. Lost money is the common possession of all defendants. b. The find er of the lost stocking was not the legal finder of the lost money within the stocking. 4. Reason for Ruling a. Actual use i. At the time that it was discovered that the stocking had money in it, the stocking was of equal possession of the boys as a plaything. Discovery of

the mone resulted from the use of the stocking as a play thing. ii. Not treated as an object with ownership b. Discarded = lost property i. The weight of the evidence says that the first boy threw the stocking away, it wasn’t taken from him. ii. money = lost property that wasn’t found until it was used as a plaything. Equal finders of the money, equally divided among them. Sturges v. Bridgman: 1. Facts of the Case: a. Sturges built an addition on his property which shared a wall with the Bridgeman’s building.Bridgman uses mortar’s and pestals for his confectionary business which make a noise which is of nuisance to Sturges. The noise annoys Sturges and interferes with his consultations. It has been determined that the noise does constitute an actionable nuisance. Bridgman asserts that if Sturges built his addition so that he had his own wall not a shared wall, there would be no disturbance. Bridgeman also asserts that he and his father have been using the mortars for over 20 years in this manner without complaint and under common law or the prescription act should be allowed to continue. 2. Legal Issue: a. Whether or not the actionable nuisance was to be allowed because of common law/ prescription act. (He had done it for many years not causing a disturbance). 3. Ruling: The noise is a nuisance and action must be taken for it to be stopped a. Since Sturges did not know about the nuisance before he built the consulting room, his acquiescence cannot be taken as consent for the continuance of the nuisance. 4. Reason for Ruling: a. President: Webb v. Bird and Chasemore v. Richards i. not knowing about the potential nuisance is not giving your consent for it to continue. b. Residential neighborhood Tuesday, September 5th Lecture Notes: Personal Property Continued: Swift v. Gifford: - Federal court case: composed of 94 districts. - Each state has at least one district. Some have as many as 4. - PA has 3 districts, NY has 4- including the Southern District of New York (including Manhattan)

-

Virgin islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands have districts. - Cases that take place at sea = Federal - Why go against common law? - Recognizing practicality - Obeying implicit rules- recognized the common law, but needs to maintain peace and harmony - Applied in a large area - Applied for a very long time - Rule promotes economic efficiency, productivity, and fruitfulness - If you know the harpoon has already landed you’re not going to waste your time following the whale - If the pursuit of the rainbow had been clearly understood from the beginning, there’s no doubt that the Hercules wouldn’t have taken the trouble to follow the same whale. - Usage would have had its appropriate and beneficial effect - Applies to the north atlantic- not just one town. Keron v. Cashman - State court: “court of chancery” is not a federal court - Court of chancery = equity court - Judge sitting in equity = chancellor, enters a decree not an order or a judgement - Court of chancery vs. court of law - No one is seeking legal remedy, they’re seeking direction as to how to divide the money - Emery, V.C. - Judge Emery is one of the chancellors in the court of chancery of NJ - V.C. = vice chancellor - Interpleader: - All 5 boys are the defendants - The plaintiff is the chief of police of elizabeth - Stakeholder of lost money - Possession and intent: - At the time everyone showed intention to possess the thing is when the money burst out. At that time they each had equal intent, and it was in the common possession - Crawford had possession from the start, but what he lacked was intent - Court enters a decree in equity that all 5 boys are equal owners of the $$, split evenly. *judges in all three of the above cases have made decisions that defer to what happens in real life. (Papav v. Hayashi, Swift v. Gifford, Keron v. Cashman)

-

Recognize what reasonably and rationally takes place in the real world while keeping peace and order

Real Property: Sturges v. Bridgman: - Sturges seeks an equitable remedy - Wants a prohibitory injunction to stop the nuisance - Can be held in contempt if he doesn’t follow the injunction - Notion of prescriptive easement: gives you the right to do something on land that you don’t own. - At a certain point over time you gain the right to use land you dont own in the way you have been doing so if the owner has given knowledge, consent, and acquiescence. - For whatever length of time the state law says. - Argument is that the defendant had acquired the right under common law or under prescriptive act after doing it - Doctor didn’t know about the nuisance - The nuisance didn’t bother the doctor so it wasn’t an annoyance before he built the consulting room - Wasn’t a nuisance until he built the consulting room so he hadn’t given consent - Brought complaint before the common law or prescriptive act - Decision promotes the orderly development of land - Can’t say that the person who was there first has the right to do whatever they want no matter what other people who move there later want. - Can’t take away property rights of the second party if the usage act was occurring without their knowledge and acquiescence. - ~ and would at the same time produce a prejudicial effect upon the land for residential purposes~ - Devalues the land- can’t resell for as much - Population is growing, can’t have industrial businesses in residential areas anymore - Gives more power to the residential development industry - Decisions that judges make have a profound affect on how we live our lives (and how cities develop) - Concept of nuisance changes over time - Rules are contextual in nature - Changes based on location, neighborhood character, time - What wasn’t a nuisance before has indeed become a nuisance -

Wednesday September 6th Reading Borton v. Forest Hills Country Club - Counts 1 and 2: Nuisance - Count 1 = injunction - Count 2 = money damages - Count 3 = actual and punitive damages bc intentional - Easement was granted because easement continues with the property even if the owner changes. But the easement granted was overly broad. - Allowed 1 member of the party retrieval - Retrieval from a normal game of golf - Make sure not to cause property damage - If = greater burden to the land than intended then they can recover - Does admit that errant golf balls will go onto the property - Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed bc of count 3 in favor of the defense. But overturned on appeal - counts 1 and 2 can proceed Nome v. Fagerstrom - Adverse possession - Native American system of land use - Non exclusive ownership, stewardship - First priority claim to resources Thursday September 7th 2017 Lecture Notes Borton v. Forest Hills Country Club - Easement v. License - Easement: A limited right for a specific activity on someone else’s property established over a requisite period of time. Rights and or restrictions run with the land and cannot be changed with ownership. - Prescriptive Easement: as a result of doing something you have a right to complain and do something but you didn’t. Consent/ acquiesce/waiver to the use of the property in this way. Lost one of your bundle of sticks, runs with the land. - Ex: Sturges v. Bridgeman, candyman was seeking this. - Express Easement: a matter in writing, runs with the land. - License: a contract between party a and party b giving the right to do certain things. Does NOT run with the land *golf course was an easement filed with the recorder of deeds office and runs with the land

-

Therefore, the country club wins the case? No. On appeal the easement was found to be overly broad. - Argument = that they were being bombarded by intentional balls. - Easement allowed for errant golf balls during normal games. - Count 3 of the complaint - certain members of defendants club intentionally hit golf balls onto property. - Only allowed for one party member onto the property and they would make sure not to cause damage. - Outcome: returned to the lower court for more precedings and apply the easement as written not as expanded improperly by the trial court. Determine whether there are facts to support the claim that there are violations to the express easement. - Victory for the Bortons but not the end of the case. Now they have to prove the claims. - Appellate court said the golf club members only have limited, restrictive rights. - Requested for both equitable remedies and legal remedies - Equitable remedy: - Prohibitory injunction: seeking a court decree to stop members of the golf club from doing something. Acts in personam - Legal remedy: . money damages, determined by the jury - Compensatory damages: to pay them for the loss to the land. - Punitive damages: meant to punish, because the wrongdoer has acted intentionally/ reckle...