Term
| Rector, Holy Trinity Church v. US |
|
Definition
FACTS: Holy Trinity paid to import a pastor.
Issue: Does this violate a statute that says you can't hire 'workers' on a contract that also helps the worker immigrate to the US?
Reasoning: "A thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor within the intention of it's maker."
Plain Language -> "labor or service"
Definition of "labor" -> covers "brain toilers"?
Definition of "service" -> service as a servant, not a pastor
Exemptions -> actors, painters, singers, domestic servants
Constitutional Avoidance -> We like churches |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Required payment for license to do something on government property "prior to 12/31"
Issue: Family pays on 12/31...
Reasoning: The phrasing is CLUMSY but MEANING IS CLEAR - HAVE TO PAY BEFORE 12/31
All dates are ARBITRARY - sucks that it fucked this person |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Divorced moms want to have their new partners adopt.
Issue: Law says "adult unmarried person or ADULT HUSBAND AND ADULT WIFE" may adopt" - "relieved of all parental duties towards all responsibilities" - Can unmarried couples adopt? Would it terminate the single-mother's parenthood?
Reasoning: PURPOSE -> "must be applied in harmony with securing the best possible home for a child.
Societal Change -> We're more willing to allow homosexuals and the unmarried to adopt, and we know they won't be bad for the kids. |
|
|
Term
| Female Jurors Case (Commonwealth v. Maxwell, People ex rel. Fyfe v. Barnett) |
|
Definition
Fact: ILL and PA have juror laws that select jury from "qualified electors" - written Pre 19th Amendment
Issue: After 19th Amendment does "electors" expand to include women, or should this subsequent change not be seen to override the original drafting.
Reasoning: PA - YES -> Electors is a general term, like the common law it was used to expand to fill gaps as they came up.
ILL -> No, when passed, electors meant males over 21 years of age - new legislation required if you really wanna change it.
Plain meaning - Would allow for women, unclear
Purpose - If legislature only meant men, the court can still find that to be obscene and act to change it anyway; on the other hand, that may be a stretchFact: ILL and PA have juror laws that select jury from |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Negligence "except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself"
Issue: This codification of contributory negligence seems harsh in Cali, they want to review to see if it might be viewed as comparative.
Reasoning: The "civil code is malleable" and can be changed by common law to promot justice. When originally enacted, comparative negligence didn't even really exist. MODERN TREND has BEEN ADOPTED ELSEWHERE, and the court should read comparative in. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Endangered Species Act of 1973 passed, TVA is almost done with a damn, but it would flood a minor wildlife area, killing the snail darter.
Issue: Environmentalists who listed the snail darter wanted to enjoin the completion of the 100$M dam.
Reasoning: "Plain intent of congress in eacting this statute was to reverse the trend towards species extinction, and there are no escape hatches.
DESPITE the fact that Congress continued appropriations for the TVA project even after the passing of the law, repeal by implication (particularly in an exception making sense) is disfavored.
CONGRESS ACTED QUICKLY AFTERWARDS TO ALLOW FOR EXEMPTIONS - Scalia wet dream |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Voting Rights Act -> originally interpreted as intent (to discriminate) based but then amended to make it effects based. Orleans parish is one of 4 parishes in First Supreme Court District, and is primarily black. The three others are 75% white. Disparate Impact -> Black Orleans parish is consistently outvoted.
Issue: VRA amended from "candidates" to "representatives" - Did this change mean that judges were now exempt?
Reasoning: VRA CONTINUES to include JUDGES.
INTENT OF VRA was to not DENY OR ABRIDGE rights of citizens to vote for whomever, effectively.
Dog that Didn't Bark -> If congress had intended such a bizarre result in amending the VRA, they would have said so in their debate.
SCALIA DISSENT -> Shouldn't start with intent. Should start with language. To construe representative to including "judges" would be a weight it cannot hold. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Statute 609(a)(1) - evidence of a felony "SHALL" be admitted "ONLY IF" the court determines that its probative effect outweighs the PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT
Issue: Prisoner has armed ripped off, claims he was not adequately warned. Can D introduce evidence of prior convictions to impeach testimony of lacking notice?
Reasoning:
If 609 allows AUTOMATIC ADMISSIBILITY for evidence of PRIOR CONVICTIONS for PLAINTIFF, but not defendant, it is unconstitutional.
House wanted impeachment only by crimen falsi evidence, Senate wanted automatic admission (after large debate).
The discussion TENDS towards application of 609 only in relation to CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS - THUS ONLY THE ACCUSED in a CRIMINAL CASE should be protected.
MOREOVER -> Because 609 is so wide reaching, the protections of 403 do not stand. 609 requires impeachment of either party in civil litigation.
Some constitutional avoidance theory here. Also, a look into legislative intent.
Scalia CONCURRENCE -> (1) 609 can't give protections to civil defendants that aren't given to civil plaintiffs (2) must mean criminal defendant, cuz it holds the weight and it's the only sensible result. (3) |
|
|
Term
| Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. |
|
Definition
Facts: Increase in direct to consumer marketing of drugs.
Traditional Rule: Drug manufacturers warn the DOCTOR so they don't have to warn the CONSUMER when they advertise. "Learned Intermediary Rule"
Issue: Does "learned intermediary" doctrine apply to drug manufacturers doing DIRECT TO CONSUMER MARKETING??
Reasoning: CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES - Pharma co is NOW DIRECT MARKETING TO CONSUMERS, there is THEREFORE NOW A DUTY TO WARN CONSUMERS DIRECTLY. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Baseball ANTITRUST for guy trying to be come a free agent.
Issue: Sherman Act -> Contracts in restraint of interstate trade or commerce is illegal.
Reasoning: BASEBALL IS EXEMPT -> CONGRESSIONAL ACQUIESCENCE for 50 years. Clubs have OPERATED UNDER THIS STANDARD.
Marshall Dissent -> Stare Decisis should not cripple the court! The baseball inconsistency is ridiculous! |
|
|
Term
| State of NJ v. 1979 Pontiac Trans Am |
|
Definition
Facts: Son and friend are driving Dad's Pontiac. They smash corvette windows, steal t-tops and go home.
Issue: Forfeiture statute prevents seizure of property used in crime UNLESS LESSOR HAD KNOWLEDGE OF or CONSENTED TO the act.
IMAGINATIVE RECONSTRUCTION -> Golden Rule -> Obviously can't mean that OWNERS who had no knowledge of misuse and did everything possible to prevent misuse MAY BE LIABLE TO FORFEITURE. Therefore, they aren't.
READ IN EXCEPTION FOR OWNERS.
Constitutional avoidance -> Avoid unreasonable search and seizure issues by reading in a constitutional understanding. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Gun in trunk of car when D goes to buy drugs. Statute provides that 'carrying' a firearm during a drug transaction has a harsher sentence.
Issue: Is having a gun in your trunk "carrying?"
MAJ BREYER REASONING:
1. Whole Act Rule -> look to text and then compare to dictionaries, etc, and FOCUS ON RULE AGAINST SURPLUSAGE
2. PURPOSIVISM / INTENT -> Intent is to MAKE DRUG DEALERS LEAVE THEIR GUNS AT HOME.
3. Golden Rule -> Absurd to punish guy with backpack gun over guy with car gun. Therefore KILL HIM!
LASTLY: Rule of Lenity ONLY APPLIES IF EVERY CONCIEVABLE SOURCE AND AMBIGUITY IS STILL PRESENT
Scalia: 1. You can't say that 'carrying' a gun is the same as having a gun in a desk drawer while you're seated.
2. Specific Intent -> UNCLEAR and interpretation is weak in Majority
3. Rule of Lenity -> We should have applied it here, it was still ambiguous, even after looking at the whole code. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Utility District, located in Texas is required to seek federal PRECLEARANCE under VRA before changing its elections, as punishment for the civil war.
Issue: Can this "utility district" apply for bailout from this provision, as it has shown no prejudice? If it cannot apply, because it is not a county, then is the act unconstitutional?
Reasoning:
1. Act was a success, but now differentiates between states in ways that may no longer be justified.
2. Judging the constitutionality of a congressional act is the "gravest and most delicate duty that this Court can perform"
3. GOTTA ALLOW SMALL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS to bailout, because Congress could not have intended a more limited effect. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: ADEA doesn't indicate if it provides a Jury trial or not for people suing for age discrimination.
Issue: Is there a right of action w/ a jury trial?
REasoning:
1. ADEA 7(b) says "ENFORCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH POWERS, REMEDIES and PROCEDURES" of fair labor standards act. Congress must be PRESUMED to KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN (presumption of coherence), therefore they must have intended to provide FLSA style trial.
3. Said to be treated like actions for lost wages under FLSA, which allows a jury trial == Therefore JURY TRIAL FOR ADEA |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 appears to be repealed by Equal Employment Opportunities Act in that there was a stated employment preference in the Bureau of Indian Affairs for native american peoples.
Issue: Did the EEO actually repeal the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934?
Reasoning: NO, RULE AGAINST IMPLIED REPEAL -> Long standing treaty in IRA, and treated as an exception to other previous edicts. THEREFORE we wont say EEO overturns unless Congress specifically so acts. |
|
|
Term
| FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. |
|
Definition
Issue: Can FDA regulate tobacco products?
Reasoning: NO
1. WHOLE CODE CANNON RULE - Words of a statute must be read in their context with VIEW TO PLACE IN OVERALL STATUTORY SHCEME
2. Legislative History -> Each time the FDA was modified, Congress was aware that the FDA decried the fact that it could not regulate tobacco, and yet they provided no specific provision so enabling the FDA
4. THEREFORE Congressional Acquiescence through failure to act. FDA has no right to regulate tobacco. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts: Inmate suing SMITH and 4 guards for allowing his cellmate to beat him mercilessly.
Issue: 1983 action - can it be based on finding of reckless disregard or indifference to another's rights? or only on finding that D acted with MALICIOUS INTENT.
Reasoning:
1. Common Law Definition -> Tort -> Can be reckless or intentional, surely
2. Policy was compensation to those harmed and deterrence, and to fulfill need to use reckless standard, not intentional. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facts:
1. P had contract for 40% contingency fee.
2. Court awarded, per 1988 action allowing discretionary attorney's fees, 7500 dollars to attny.
3. Court of Appeals lowered, finding that 40% contingency fee served as a cap for what lawyer could be awarded.
Issue: Should Appellate court have lowered in reaction to contingency fee?
Reasoning:
1. Presumption of Coherence -> The statute broadly requires payment of reasonable attny fees to prevailing Ps.
2. Loadstone figure of damages is entitled to strong presumption of reasonableness and INTENDED TO PREVENT A WINDFALL for attorneys.
3. Contingency is ONLY A FACTOR of the analysis |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Issue: Does bartering a gun in a drug transaction constitute "using" a weapon in a drug transaction?
Reasoning:
Breyer -> Ordinary meaning of use includes trading. Ordinary meaning is not just to use it as a weapon; though it definitely includes it.
Scalia -> OBVIOUSLY it can only mean to USE the weapon. ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT! |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Issue: Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable, for the purposes of school lunches?
Reasoning:
While a Botanist would see a tomato as a fruit, ordinary usage would include it in the set called vegetables. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Issue: Modify - Modest change, or substantial change?
Reasoning:
Looking at all the dictionaries, only a very few says substantial change. Thus, the statute must mean modest change. |
|
|
