GR645 week 1 notes

Introduction to American Legal System 1. Two basic court systems: a. Federal and state  The federal court system has its own set of laws and courts, and each state also has its own unique set of laws and courts.  The two courts operate simultaneously and independently  Some conduct is governed solely by the state and other by the federal court. Sometimes both laws can apply 2. Sources of law: a. Constitutions b. Statutes & Administration Regulations i. Ie. Title VII c. Common Law  judges started from a few basic ideas that seemed to be universally accepted in medieval society. As new factual controversies arose, the judges expanded on and refined their interpretations of the common law by focusing on the similarities to and distinctions from previous cases 3. How the branches of government work together: a. judges play an active role in the evolving interpretation of what a law means, even if its based on a statute or constitution i. ie. 1991 congress amended the civil rights act of 1964 ii. brown v education US supreme court invalidated a Kansas statute 4. our system of stare decisis: i. judges look to the decisions of prior courts for guidance in interpreting the law. This process of judicial interpretation is known as stare decisis — a Latin phrase that means that courts should stand by earlier legal decisions (“precedent”) and interpret the law in the same way as earlier courts have don b. Stare decisis – mandatory & persuasive precident i. courts are only required to follow earlier cases with mandatory precedent 1. How cases are decided to be mandatory or persuasive precident: a. Jurisdiction within the case arose b. Hierarchal level of that court within the jurisdiction i. A previous case is binding on a new court only if: (1) the previous case arose within the same jurisdiction as the dispute presently before the court; and (2) the earlier case was decided by a higher-level court within the same jurisdiction. 2. Jurisdiction: 3. Federal courts: have jurisdiction to resolve disputes that involve the constitution, federal statutes, and federal regulations. They also can resolve disputes that involve state laws id the parties satisfy other jurisdictional requirements. a. Congress has divided the country into 13 federal judicial circuts i. 11 numbered circuts – US court of appeals for the ___ circuit ii. US court of appeals for the district of columbia iii. US court of appeals for the federal circuit 1. Resolves patents, trade disputes, etc. iv. ** only mandatory if the case arises from the same judicial circuit 4. State courts a. Each individual state has its own laws and court system and result from a unique balancing of interests and public policy in that state

5. Heiracrchy: 6. Federal Court System has 3 levels of courts: 1. The trial court level (district courts) a. If you file a lawsuit that involves a federal law 2. the intermediate appellate court level (United States Courts of Appeals) a. try a case in federal district court and end up in the position of having to appeal the decision b. 3 judge panels 3. The highest appellate court level (the United States Supreme Court). a. If you appeal a case from the court of the appeal b. The 9 judge panel only hears a select few appeals a year i. Normally have constitutional or statutory magnitude c. Cert. denied – got appealed to supreme court but was denied 7. State court systems either have 3 or 2 levels: 8. Trial level courts 9. Intermediate appellate level courts 10. Final appellate level court or supreme court a. Caveate: because court deci-sions are not binding on other courts that operate at the same level, it is pos-sible for different intermediate appellate courts within a state to confl ict Lesson #2 1. Sources of Law: a. The US constitution: the supreme law of the land b. Statutory Law: Laws adopted through the legislative process i. Vague, not written by subject matter experts c. Administrative Law: regulations that interpret the law i. must be consistent with statutes and federal laws above them d. Case Law: court decisions, stare decisis i. Once a court rules in one way, they tend to continue to rule that way ii. Lower courts must defer to the rulings of higher courts

b. Federal i. Arising under the US constitution, laws of the US or treaties ii. Diversity jurisdiction & >$75,000 amount in controversy c. Diversity cases can be heard in either court i. Bigger companies prefer to be in federal court 8. Where can I sue? a. Venue: is this court the best location for a trial b. Standing to sue: does this party bringing the case have actual tangible interest in the dispute? Or is it just general concerns over policy or program (this is not enough) i. Rightness – have to have an injury already to complain about 9. Questions: a. Before it can hear a case, a court must have jurisdiction over two things i. The subject matter and the defendant unless the property is in dispute and the court is merely deciding the dispute with respect to that property b. This doctrine permits us to rely on case precedents to anticipate the future rulings of a court and is the reason lawyers read cases i. Stare decisis Lesson #3: Frivolous Lawsuits? 1. Leibeck v McDonald’s a. Hot Coffee facts i. The spill 1. 79 years old, sitting as a passenger, spilt over her legs ii. Damages 1. 8 days in the hospital, skin grafts, 3 rd degree burns, disabled iii. Current temp of coffee 1. 180-190 will give 3 rd degree burns in 3-7 seconds b. Testimony i. Doctors said Stella’s burns were one of the worst they’ve ever seen ii. McDonald’s admitted that they knew of the risk of the hot coffee and that it was not fit for consumption when sold 1. 700 other complaints c. Defense i. Coffee tastes better hot, industry standard ii. She spilled the coffee on herself d. Settlement discussions i. Stella offered to settle for $20,000 and McDonald’s refused and offered $800 e. Verdict i. Compensatory damages = $200,000 1. Reduced amount to $160,000 because she was 20% at fault a. If under 50% at fault the damages are reduced by % that the plaintiff is at fault ii. Punitive damages = 2.7 million

1. Reduced to $480,000 but McDonald’s engaged in willful, wanton, and reckless behavior. 2. Remittitur – a ruling by a judge lowering the amount of damages awarded by the jury f. Now McDonalds puts the cream and sugar in the coffee for customers g. Lawyers ask questions about the Hot Coffee case to screen jurors 2. BMW v Gore a. Facts i. Gore purchased a black BMW sports sedan from a certified dealer ii. Drove the car for 9 months with no issue iii. Took the car to a detailer who noticed the car had been repainted and suffered acid rain damage b. Lawsuit i. Fraudulent Misrepresentation – suppression of a material fact 1. Did not disclose c. Verdict i. Compensatory damages of $4,000 ii. Punitive damages of $4,000,000 1. Alabama Supreme court lowered it to $2,000,000 d. Appeal to US supreme court i. Writ of Certiorari because of a due process violation ii. The damages were grossly excessive, degree of reprehensibility was low 3. How are we protected from frivolous lawsuits? a. Rule 11: if you make a frivolous argument to the court you can be sanctioned and fined b. Rule 12: if you fail to state a claim upon which a relief can be granted the case is dismissed c. Rule 50 i. Directed verdict – ask a judge to rule in your favor, no jury can rule otherwise the defendant didn’t prove their case ii. Remittitur – ask a judge to lower the damages iii. In a civil case a judge can issue a judgement notwithstanding the verdict iv. Opportunity to appeal ADR 1. array of methods used to resolve legal disputes without resorting to the legal system a. 5% of civil cases make it to trial, 10% of criminal cases b. Increases course efficiency, less costly, less risky, private proceedings 2. Usually less formal, less expensive, and less time-consuming than a trial 3. Give people more opportunity to determine when and how their dispute will be resolved 4. Types a. Mediation i. Mediator helps the parties reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute ii. useful if parties have a relationship they want to perserve b. Settlement conferences

ii. Employees must sign iii. Employers can pick who the third party is PHILOSOPHY 1. Immanuel Kant a. Tried to work out how human beings could be good and kind outside of the exaltations and blandishments of traditional religions -- Desire to replace religious authority with authority of reason b. Writing during the enlightenment c. Categorical Imperative i. Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law ii. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you iii. Act as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as just means iv. Voice of our own rational selves 2. Aquinas a. How we can reconcile religion with science b. Universalized intelligence i. Good ideas could come from anyone c. Some of the world’s best thinkers were not Christian d. Can be explored through reason and not just faith e. Most useful knowledge can be found by atheists and non-secular people within the 3. Aristotle a. Fascinated by how things actually works b. What makes a human life and society successful c. What makes people happy? i. Distinct 11 virtues 1. Every virtue is between two vices  the golden mean d. What is Art for? i. Catharsis e. What are friends for? i. Share virtues and cancel out each other’s vices f. How can ideas cut through in a busy world? i. Rhetoric – getting people to agree with you through persuasion 4. Utilitarianism a. An action is right if it produces the most good Lesson #5 Ethics and Law 1. Theories of Ethics a. Deontology (duty ethics) i. Based on a duty to do what one ethically ought to do under the circumstances regardless of the consequences b. Teleology (consequential ethics) i. Referred to consequentialism because it is primarily concerned with the consequences of behavior 2. Aquinas: Natural Law a. All people have the innate ability and duty to make rational decisions that should be used in resolving ethical disputes i. Reasonable person standard is based on natural law

1. How a typical personal, with ordinary prudence, would act in certain circumstances 2. Sets standard for negligence in tort law 3. Kant’s Categorical Imperative a. Universalizability i. Act only on the maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will it [your action] should become a universal law ii. What if everybody did what I’m about to do? b. Reversibility i. Would I want this rule applied to myself? ii. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you 4. Bentham and Mill – Utilitarianism a. Utilitarianism = “ greater good for the greater number” b. Bentham’s Pleasure and Pain principle i. Worth/morality of an action is judged by its utility using a measure of pain and pleasure ii. Hedonic or hedonistic calculus c. Mills’ Changes i. Set a hierarchy of importance focusing first on intellectual and moral pleasures/pains d. Ex: 10 people are happy but 1 person dies e. Rule and Act utilitarianism i. Rule – set up a rule long before a decision is necessary ii. Act – calculate greater good before each act 5. Application of utilitarianism requires: i. Determination of which individuals will be affected by the action in question ii. Cost benefit analysis iii. A choice among alternative actions that will produce maximum societal utility b. Be sure to identify stakeholders c. “No man left behind” – might risk the lives of 5 men to get 1 man down on the battlefield i. Define their stakeholders differently – the entire military is helped by getting that one man 1. Morale, recruiting 6. W.D ross: Prima Facie Duties & ethics: a. Fidelity b. Reparation c. Gratitude d. Non-maleficence e. Justice f. Beneficence g. Self-improvement 7. Decision Tree: