COMM LAW I FINAL EXAM

comm 3410 uva

business law

the creation + enforcement of duties, obligations, and rights

duty

an act/ course of action required by social customs, can be unwritten

obligations

laws that make certain agreements binding

rights

constitutional, statutory

what is the purpose of the law

to prevent chaos, ensure safety, enforce our rights

ethics

what an individual believes is right/wrong/fair, we decide these for ourselves

why are laws established

to reflect shared moral principles, but can also be morally neutral

difference between law and ethics

ethics are enforced internally, law is the moral minimum but is not necessarily ethical

criminal law

rules that protect society as a whole by establishing certain minimum standards of conduct which society finds to be acceptable behavior, establishes the punishment for those who fail to abide by that standard, primary purpose is to punish

criminal violations

violations against the state, the government brings criminal cases

civil law

governs private relationships between individuals/ organizations, primary purpose is compensation, remedies are typically

substantive law

defines specific rights that a person is entitled to and the specfic duties that are obligated to perform by law

procedural law

establishes the mechanisms + procedures to enforce the rights + obligations created by substantive law

civil law system

used by most countries outside of the U.S., system of codes (written laws), everything is up to the legislature

common law system

used by the U.S., based on English law, not only on codes, also includes Judge-made law, where cases are precedent/ the law, more flexible

court of law (historically)

King’s court, judges, jury trials only, more rigid, separate courtroom from court of equity, rigid rules, monetary remedies, enforcement by property attachment

court of equity (historically)

Created by the King, referred cases to be judged based on fairness, based on action not money, injunction= court orders someone to do something/ refrain from doing something, separate building, chancellor, didn’t allow juries, flexible rules, equitable remedies, enforcement via contempt

courts of law and equity now

Combined buildings in all states except DE, one judge, jury trials still only allowed in law, not equity, law rules still rigid, equity rules still flexible, law remedy is still money, equity still equitable remedies, still enforce law via property attachment and equity via contempt

contempt of court

judge may put you in jail, just need to do what the court ordered to get out

supremacy clause

the U.S. constitution is the supreme law

federalism

10th amendment explicitly divides federal and state powers

10th amendment

all powers not given to the federal government belong to the states

judicial review

check created by the supremacy clause, judges in every state have a duty (shall be bound) to ensure that state laws comply with the constitution

Marbury v Madison (1803)

overrode judiciary act, still the precedent, established judicial review

judicial restraint

the judicial branch’s authority to review an executive order/ legislative act, the authority to invalidate any law that is contrary to the constitution, check on power, judicial philosophy in which judges limit their power by deferring to the decision of elected officials

strict constructionism

judicial philosophy focused on heavy reliance on the text of the constitution and any original sources

judicial activists

start with the text but go further to consider other factors

commerce clause

congress may regulate commerce among the several states, can regulate “interstate” commerce, trade between states

Gibbons v Ogden (1824)

does “interstate” include activity within a state? court says yes, expands definition to include “intrastate” commerce, commerce within a state

dormant commerce clause

any state law that unduly burdens interstate commerce is unconstitutional, states cannot pass laws that get in the way of the commerce clause

Wickard v Filburn (1942)

court: created the aggregate and substantial interference tests- if everyone (the aggregate) did it, it would substantially interfere with the price of wheat and interstate commerce — unconstitutional

US v Lopez (1995)

congress: guns and schools could indirectly cause unsafe schools which harms education, leading to less productive workforce, violence increases costs, crime discourages economic growth

court: congress does not have the power to regulate non economic activity + too indirect/ speculative + no meaningful limits on federal power

court: crimes are state issues, not federal ones

Gonzales v Raich (2005)

court reverses U.S. v Lopez, —> congress does have the power to regulate state laws (in the context of marijuana)

Article IV: Full Faith and Credit Clause

requires that states honor each others’ laws and court decisions

Obergefell v Hodges based on this

Article IV: Privileges and Immunities Clause

ensures that when a nonresident visits a state, they have the same fundamental rights as state residents

1st amendment

freedom of religon/speech/press/assembly/protest

1st amendment freedom of religion

establishment clause and exercise clause

early cases focused on establishment, wall of separation - separation between church and state

2nd phase: neutrality of the law/ equal access

Cantwell v Ct: made establishment clause apply to the states, individual choice outweighed any fears that the govt was somehow supporting religion

3rd phase: courts rely almost exclusively on free exercise, increasingly skeptical of govt restricting any religious expression based on fear of perceived endorsement, no more wall of separation

1st amendment freedom of speech

political speech: strongest protections

fighting words (hard for speech to fall into this category, super violent): minimal protection

symbolic speech: conduct, same as your words, takes a backseat in war times (can burn a flag but not your draft card)

protests: government cannot regulate content of protests but can regulate time/ place/ manner

2nd amendment

a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

theory that militia language limits the right to keep and bear arms

US v Cruikshank (1875)

2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, individuals/ states can limit your right to keep/ bear arms, lasted until 2000s

Presser v Illinois (1886)

states can limit your right to bear arms

U.S. v Miller (1939)

1934- national firearms act passed, banned saw-off shotguns being transported betweens tates

national firearms act constitutional, 2nd amendment need not be interpreted as the right of individuals to own a saw off shotgun bc not necessary for a militia

D.C. v Heller (2010)

court: individuals have a fundamental right to bear arms, becomes the new primary purpose of the 2nd

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

according to 14th, your 2nd amendment rights are incorporated + apply to every state

in every state, individuals have a fundamental right to bear arms

U.S. v Rahimi (2024)

some restrictions on owning guns are okay, upheld NY law banning those with restraining orders from buying guns

5th amendent

no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (federal government)

14th amendment

nor shall any state deprive any person of life/ liberty/ property without due process of law (incorporates 5th to the states)

fairness doctrine

government cannot arbitrarily take away your rights

4th amendment

a law enforcement officer must be able to prove they have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed, and they must swear to this under oath to obtain a warrant to search a defendant and their property as well as to seize any evidence

warrant

legal order permitting officer to enter

probable cause

level of evidence required to prove a crime, need for a warrant, does not include anonymous tips

U.S. warrant requirements/ restrictions

identify exact premises they want to enter, who exactly they want to search/ arrest, what it is that they wish to seize

consent search: USSC exception to warrant requirement

if you consent to a search, can revoke consent at any time

automobile exceptions: USSC exception to warrant requirement

if they suspect you have a weapon, anything within your reach can be checked

exigent circumstances: USSC exception to warrant requirement

if there isn’t time to get a warrant

search incident to a lawful arrest: USSC exception to warrant requirement

all bets are off if you are legally arrested, but they can’t check your phone

plain view doctrine: USSC exception to warrant requirement

if a police officer sees something in plain view, they don’t need a warrant

protective sweeps: USSC exception to warrant requirement

can check things around them for personal safety

inventory searches: USSC exception to warrant requirement

can inventory things in your car

stop and frisk (Terry v Ohio 1968): USSC exception to warrant requirement

patted down a guy without probable cause and found a weapon, court: when a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to occur/ is occuring, they may temporarily detain the individual and if the police officer suspects they may be armed and dangerous, they may do a pat down frisk

can walk away unless they can tell you why you are being detained

border searches: USSC exception to warrant requirement

searches at the border

special needs/ administrative searches: USSC exception to warrant requirement

school searches, drug testing

abandoned property: USSC exception to warrant requirement

they can look through your trash

DNA collection from arrestees: USSC exception to warrant requirement

self explanatory

Exclusionary Rule

any evidence seized as part of an illegal arrest/ search is prohibited from being introduced at trial

Weeks v US (1914)

created the exclusionary rule, fed gov

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

made the exclusionary rule apply to the states

fruit of the poisonous tree

if illegal evidence leads to other evidence, that must also be thrown out

5th amendment

cannot be forced to incriminate yourself

Miranda v Arizona (1965)

5th amendment

custodial police interrogations create an inherently coercive environment. without safeguards, statements obtained during this custody risk being compelled in violation of the 5th amendment

police must read you your Miranda Rights when you are being arrested

Doyle v Ohio (1976)

court: your Miranda Rights cannot be used against you, 5th amendment

Salinas v Texas (2013)

5th amendment

court: 5th amendment doesn’t establish a complete right to remain silent, it only guarantees that criminal defendants may not be forced to testify against themselves; if you need to exercise your 5th amendment rights prior to being read your Miranda rights, you must explicitly say so

5th amendment- grand jury component

before a defendant can be tried for a serious crime, the government must obtain a jury indictment (true bill)

determine if probable cause exists, not guilt/ innoncence, this is pre-trial

petit jury

12 jurors, decide guilt/ innocence at trial

double jeopardy- 5th amendment

criminal cases, right to not be tried twice for the same act

acts as a method of checks/ balances against the government, protects the legitimacy of the system, ensures finality

limits on DJ- 5th amendment

multiple charges can occur for one act, but must happen at the same time

only applies to criminal cases

can have a criminal and civil case for the same act

Buford v Arkansas (2012)

mistrials usually do not bar a retrial

court: if not convicted, can be tried again even if jury found you guilty on some of the counts and there was a mistrial

can the government take your property- 5th?

yes, but they must compensate you

6th amendment right to:

a speedy trial: courts balance reason for the delay, the length itself, whether the defendant pushed for a speedy trial, whether the delay affected the outcome of the rial

a public trial

an impartial jury

to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation

to confront the witnesses

to attend trial

to call your own witnesses: subpoena- a court order telling an individual that they must appear at a certain day/ time to testify

to be represented by a lawyer (for criminal cases)

8th amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment

protection from cruel AND unusual punishment, must be both

8th amendment: 3 strikes you’re out

if a defendant has 2 previous violent/ severe felonies, prosecutor may seek an enhanced punishment on a 3rd charge of a mandatory life sentence (in 28 states)

what does the 8th amendment say about the length of the sentence?

must be proportionate to the crime (there is a range)

Furman v Georgia (1972)- 8th amendment

court struck down 35 states death penalty statutes because they were arbitrarily, irrationally, and racially applied

Roper v Simmons (2005)- 8th amendment

can’t execute a criminal who committed the crime as a minor

Atkins v Virginia (2002)- 8th amendment

the execution of the mentally insane was unconstitutional, violated the 8th

9th amendment

right to privacy is one element

Griswold v Connecticut (1965)

court: founders specified zones of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th

court: to ignore a right so basic as privacy in marriage is to ignore the 9th amendment

created right to privacy

Roe v Wade (1973)- 9th amendment

gave women right to abortion based on right to privacy, killed by Dobbs decision

Planned Parenthood v Casey also killed by Dobbs

Lawrence v Texas (2003)- 9th amendment

upheld right to privacy for 2 gay men having sex

Dobbs decision

set up to revisit Roe

Court: constitution does not mention the right to an abortion or the right to privacy and it is neither deeply rooted in our history nor an essential component of ordered liberty

14th amendment

all persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the US and of the state wherein they reside

due process

equal protection clause requires that laws be applied equally to all individuals and groups

incorporation doctrine- 14th amendment

Barron v Baltimore (1833)- Bill of Rights applies to fed gov, not the states

1868- 14th amendment ratified

Gitlow v NY (1925): incorporate the bill of rights through the 14th

Due Process on Public University Campuses

previously: universities are in loco parentis, your parents don’t owe you due process and neither do universities

then: Dixon v Alabama (1961)

Dixon v Alabama (1961)

court: once a public university disciplines a student in a way that seriously affects their future, it is no longer acting as a parent. instead, it is acting like the government and triggers due process

students have the right to be heard and to an impartial decision maker

state constitutions

every state has one, can only add to your rights, not take them away, easier to amend, longer

primary sources of law

constitution, statutory law, administrative law, common law

statutory law

written + passed by legislators, easier to amend

parts of statutes

act, definitions, substance, remedial section

codes of a statute

all the laws of one state and the federal government

administrative law

created by administrative agencies, which are established to perform a certain function- to create regulations and enforcement of

every act has an enabling statute that creates the agency and gives them the authority to govern