Cases

Hosanna Olah
Mind Map by Hosanna Olah, updated more than 1 year ago
Hosanna Olah
Created by Hosanna Olah almost 5 years ago
2
0

Description

All the cases and vocab words for chapters 1-6 in PS 215

Resource summary

Cases
  1. Chapter 1: Intro to Law
    1. Miller v. Alabama

      Annotations:

      • Miller, doing drugs, Cannon passes out, miller treis to sleal wallets, cannon catches him, they fights. Miller kills cannon.  miller is a child. Holding was DP for miller Found to go against 8th Amendment. Cruel and Unusual Punishment to kill a child. 
      1. Cruel and Unusual Punishment
      2. Glucksberg v. Washington

        Annotations:

        • Case about assisted suicide. Holding: Supreme court held that assisted suicide is not protected by the due process cluse
        1. Substantive Due Process

          Annotations:

          • Focuses on a single law Principle allowing courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference. 
        2. Speelman v. Bellingham

          Annotations:

          • Speelman was recieving assistance from Bellingham required to let Bell know 14 days in advance if  not in residence. Was put in jail, Didn't give Bell notice.  Bell sent notice of eviction to home, not jail where was and evicted her. Holding: Trail court sided with Bell.  Appeals court ruled it was unreasonable because Bell sent eviction to home not jail when Bell knew Speelman was in jail.
          1. Procedural Due Process

            Annotations:

            • Procedural Due Process is the doctrine that requires gov officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property.
          2. Katko v. Briney

            Annotations:

            • Kids trespassing Briney property, going into barn and stealing stuff. Briney sets up spring gun in door(unoccupied home), shoots child. (considered lethal force.  Holding: Briney liable for Katko injuries. 
            1. Civil Tort

              Annotations:

              • Tort is a civil wrong
            2. Suggs v. Norris

              Annotations:

              • The two lived and worked together, had sexual relationship. Suggs took care of Norris when he was sick. Norris dies. Conflict: Did Suggs sleep with Norris just for money Quatum Meruit: You get what you have earned.  Holding: Implied contract, Suggs worked for him as well.  
              1. Contracts

                Annotations:

                • Offer, Acceptance, Consideration.  Can be oral, unless long term.  Must be mentailly compitent
                1. Quantim Meruit
              2. Chapter 2: Ethics
                1. Greggs v. Georgia

                  Annotations:

                  • Gregg kills two people and steals. Found guilty in Georgia, appeals it saying DP goes against 8th and 14th amendment. Procedural flaws where the reason gregg didn't recieve the dp. Taken to supreme court--  rejected that argument. 
                  1. Capital Punishment

                    Annotations:

                    • Capital Punishment is difficult bc it must not be used in a nabitrary sense.  Whats it's point? Retribution, Future Deternce... 
                  2. Holland v. State of Florida

                    Annotations:

                    • Crime of Misprison: Communal responsible to apprehend felons.  Case sum: Defendent found MJ in assistants house, called police they decided to treat it as internal affairs to avoid prosecution.  Ruling was that misprison of crime wasn't a crime in Florida. 
                    1. Aiding and Abetting

                      Annotations:

                      • related to the guilt of someone who aids pr abets in the commission of a crime Basically it's criminal to fail to tell authorities of the commission of a felony which he of she has knowledge of. 
                    2. Lawrence v. Texas

                      Annotations:

                      • Police called into call about a weapons disturbance in a home. Police walk in on tow men having consensaul sex. Texas has a statute that claims sex with someone of the same gender wrong. State Court of Appeals help that the statute was not un-constitional under the Due Process Clause of the fourtheenth Amendment.  Issue: Does Texas's "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by the same-sec couples, violate 14 amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws?  Con: Texas statute violates Due Process clause.
                      1. Where doth the line?
                      2. State v. Mobbley

                        Annotations:

                        • Basically when asked by police where Needham was she would reveal where her husband was.  She was in a dilemma, as she should be protected from revealing where her husband was however, she can't lie to police about Needham. Court does not agree with her. 
                        1. Aiding with Family

                          Annotations:

                          • statute exempted family members from this statute. it was not a crime to harber husband. 
                        2. Caperton v. Massey Coal Co.

                          Annotations:

                          • Caperton filed a lawsuit against Massey for allegidly fraudelently cancelled a coal supply contract resulting in Caperton going out of business.  Judge Mcgraw, in the case, West Virginia supreme court, had connections with massey comp in the form of campaign donations. Caperton told judge to "Recuse" himself from case bc of bias. He didn't, court favored Massey.  Brought to supreme court as they found bc of 14th amendment judge McGraw needed to recuse himslef from case. Supreme court held that the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment requires a judge to recuse himself not only when bias has been demonstrated, or economic interest, but also when "Extreme Facts" create a "Probability of bias" 
                          1. Ethics and Responsibility Codes for Lawyers and Judges.
                          2. Glassford v. Brickkicker and GDM

                            Annotations:

                            • Civil, Business Contract. Mal practice case. Glassford bought house, 3 years later said thier were problems the house inspector should have told them before they bought the house.  appeal supreme found itr wrong not to consider glassford contention.
                            1. Business Ethics
                          3. Chapter 3: Institutional Sources of American Law
                            1. National Federation of Independent Business v. Kathleen Sebelius

                              Annotations:

                              • Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. NFIB filed suit against Kathleen Sebelius. 2 main factors in the ACA:  1) The individual mandate-- having to have health insurance otherwise taxed.2) The Medicaid expansion provision Case brought to supreme court Roberts 5-4 "The commerce Clause doesn't empower congress to compel individuals to engage in commercial activity". The necessary and Proper Clause only gave Congress the power to do things that were  incidental to the valid exercise of some enumerated power.. Tax-- individual mandate.  Act didn't give states a choice, they need the funding.  Ginsburg: Fed gov should be able to decide the rules for how they give aid to the states. Scalia: Commerce clause nor power to tax grants congress the authority to require the individual mandate. 
                              1. Federal Government Power to Legislate.
                                1. Supreme court decision of congress enacting Obamacare
                                2. State v Butler

                                  Annotations:

                                  • Took place while MIRANDA case was decided.  Butler made inconsistent statements, court allowed statements to be used as evidence to impeach the witness credibility. Issue is whether statements made to police can be used because Butler didn't recieve Miranda warnings. Holding: Can't use statements made before Miranda.
                                  1. Exculsionary Rule

                                    Annotations:

                                    • Illegally obtained evidence must be thrown out.
                                    1. Dicta
                                    2. Strunk v. Strunk

                                      Annotations:

                                      • Two brothers, one is mentally impaired. can't give full consent to other brother who needs his kidney.  Whee do you find authority to do this? Court of Equity. Holding: Yes, court of Equity does have authority. 
                                      1. Absence of Precense
                                      2. Hubbard Co. v. Greeson

                                        Annotations:

                                        • Indiana and Illinois. Accidnet hapened in Indiana, but residents of ILL, Venue.  Where are the most attachments?  Each state has a different way of dealing with this case Found that their was more significant contract in Indiana. 
                                        1. Conflict of law

                                          Annotations:

                                          • Deals with which laws do you apply. 
                                          1. Lex loci Delift: Where event occured
                                          2. Finstuen v. Cruther

                                            Annotations:

                                            • 3 Same sex couples wanting to adopt. REconizing out of state adoptions and relationships.  Lucy and Jennfier Doel want to revise E (adopted child) birth certificate to put both their names on it.  They where denied. 
                                            1. Full faith and credit clause

                                              Annotations:

                                              • States reconizing other states "laws"
                                              1. Prof states this is a messy case
                                              2. Dempsey v. Allstate Insurance Co.
                                                1. Retroactive Versus Prospective
                                              3. Chapter 4: The Judicial System
                                                1. Cheap Escape Co, Inc v. Haddox LLC

                                                  Annotations:

                                                  • Cheap Escape is a magazine, Haddox bought two ads, signed into contract. Contract states that if either party is noncompliant with the contract litigation will happen at Franklin County Municipal Court.... The events relevant to transaction took place outside Franklin County.  Why is this case important? Wheres the Jurisdiction Whether Municipal courts have subject matter Jurisdiction over matters lacking connections to their geographical territories. Holding: Because the parties didn't have a territorial connection to the Franklin county Court the court then lacked subject matter jurisdiction. 
                                                  1. Subject matter Jurisdiction

                                                    Annotations:

                                                    • Authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases. 
                                                  2. Swodoba v. Hero Decks

                                                    Annotations:

                                                    • Swoboda accuses Hero Decks cards online as Jurisdiction. Issue: Whether an Internet Merchandiser has established sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana to be subjected to Personal Jurisdiction. Holding: Swoboda said he never gave the card company permission to use his "likeness". Trial court ruling was affirmed. Personal Juri with Louisiana was not proven even after the attorney purchased the playing cards online. 
                                                    1. Long-Arm Statutes

                                                      Annotations:

                                                      • Jurisdiction a court can have over out of state DEF corporations.
                                                    2. St. James Apartments, LLC v. Coinmach Corporation
                                                      1. Plaintiffs Choice of Forum
                                                      2. Frump v. Claires Boutiques, Inc.

                                                        Annotations:

                                                        • Issue: Whether the amount in cvontroversey requirement of 28 U.S.C (75,000) is satisfied so that the court may assert jurisdiction over the case or whether it must be remanded to state court.  Holding: The plaintiffs motion for remand to state court was denied.
                                                        1. Removal Jurisdiction

                                                          Annotations:

                                                          • Right the DEF has to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in whicdh ther state court sits. 
                                                        2. Land. v Yamha Motor Corporation

                                                          Annotations:

                                                          • Land owns boat for 10+, theres fault. Files suit against Yahmha. Issue whether to apply Indianna or Cali law.  Rule: Indiana law, apply where the injury took place. Must apply Indiana law unless significant fact of "bad luck". In this case it was not a matter of bad luck happening in Indiana, the boat had been there 10 years.  Conclusion: Trial court was right in applying Indiana law. 
                                                          1. Erie Doctrine

                                                            Annotations:

                                                            • Fed Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, a Fed court normally should apply the substantive law that would be applied in the state courts of the districts in which the fed court is situated.
                                                        3. Chapter 5: Civil Procedure
                                                          1. Salmon v Atkinson

                                                            Annotations:

                                                            • Salmon v. Atkinson agree to a contract together. After six weeks of work Atkinson fires Salmon. Due to fact that the contract was thrown out appellant can no longer seek refuge and reasoning from it. Lawyers are asking for Quantim Meruit for the work they did do.   Holding: Atkinson must pay Lawyers 7200 for work they had already done. 
                                                            1. Contingent Fee Agreement

                                                              Annotations:

                                                              • Agreement made with attorney stating they will receive portion/% of money collected.
                                                              1. Qauntim Meruit Fee

                                                                Annotations:

                                                                • Allows discharged lawyer to collected the money that they wok  hard for and deserved.  "As much as you deserve"
                                                              2. Johnson v. Cintas Corp & United Healthcare

                                                                Annotations:

                                                                • Johnson failed to correctly name Cintas name in the Summons and Complaint. 
                                                                1. Summons are important

                                                                  Annotations:

                                                                  • B/C they provide Jurisdiction on a court over the def.
                                                                2. Idnani et al. v. Venus Capital Management, Inc.

                                                                  Annotations:

                                                                  • Plaintiff accuses Defendent of destroying and seeking sanction, including default judgement.  Ruling: since the potential that some relevant information is lost Defendant can't go unsanctioned.
                                                                  1. Discovery and Pretrial Conference
                                                                  2. Utah v. Travis Dee Timmermann
                                                                    1. Communicative Rpivileges
                                                                    2. Fontenot v. Taser International Inc.
                                                                      1. Additur and Remittitur
                                                                    3. Chapter 6: Limitations in Obtaining Relief
                                                                      1. Hollingsworth v. Kristin M. Perry

                                                                        Annotations:

                                                                        • Nelson not a huge fan of the case. 2 same sex couples wanting to get married, but the defense against marriage act.  They claim this goes against the 14th Amendment. Issues: Do they have standing? Does Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibit state of California from defining marriage as the union of a 1 man 1 woman? Conclusion: Petitioners don't have standing. There must actual controversy,  in this case petitioners generalized grievance in the form of desire to defend prop 8.      
                                                                        1. Standing/ Ripeness, and Res Judicata
                                                                        2. Chafin v. Chafin

                                                                          Annotations:

                                                                          • U.S. Military man marries Scottish lady. have a kid: hold dual citizenship to U.S. and U.K.. Parents get divorced Lynne Chafin fiels to take child with her. District court lets child return to Scotland with her.  Jeffery Chafin appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals says case is MOOT because child is in Scotland. Issue: Can district court return a child to their country of residence according to The Hague Convention articles one child has returned to that country. Conclusion: Yes, doesn't make this court appeal moot jsut because the child has already return to Scotland.  Even though Lynne is scotland U.S. Courts still have Jurisdiction over her. 
                                                                          1. Mootness

                                                                            Annotations:

                                                                            • "Un-mature Case".. sorta The court can't do anything for your case.  Does controversy continue to exist?
                                                                          2. Atkins v. Jiminy Peak, Inc.
                                                                            1. Statute of Limitations
                                                                            2. Krucksberg v. Harvey

                                                                              Annotations:

                                                                              • Bourder dispute.  1980  Border line drawn with a fence. Harvey digs up trees around fence causing land to colapse, hurting Krucksberg land.  Land relooked at in 2000 turns out land hurt was Harvey's.  Does claim preclusion bar the plaintiff from bringing action concerning the boundary line.  Con: reversed and remanded for trail. Prof States you can argue Res Judicate fits. 
                                                                              1. Claim Preclusion--Res Judicata

                                                                                Annotations:

                                                                                • Provide that a final decision by a competent court on a lawsuit merits concludes the litigator of the parties and consititmes bar a legal barries to a new suit. Basically when a litigation is over, it's over.  Claim Preclusion makes it so people can't keep sueing each other over the same events. "a matter already judged"
                                                                              2. Miller v. Wright
                                                                                1. Sovereign Immunity

                                                                                  Annotations:

                                                                                  • Governmental immunity from suit
                                                                                2. Riodan v. Presiding Bishop, Latter-Day Saints

                                                                                  Annotations:

                                                                                  • Dad runs over 5 year old sons foot.  Issue: Whether parental immunity sheilds the church from liability where father backed a riding mower over his son's foot. Rule:Child can't sue his own father Dec. 19th 1991 Respondent Superior order Application: the churhc was sued bc they're the employer. Con: The plaintiff was allowed to sue the church.
                                                                                  1. Respondent Superior

                                                                                    Annotations:

                                                                                    • "Let the master answer" an employer is vicariously liable for the behavior of an employee working within their scope of employment.
                                                                                    1. Parental Immunity

                                                                                      Annotations:

                                                                                      • Immunity allowing parents to be immune from suits brought by un-emancipated children in the area of negligence or intentional tort
                                                                                    2. Jewerlers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Firstar Bank 3
                                                                                      1. Immunity through Contract
                                                                                    Show full summary Hide full summary

                                                                                    Similar

                                                                                    AS Law Jury Case Quiz
                                                                                    Fionnghuala Malone
                                                                                    How Parliament Makes Laws
                                                                                    harryloftus505
                                                                                    Contract Law
                                                                                    sherhui94
                                                                                    A-Level Law: Theft
                                                                                    amyclare96
                                                                                    AQA AS LAW, Unit 1, Section A, Parliamentary Law Making 1/3
                                                                                    Nerdbot98
                                                                                    A2 Law: Cases - Defence of Insanity
                                                                                    Jessica 'JessieB
                                                                                    Law Commission 1965
                                                                                    ria rachel
                                                                                    A2 Law: Special Study - Robbery
                                                                                    Jessica 'JessieB
                                                                                    The Criminal Courts
                                                                                    thornamelia
                                                                                    Omissions
                                                                                    ameliathorn0325
                                                                                    EU law key cases
                                                                                    pavlina.hunt