Core Doctrines, Concepts, & Cases (Common Law → Kelly → Takings → Judges)

Hynes v. New York

Vague criminal laws violate due process because they fail to give fair notice and invite arbitrary enforcement.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad

Negligence liability is limited by foreseeability; duty runs only to those within the zone of foreseeable risk.

Kelly v. Gwinnell

A social host who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated guest may be liable for third-party injuries; new duty applied prospectively.

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon

Regulation that goes 'too far' constitutes a taking requiring compensation.

Keystone Bituminous Coal v. DeBenedictis

Property must be evaluated as a parcel as a whole; no slicing to manufacture total loss.

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Congress must make a clear statement before displacing state authority over core state functions (judicial qualifications).

Chisom v. Roemer

The Voting Rights Act applies to judicial elections.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White

States may not restrict judicial candidates from announcing views on legal issues.

Common Law

Law develops case-by-case through precedent and analogy, not from a single authoritative text.

Civil Law

Legal authority flows from comprehensive codes; judges apply rather than develop law.

Stare Decisis

Like cases should be decided alike; holdings bind, dicta persuade.

Holding vs. Dicta

Holding is necessary to the result; dicta are nonbinding commentary.

Case (Two Meanings)

(1) A decided lawsuit; (2) a claim tested against precedent.

Briefing a Case

Extract issue, holding, reasoning, and rule to understand how precedent applies.

Broad vs. Narrow Reading

Broad = abstract rule; narrow = fact-specific rule; strategic choice in argument.

Common Law Method

Lawyers classify facts, analogize to prior patterns, and predict outcomes.

Res Judicata

Final judgment bars relitigation of the same transaction even if law later changes.

Fuller 1 — Generality

Laws must be general rules, not ad hoc commands (anti-bill of attainder logic).

Fuller 2 — Promulgation

Laws must be publicly accessible; secret law violates legality.

Fuller 3 — Prospectivity

Laws should govern future conduct (illustrated by Kelly's prospective application).

Fuller 4 — Intelligibility

Laws must be understandable (Hynes problem: vagueness).

Fuller 5 — Non-Contradiction

Law must not impose mutually incompatible commands.

Fuller 6 — Possibility of Compliance

Law cannot require the impossible, especially in criminal contexts.

Fuller 7 — Constancy

Law should remain relatively stable over time.

Fuller 8 — Congruence

Law on the books must match law in action; enforcement gaps undermine legality.

Procedural Rule of Law

Focuses on predictability, neutrality, prospectivity, and transparency—regardless of moral content.

Substantive Rule of Law

Requires a moral floor: grossly unjust laws fail legality even if procedurally clean.

Eminent Domain

Physical appropriation of property requires just compensation.

Police Power

Regulation for health, safety, or welfare typically requires no compensation.

Regulatory Taking

Regulation becomes a taking when it excessively burdens property rights.

Parcel-as-a-Whole Doctrine

Property evaluated in its entirety, not segmented (Keystone).

Judicial Independence vs. Democratic Accountability

Tension between neutral adjudication and responsiveness to democratic control.

Elections vs. Appointments of Judges

Elections increase accountability; appointments increase insulation and stability.

Sunstein: Rule of Law as a Distinct Ideal

Rule of law is procedural, not synonymous with democracy, markets, or equality.

Sunstein: Why Rules Matter

Rules promote predictability, reduce bias and 'noise,' enable planning, and enhance accountability.

Sunstein: Generality as Anti-Arbitrariness

Broad application forces political accountability and deters selective enforcement.

AI & Rule of Law

AI can improve accuracy but raises legality concerns: transparency, neutrality, and accountability.