2 Handouts
-Constitution
-"cheat sheet" on EP Clause
No book for class.
Different subject will be covered each week. Be sure to ask questions and clarifications AS WE GO ALONG.
Constitution- Controls how government treats us.
Amendments-
13th- Eliminated slavery
14th- 1. Due process clause 2. Privileges and Immunity Clause 3. Equal Protection clause
(only one of the three that apply to ALL persons
15th- Allowed freed slaves to vote (women did not get right to vote until 19th Amend. 50 years later)
The Equal Protection Clause- does not say that it must treat everyone equally.
"...does not require absolute equality."
Equal Protection Clause:
EX "All commercial pilots must have 20/20 vision." Does that law impact everyone equally?
Facially neutral? Yes. Disparate impact? Yes. Eldery. Does NOT violate EPC
Even if it is discriminatory it may still survive EPC test.
If government can give a compelling reason for discrimination the law stands.
Laws which descriminate on the basis of race and are upheld are rare.
EX Attica riots. After which races were segregated for SAFETY. Upheld.
Arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable discrimination or facially neutral with merely a disparate impact? Is discrimination among similarly situated citizens?
I. Strict scrutiny for "Compelling" government interest ("microscope")
II. Medium scrutiny for "important" government interest
III. Reasonable relationship to "legitimate" government interest ("sniff")
I. Suspect class (race, religion, national origin)
-or-
Fundamental right (1st Amend. rights, 4-8th Amend. criminal procedure rights, privacy, voting, interstate travel, education (minority view.))
II. Age, legitimacy, gender, sexual preference. (Many states have elevated gender and sexual preference to suspect class level.)
III. Everybody else.
Answering EPC essay questions:
1. Why was the person denied?
2.State the law
3. Similarly situated? -If not similarly situated then EPC does not apply.
4. Is it facially neutral? or discriminatory?
5. Is there a disparate impact?
6. Discuss- Apply appropriate level of scrutiny. Does the government have a Compelling/Important/or Legitimate interest?
Case List
San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973)
Washington v. Davis (1976)
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Dev. Corp. (1977)
Personnel Admin of Mass v. Feeney (1979)
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Brown v. Bd. of Education (1954) -"Segregation may effect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone." "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - Railroad segregation, "separate but equal".
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) -Slave taken from slave state to free state, does "property" change its nature?
Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) -Internment camps for American citizens of Japanese descent upheld.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed. (1971) -Bussing to desegregate. Lead to "white flight" to suburbs.
Milliken v. Bradley (1974) -Gov't cannot segregate, but may self-segregate. "De facto" v. "de jure (govt)" segregation. Supreme court has a duty to "remove root and branch" of discrimination.
Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) -reverse discrimination, med school. 1. Quota systems? NO 2. Race can never be considered at all? YES Judges split down the middle. Justice Lewis Powell deciding vote. Use EPC to correct violation of EPC? "Benign discrimination". "Traditional indicia of suspectness", not denied benefit, only the number of people is effected.
Bradwell v. Illinois (1873)
Reed v. Reed (1971) - Idaho, men over women for administration of probate estates. Did not stand.
Women
"Romantic Paternalism". Not discrimination- protection!
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
3.31.11 Business Law
Class PowerPoint slides available on class website
Transactional Lawyering
• Looks at law in a different way- Preventative
• Trying to find out how to avoid risk/litigation
➢ EX Employment Manuals
➢ EX Business Form- Corporation, LLC, etc.
Provide Option based advice
Contracts
o Important focus- touch every area of law
Sources of Law
Constitutions- Fed/State
➢ Protects individual rights from government action
• Right to privacy protections stronger in WA
• Right to bear arms stronger in WA
➢ Forms justice system
Legislation- Fed/State/Local
➢ Derives power from Const. Art. 1 Sec 8
➢ WA Const. more restrictive of government power
➢ "No one who love sausage or law should watch either one being made"
Judge-Made Law
➢ Federal- from published appellate court (changing to include unpublished opinions)
➢ State- from published appellate court
➢ www.courts.wa.gov - sign up for email of court opinions
Agency Regulations- Fed/State
➢ Washington Administrative Code
➢ Code of Federal Regulations
The Court System
➢ The 3-tiered system
➢ Trial Courts/District Court
➢ Intermediate court of appeals-Division/Circuit
➢ Supreme Court
Federal Courts
➢ Federal Law
➢ Diversity + 75k
Primary Authority
➢ Binding
➢ Statutes, Case Law, Constitutions
Secondary
➢ Persuasive/Non-binding
➢ Good research tools
➢ Restatements- Treatises treated with great respect by court
➢ Uniform Laws Annotated- Uniform Commercial Code- for uniformity across states
The prima facie case
➢ Elements of the case- from statutes, case law, etc.
Defenses
➢ The basic defenses
• I didn't do it
• It was legally justified
• It doesn't matter whether I did it or not because of procedural barrier
IRAC
➢ Issue
➢ Rule
➢ Application of rule to facts
➢ Conclusion
Procedural Issues
➢ Camreta Case
➢ Standing
➢ Case or Controversy
o RAP 3.1- Washington's "Aggrieved Party" rule
Law of Torts
The Dilemma
Advising Clients
➢ How to avoid risk
➢ The Rahman case
➢ Respondeat Superior
➢ Scope of Employment
➢ Legislature intends to override
Intentional Torts
Defamation/Libel/Slander
➢ Statement
➢ False- reckless disregard
➢ Published- made to another
➢ Causes injury
Defense: TRUTH
Assault
Battery
False Imprisonment
Defense: Reasonable, justified
Invasion of Privacy/Commercial Exploitation
Reed v. Pierce County
Outrage
Fraud
Interference with Contracts
➢ Existence of valid contract
➢ Knowledge of the relationship
➢ Intentional interference
➢ Damage
Negligence
➢ Duty
➢ Breach
➢ Causation
➢ Injury
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Contributory Negligence/Assumption of Risk
WA is only state to completely waive sovereign immunity
Joint and Several Liability
➢ Even defendant only 1% at fault may be sued
Strict Liability
In participating in some limited activities, a business will be liable for harm even though no duty was breached; no intentional tort committed.
EX Product Liability
Defense: Assumption of risk/misuse of the product
Damages
How do you determine value of case?
Transactional Lawyering
• Looks at law in a different way- Preventative
• Trying to find out how to avoid risk/litigation
➢ EX Employment Manuals
➢ EX Business Form- Corporation, LLC, etc.
Provide Option based advice
Contracts
o Important focus- touch every area of law
Sources of Law
Constitutions- Fed/State
➢ Protects individual rights from government action
• Right to privacy protections stronger in WA
• Right to bear arms stronger in WA
➢ Forms justice system
Legislation- Fed/State/Local
➢ Derives power from Const. Art. 1 Sec 8
➢ WA Const. more restrictive of government power
➢ "No one who love sausage or law should watch either one being made"
Judge-Made Law
➢ Federal- from published appellate court (changing to include unpublished opinions)
➢ State- from published appellate court
➢ www.courts.wa.gov - sign up for email of court opinions
Agency Regulations- Fed/State
➢ Washington Administrative Code
➢ Code of Federal Regulations
The Court System
➢ The 3-tiered system
➢ Trial Courts/District Court
➢ Intermediate court of appeals-Division/Circuit
➢ Supreme Court
Federal Courts
➢ Federal Law
➢ Diversity + 75k
Primary Authority
➢ Binding
➢ Statutes, Case Law, Constitutions
Secondary
➢ Persuasive/Non-binding
➢ Good research tools
➢ Restatements- Treatises treated with great respect by court
➢ Uniform Laws Annotated- Uniform Commercial Code- for uniformity across states
The prima facie case
➢ Elements of the case- from statutes, case law, etc.
Defenses
➢ The basic defenses
• I didn't do it
• It was legally justified
• It doesn't matter whether I did it or not because of procedural barrier
IRAC
➢ Issue
➢ Rule
➢ Application of rule to facts
➢ Conclusion
Procedural Issues
➢ Camreta Case
➢ Standing
➢ Case or Controversy
o RAP 3.1- Washington's "Aggrieved Party" rule
Law of Torts
The Dilemma
Advising Clients
➢ How to avoid risk
➢ The Rahman case
➢ Respondeat Superior
➢ Scope of Employment
➢ Legislature intends to override
Intentional Torts
Defamation/Libel/Slander
➢ Statement
➢ False- reckless disregard
➢ Published- made to another
➢ Causes injury
Defense: TRUTH
Assault
Battery
False Imprisonment
Defense: Reasonable, justified
Invasion of Privacy/Commercial Exploitation
Reed v. Pierce County
Outrage
Fraud
Interference with Contracts
➢ Existence of valid contract
➢ Knowledge of the relationship
➢ Intentional interference
➢ Damage
Negligence
➢ Duty
➢ Breach
➢ Causation
➢ Injury
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress
Contributory Negligence/Assumption of Risk
WA is only state to completely waive sovereign immunity
Joint and Several Liability
➢ Even defendant only 1% at fault may be sued
Strict Liability
In participating in some limited activities, a business will be liable for harm even though no duty was breached; no intentional tort committed.
EX Product Liability
Defense: Assumption of risk/misuse of the product
Damages
How do you determine value of case?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)