Foundations of American Law: Litigation, Disputes, and Justice

0.0(0)
studied byStudied by 0 people
0.0(0)
full-widthCall Kai
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/62

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Study Analytics
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced

No study sessions yet.

63 Terms

1
New cards

Complaint

The plaintiff's initial filing that begins a lawsuit.

2
New cards

Answer

The defendant's formal response to the complaint.

3
New cards

Discovery

The pretrial phase where both parties exchange evidence and information.

4
New cards

Trial

The court proceeding where evidence is presented and the case is decided.

5
New cards

Motion to Dismiss

A request to end a case early before trial, claiming no legal basis for the claim.

6
New cards

Motion for Summary Judgment

Request for judgment without trial when no material facts are in dispute.

7
New cards

Dismissal

The court's decision to terminate the case.

8
New cards

Trial Court

The first court to hear a case; determines facts and issues initial rulings.

9
New cards

Intermediate Appellate Court

Reviews trial court decisions for legal errors (e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals).

10
New cards

Apex Court

The highest appellate court (U.S. Supreme Court or State Supreme Court).

11
New cards

SCOTUS Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court only hears federal questions.

12
New cards

Interlocutory Appeal

Appeal made before a final judgment, during an ongoing case.

13
New cards

Appeal as of Right

Appeal automatically allowed by law.

14
New cards

Discretionary Appeal

Higher court chooses whether to hear the appeal (e.g., certiorari).

15
New cards

Purpose of Law

Law resolves disputes by determining which side can impose an unwanted outcome on another.

16
New cards

Cause of Action

The legal basis of a lawsuit defining the elements needed for liability or guilt.

17
New cards

Elements of Negligence (Tort Model)

Duty, Breach, Causation (but-for and proximate), Damages, and Defenses.

18
New cards

But-For Causation

Harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.

19
New cards

Proximate Cause

The defendant's act was a substantial and foreseeable cause of harm.

20
New cards

Rule vs. Standard

Rules are rigid and specific; standards are flexible and require judgment.

21
New cards

Rule Example (Necessity)

"Immediate risk of death by starvation where killing is the only option to preserve life."

22
New cards

Standard Example (Necessity)

"Necessity exists where the actor reasonably believes the act was required to prevent greater harm."

23
New cards

Contract Law

Private agreements enforced through damages (expectation or reliance).

24
New cards

Tort Law

Civil wrongs involving injury or property damage; enforced by compensation suits.

25
New cards

Criminal Law

Public law defining crimes; prosecuted by the state with penalties.

26
New cards

Constitutional Law

Governs limits of government and individual rights.

27
New cards

Procedural Law

Rules controlling how cases move through courts.

28
New cards

Escola v. Coca-Cola (1944)

Introduced strict product liability via Justice Traynor's concurrence.

29
New cards

Purpose of Contract Law

Enforce promises and promote trust and efficiency in markets.

30
New cards

Purpose of Tort Law

Compensate victims and hold wrongdoers accountable.

31
New cards

Purpose of Criminal Law

Retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration.

32
New cards

Rule vs. Standard Example (Montana Speed Limit)

"Reasonable and proper" = standard; numerical speed = rule.

33
New cards

Rational Actor Model

Assumes individuals act logically to maximize preferences and benefits.

34
New cards

Efficiency

A measure of how resources and outcomes maximize total welfare.

35
New cards

Pareto Efficiency

A change that benefits at least one person without harming another.

36
New cards

Kaldor-Hicks Efficiency

A change where winners' gains outweigh losers' losses, even if not compensated.

37
New cards

Externality

Costs or benefits affecting others outside a transaction (e.g., pollution).

38
New cards

Transaction Costs

Barriers like fees or effort that hinder efficient changes.

39
New cards

Social Welfare

The total happiness or utility in society; goal is aligning private and public interests.

40
New cards

Coase Theorem

With no transaction costs, parties can bargain to reach efficient outcomes regardless of initial rights.

41
New cards

Prisoners' Dilemma

Shows how rational self-interest can lead to worse collective outcomes.

42
New cards

Procedural Justice

Fairness in legal processes and decision-making.

43
New cards

Corrective Justice

Law's role in correcting wrongs and compensating victims.

44
New cards

Retributive Justice

Ensures punishment proportional to wrongdoing.

45
New cards

Distributive Justice

Fair allocation of resources and rights across society.

46
New cards

Strict Egalitarianism

Seeks to equalize outcomes or opportunities.

47
New cards

Luck Egalitarianism

Corrects inequalities from luck but allows those from effort.

48
New cards

Nozick's Libertarianism

Justice as respect for voluntary exchange and property rights; minimal redistribution.

49
New cards

Rawls' Theory of Justice

Veil of Ignorance → principles chosen fairly: equal liberties and the difference principle.

50
New cards

White City v. PR Restaurants (2006)

Qdoba burritos ≠ sandwiches; Panera injunction denied.

51
New cards

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

"One person, one vote" for state legislative districts.

52
New cards

Packaging Industries v. Cheney (1980)

Preliminary injunction needs likely success + irreparable harm.

53
New cards

Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)

Damages limited to foreseeable losses.

54
New cards

Summers v. Tice (1948)

Burden shifts to multiple negligent defendants.

55
New cards

The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens (1884)

Necessity not a defense to murder.

56
New cards

Popov v. Hayashi (2002)

Established "pre-possessory" property rights.

57
New cards

Adams v. Bullock (1919)

No negligence without foreseeability.

58
New cards

Byrne v. Boadle (1863)

Barrel case → res ipsa loquitur established.

59
New cards

Wood v. Boynton (1885)

Mutual mistake about value ≠ contract void.

60
New cards

Sherwood v. Walker (1887)

Mutual mistake about material fact voids contract.

61
New cards

Lake River Corp. v. Carborundum (1985)

Penalty clauses are unenforceable.

62
New cards

U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947)

Hand formula: B < P×L = negligence.

63
New cards

Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co. (1970)

Damages instead of injunction allowed for efficiency.