Common Law in Contemporary Society Exam 1

cause of action

claim based on law and facts that is sufficient to support a lawsuit

enacted law

what attorneys focus on when conducting legal research above common (court made) law

statute

laws enacted by congress or state legislature

ordinance

laws enacted by local governments

regulations

laws enacted by state or federal agencies

mandatory authority

court decision from a higher court in the same jurisdiction involving similar facts and laws

persuasive authority

court decision from a lower court in the same or other jurisdiction

precedent

prior decisions that involve the same legal issues following the doctrine of stare decisis (the decision stands)

substantive facts

what happened to the parties before litigation began (why is the suit happening, who are the parties, who did what to whom, which party initiated legal action, what do the parties want the court to do)

procedural facts

what happened in the lower courts or administrative agencies as well as action taken by appeallate court issuing the opinion (ex. in trial did the plaintiff win after jury decision or lose after motion to dismiss)

legal issues

questions about the interpretation and application of the law, discussion often includes references court wishes to rely on as precedent

disposition

result reached in case

affirm

litigants appeal lower court decision but higher courts uphold

reverse

higher courts disagree with decision of lower court

remand

appellate court sends case back to trial court or other action

concurring opinion

agrees with majority ruling but not reasoning

US v Marshall

defendants convicted of violating federal statute making it ilegal to distribute LSD, statute required enhanced sentencing depending on the mixture and substance containing the illegal drug

US v Marshall majority opinion

the Seventh Circuit held that the weight of a carrier medium (such as blotter paper) used to distribute LSD must be included when calculating the total weight of a "mixture or substance" for federal mandatory minimum and sentencing guideline calculations

US v Marshall dissenting opinion

Judge Posner argued that sentencing based on the weight of an inert carrier medium, rather than the drug's active weight, leads to irrational results and contradicts legislative intent. Posner criticized the majority’s strict literalism, advocating for a pragmatic interpretation of the statute to avoid absurd, unintended consequences

Dillion v Legg dissenting opinion

abandoning the traditional "zone of danger" rule would lead to limitless liability and that major legal changes should be handled by the legislature rather than the courts, how close is close enough

Dillion v Legg majority opinion

California Supreme Court majority ruled that a bystander can recover damages for the negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) after witnessing an accident, even if they were outside the physical "zone of danger", plaintiff doesn’t have to have feared for their own physical safety

Dillion v Legg

David Legg drove his car and struck and killed a young child, Erin Dillon, as she crossed a street. Erin’s mother (Margery) and sister (Cheryl) both witnessed the fatal accident. Cheryl was close enough to the curb to be in physical danger, but Margery was standing further away and was never in any immediate personal danger

legal reasoning

application of legal rules to specific factual situations, also known as legal analysis

confederation

form of government where independent entities form an alliance but retain most of their power, delegating little to central govrnment

sovreign powers

power of government to do things traditionally necessary to govern (ex. wage war)

US

first nation to develop a written constitution

functions of US constitution

establish organization of government (legislative, executive, judicial), state/federal power divide, protect individual rights (bill of rights)

judicial review

courts power to review statutes to decide if they conform to US or state constitutions

federalism

division of national and state power

bill of rights

first 10 amendments to the constitution, written specifically to address limits to federal power

doctrine of incorporation

application of the 14th amendment’s due process clause to incorporate the provision of the bill of rights and make them applicable to states

state action requirement

individuals can only be charged with violating a constitutional right when acting as an agent of a governmental agency

first 10, 14

limit state and federal interference with civil rights and liberties

Marbury v Madison

resolve conflicting interpretations of the law before applying it

judicial review

executive and legislative branches can’t reverse decisions to overturn laws made in

York v Wahkiakum School District

landmark Washington Supreme Court decision ruling that random, suspicionless drug testing of student athletes violates the privacy protections of the Washington State Constitution

York v Wahkiakum School District majority opinion

The court declined to adopt the federal "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement for public school random drug testing. The justices emphasized that the Washington State Constitution provides stronger individual privacy protections than the federal Fourth Amendment. Forcing students to submit urine samples without any individualized suspicion of wrongdoing is an unconstitutional disturbance of a person’s private affairs.

statutes

legislative branch introduces bills to house or senate, majority vote needed in both to turn into law. pres may sign or veto, 2/3 congress vote to nullify a veto

statutues

usually somewhat ambiguous

regulations

created by agencies, drawn more narrowly than statutes, directed to more specialized groups

regulations

notice and comment period where agencies begin creating/amending regulations with notice of intent to the Federal Register or state equivalent

courts

first arbitors of the meaning of administrative regulation (parties can go to challenge)

enabling act

statute establishing and setting out the powers of an administrative agency

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo

Commercial fishing companies challenged a rule by the National Marine Fisheries Service. The rule forced vessel owners to pay the daily costs (around $700 per day) for government-mandated monitors on their boats. The fishermen argued the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize industry-funded monitoring. Lower courts sided with the government, relying on Chevron deference to accept the agency's view of the ambiguous statute. Ended Chevron Doctrine.

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo majority opinion

Courts are no longer required to accept an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous federal statute.Judges must decide all relevant questions of law and interpret statutory ambiguities themselves using their own independent judgment. Chevron deference conflicts directly with Section 706 of the APA. The APA explicitly commands reviewing courts to decide all relevant questions of law.

Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo dissenting opinion

Justice Kagan argued that judges lack the specialized subject-matter expertise needed to fill gaps in complex, ambiguous federal statutes. Agencies—staffed by career specialists and overseen by elected presidents—are far better equipped to make sensible regulatory choices

Chevron doctrine

was a legal rule that required courts to defer to a government agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous federal law

executive order

official policy directive issued by the president or governor that directs governmental employees as to how they should implement the law (published in federal register)

executive memo

same as executive order but not published in the register

DHS v Regents of the UC

Whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) followed proper legal procedures when it moved to rescind DACA in 2017. DHS failed to evaluate whether to keep certain benefits (like forbearance from deportation) separate from work authorizations, and it ignored the heavy reliance interests of hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients—known as Dreamers—who built careers and pursued education under the policy

DHS v Regents of the UC majority opinion

The Court held that the rescission of DACA is subject to judicial review. DACA was not merely a non-enforcement policy, but a substantive program providing tangible benefits like work authorization and access to Social Security and Medicare, meaning it fell outside standard enforcement discretion exemptions. The Court explicitly chose not to decide whether the original creation of DACA or its termination was substantively lawful, focusing entirely on the procedural flaws of how the agency carried out the rescission.

DHS v Regents of the UC dissenting opinion

Justice Thomas asserted that the Trump administration ended DACA the exact same way the Obama administration created it—unilaterally and through a simple internal agency memorandum. He argued that because DACA was an unlawful exercise of executive power from the start, a succeeding administration has the inherent authority to rescind it without needing exhaustive policy justifications

judicial review

of an agency allows them to explain their reasoning more fully, but not exert new opinions, which would recquire a new issue

court

__ roles include determining constitutionality of statutes and exec actions, interpreting ambiguous statutes, and creating common law

norman conquest

king died and english bil took over, french cousin norman defeated english army, everyone in courts and the high class spoke and wrote in latin and french, english commoners got super poor, judges “rode the circuit” around to settle disputes for the king, results were shared so similar situations could have similar rulings

codification of common law

process of legislative enactment of areas of law previously governed solely by common law

derogation of common law

changes to common law

equity powers

court can order people to do things, not just pay

injunction

court orders to perform/cease an act

specific performance

requirement a party fulfill contractual obligations

property, tax, contract

areas common law is most prevalent in

judicial statutory interpretation

congress enacts an unclear statute, if legislature disagrees with court interpretation they can amend statute

judicial constitutional determination

congress enacts a statute, constitutionality is questioned, bound by court decision

Estate of Gordon-Couture v Brown

ruled that recreational use immunity statutes do not apply to private, invite-only social gatherings, but only to land opened to the general public. The New Hampshire Supreme Court permitted a negligence suit to proceed regarding a fatal drowning at a private party, reversing the lower court's immunity ruling. question of statutory interpretation, what “any person” means (literally every person or the limited group to whom the statute applies)

trial court

courts of original jurisdiction, questions of fact

questions of fact

relate to determination of what took place, primary issue

questions of law

relate to how judge interprets/applies the law

entrapment

law enforcement instigating criminal acts to lure an innocent person into committing a crime

Hampton v US

supreme court held that so long as the defendent is predisposed to commit a crim, it is not entrapment (gov agent is not entrapping by supplying drug that they later arrest the person for selling)

bench trial

jduge will decide the factual questions as well as the legal ones, no jury

appellate courts

review alleged trial errors to determine is law was properly interpreted and applied, no testimonies only written records, legal interpreation over factual

harmless error

trial court error that is not significnt enough for reversal

remand

appellate court sends case back to trial

constitutional courts

court est by article 3 of the constitution: district courts, court of appeals, supreme court

US district courts

94 districts throughout 50 states, DC, and territories. court judges are assisted by magistrate judges (selected by majority district court judges)

US court of appeals

12 regional circuits of first level appeallate courts, cases heard by 3 judges and decided by majority

US supreme court

highest federal court, judges appointed by pres and confirmed by sentate.

writ of certiorari

means of gaining appellate supreme court review

shadow docket

emergency applications from trial courts to supreme court that are decided without oral argument, and are unsigned and unexplained

legislative courts

highly specialized federal courts such as bankrupcy, military appeals, tax, and federal claims