CHAPTER 1- IMPORTANT TERMS AND PROCEDURE OF CASES THROUGH THE COURTS Constitutional Law- federal and state constitutions and their judicial

interpretations and applications Statutory Law- enacted by legislature

o Regulations- rules made by administrative agencies in accordance with statutes

Common Law- made of past judicial decisionso Always evolvingo Precedent is bindingo Made solely by judiciary

Stare Decisis- courts are bound by the decisions of courts above themo Vertical- courts are bound by higher courts (only those w/in their jur)o Horizontal- courts are bound by and can overrule their decisions

Hierarchy of Courts:o Highest court- Supreme Court (NY is the Court of Appeals)o Intermediate- Appellate Court

Appellate Courts are made up of a tribunal- minimum 3 judgeso Lowest- Trial Court/ Courts of the First Instance (NY is the SC)

Judgeso Federal-

Appointed by President and hold office indefinitely Merit selection- shortlist is drawn up and governor chooses

o State- elected and hold terms Cases

o Mostly appellate decisionso Burden of proof is on the P

The P must show a preponderance of evidenceo Steps for bringing a case to trial:

Cause of Action Forum- SMJ and PJ Bringing Suit- file complaint and serve D with summons

Complaint informs ct of relief P is seeking D responds to complain w and answer

o If D ignores summons, a default judgment will be issued against D

D can raise a counterclaim or affirmative defense (facts brought forth by D that if true negate the P’s claim)

D can move for a dismissal- demurrer (even if claim is true there is no legal basis for relief) or lack of jurisdiction

Pre-Trial Motions Motion to Dismiss/ Demurrer- even if P’s claim is true, there is no

legal basis for it Motion for Summary Judgment (can be requested at any time

before trial begins)- the facts are so one sided that no reasonable

1

jury can find for the non-moving party. The facts are looked at in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

During the Trial Motions Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law– moving party asks for

verdict after P has presented case but before D does Renewal of Motion for Judgment After Trial- judge overrules or

amends the jury’s verdict Discovery- pre-trial exchange of evidence

Interrogatories, depositions, production of documents Jury Selection/ Voire Dire

Trial by jury can be waived- both parties must agree Trial- P presents case, rests, and presents closing arguments first

Direct/ Cross Examination Objection- Overruled/ Sustained After P rests, either party can move for a JNOV

o If P has not made out a prima fascie case, the case can be taken away from the jury

The judge can also allow the trial to go on but reserve judgment to take the case away at any point

Closing arguments- charge to jury Appeal

Decisions by all AC and SC are written in an opiniono Dissento Concur in judgment but dissent in reasoningo Dissents can be used in future cases o Ratio Descidendi- grounds for the court’s decisiono Petitioner/ Appellant- files appealo Respondent/ Appellee- non-appealing party

The AC and SC can either reverse and remand or affirm lower ct Cases first go to the intermediate court

o The intermediate court doesn’t hold a trial they only review the evidence presented at TC

o If appeal fails, party can seek a writ and appeal to the highest ct

The highest courts have discretionary docket Res Judicata- once a case is exhausted and a final decisions is

granted, the parties are barred from bringing a future suit on any claim, even claims not brought up in this case, arising from the facts in dispute.

Chapter 2-KELLY V GWINELL (SC NJ 1984)Facts:Zak provided Gwinnell with alcoholic beverages and then allowed him to drive home. Gwinnell was involved in a head on collision with Kelly on his way home. Kelly sued Gwinnell, Zak for negligence.

2

Procedural Posture:The TC granted Zak’s motion for summary judgment based on the law that a social host is not responsible for the negligent behavior of an intoxicated adult social guest. AC affirmed (NJ has no Dram Shop Act- imposes liability on licensees).Issue:Is a social host responsible for the negligent behavior of a guest who becomes intoxicated at the host’s home?Holding:A social host is responsible for the negligent behavior of an adult guest that results from the guest’s intoxication at the host’s home.Reasoning: A reasonably prudent person could foresee the risks involved in allowing an

intoxicated person to drive. There are too many drunk driving accidents that result in unnecessary deaths There are crim sanctions for this activity- there should be civil too A host who continues to provide liquor knowing the guest will drive should be

liableDissent: Places too heavy a burden on social hosts Social hosts may be subjected to financial liabilities beyond their resources The implications of this decision are limitless It is not the judiciary’s job to make laws- that’s reserved for the legislature The legislature allowed for liability involving minors and explicitly left out adultsSC reversed decision of summary judgment and remanded to TC to adjudicate based on this new law.Chapter 3:SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ON THE BASIS FOR JUDICIAL DECISIONS and HYNES Holmes- a sound body of law should correspond to the feelings of the community Gray- if a judge’s opinion differs from that of the community, he should follow

his own judgment Saleilles- a judge should base his decision on his opinion and find the legal

allowance for it later on Hutcheson- law is fully grown and all laws originate from the original principles.

Judges should rely on intuition Carodozo- the mind uses learning to make informed decisionsThe law translates policies into legal directives. Diff types of legal directives:

Rules- constrain the decision maker to the rule and they offer minimal discretion

Standards- less constraining and allow the decision maker to take all aspects of situation into account

HYNES V NEW YORK CENTRAL RR Facts: D owned land along the river. Projecting from a bulkhead on the land was a

springboard that hung over the Hudson River. Children would jump off the board into the river and the D was aware of this but

made no attempt to stop them

3

As Hynes was about to jump, the wires holding up the bulkhead snapped and fell onto the board causing Hynes to plunge into the river and die

Procedural Posture: Mother of boy brought suit Until now the courts held that b/c the boy was a trespasser, there is no liabilityThe suit is now before the NYS Court of Appeals (highest court)Issue: Is the fact that the P was a trespasser sufficient to deny redress despite the fact that the D was aware or should have been aware of the danger and mitigated it?Holding:B/c the P was engaged in behavior normal to that of swimmers and b/c the D failed to take precautions to enclose the board, the duty owed to the boy did not cease even though he was technically a trespasserPALSGRAFF V LIRRFacts: P was standing on platform waiting for train A train came in the opposite direction; two men rushed to catch it One of the men was pushed and helped onto the train by a RR worker The man was carrying a package containing fireworks and b/c he was pushed it

fell from his hand and exploded Caused scales to be knocked down and they injured the P who was standing at

the other end of the platformProcedural Posture:Judgment for P in both lower courts. D now appeals to the NYS Ct of Appeals.Issue:Does the D owe a duty of care to s/o outside the reasonably foreseeable are of danger?Holding:B/c the wrongful action was not directed at the P and there was no direct invasion of bodily harm and the D had no was of foreseeing any possible danger to her, there is no COA for negligence.

Differences b/w the two cases:

HYNES PALSGRAFF

Cardozo was more compassionate in his language

Cardozo was more matter of fact in his language

Judgment for P Judgment for DPASSION IN JUDGESBrennan: passion is essential to the judging process

4

Cudahy: judges that invoke passion ultimately help the have-nots. Agrees w/ Brennan but criticizes him b/c Cudahy feels passion should be invoked across the board, not just in cases where the judge decides to invoke it. In order to ensure passion doesn’t get in the way of a just outcome, the ACs are

made up of a panel of judgesEMPATHY IN JUDGES (as opposed to passion) Empathy is more important b/c at the end of the day, an essential part of

adjudicating is taking the parties’ situations into account Empathy can be applied to both cases if empathy is viewed as a mindsetUTILIZING THE RULE OF LAW Sticking to the rule of law ensures that there is an arbitrary system of judgment The extent to where there is concern for the rule of the law is the extent to which

there will be empathy in the lawChapter 4:

CASE SEQUENCECase law is made up of a series of evolving statutes and cases.Barrett v Southern Pacific Co. SC Cali 1891- attractive nuisance doctrine/ turntableOpinion written by: Haven with Beatty and McFarland concurringFacts:D owned a turntable. It was only protected by a latch and key and the RR company knew children would trespass there. The P was playing with his friends when his foot got caught and it was amputated.Procedural Posture:Suit for personal injuries due to negligence. A jury trial awarded the P 8500 and the D appealed b/c of the jury charge. SC affirmed judgment of lower court.Issue:Can a D who knowingly keeps on his property an attractive nuisance and knows that children play on it, be liable to trespassers?Holding:Because the D has a duty to protect children from an attractive nuisance who he knows or reasonably should know, trespass on his property, the D can be held liable for injuries sustained by those trespassing children.Judgment for PPeters v Bowman SC Cali 1896- zero liability in water related casesOpinion written by: McFarland with Henshaw and Temple concurringFacts:P’s son drowned in a pond on a lot owned by the D. The pond was not made by the D. The D no longer lived on or visited the property. The son who was 11, was considered highly intelligent, and his friends were playing on a raft in the pond when the son fell off and drowned.Procedural Posture:Jury trial returned a verdict for the D and on that basis plus the denial of a new trial, the P appealed. SC affirmed lower courts judgment.

5

Issue:Is the owner of a body of water under a duty to enclose it to prevent harm to trespassers?

Holding:Because water is a common, known danger, and a cognizable risk, and the only means of ensuring the safety of the pool is by destroying it, there is no liability imposed upon the owner of a body of water who fails to enclose it.***established zero liability for water related injuries***Judgment for DPeters v Bowman II 1897Opinion written by: BeattyPetition by P for rehearing en bank based on a judgment in PekinPekin v McMahon requires the court to clarify further its decision in Peters I. in Pekin, the pond was excavated by the D himself. Further, the ct says that even though that court chose to go in that direction, they wouldn’t have imposed liability on the D so Pekin is irrelevant.The court further distinguishes b/w Peters and Barrett:

1. Ponds are common to children2. A turntable can be properly secure w/o rendering it useless; not so for ponds3. A failure on the part of a parent to properly warn their children doesn’t

translate into liability for e/o elseRehearing denied.Sanchez v East Coast Contra SC Cali 1928- hidden trap theory/ exception to PetersOpinion written by: Langdon with Richards and Shank concurringFacts:P and his family lived in the housing supplied by the D. On the D’s property was an irrigation canal with a siphon at the bottom. There was no notice of the siphon posted or given. The P’s son drowned in the irrigation canal on the D’s property after being sucked in by the siphon.Procedural Posture:Appeal by D following judgment for the P.Issue:Although there is zero liability for damages sustained by water, are there exceptions when there is a concealed trap the P is not aware of?Holding:When there is a concealed trap in water that the P has no way of knowing exists, b/c by going into the water the P only assumed the dangers of the water, not the hidden trap, the D is liable for damages sustained by the hidden trap.Judgment for the PCopfer v Golden AC 1955- trailer caseOpinion written by: Vallee with Parker Wood and Ashburn concurring

***First mention of Civil Code 1714***

6

Children of tender years have no foresight of danger and a very low understanding of danger; therefore, s/o who owns instruments which bring a potential danger to children must bear in mind that it is every individual’s duty to exercise due care as

the situation requires.

Facts:P moved to lot owned by the D. on the adjacent lot also owned by the D, the D kept trailers and random junk. D knew they would play there- he warned them but didn’t take any measures to secure the lot. The P was injured on a tubular part of the trailer.Procedural Posture:Action for damages. The case was tried w/o a jury with judgment for the P. D is appealing. Judgment for P affirmed.Issue:Is an owner who knows children trespass, liable for damages sustained by an attractive nuisance that he failed to properly secure?Holding:S/o who maintains on his property things which are enticing to children and he either does or should know that they pose the risk of serious harm which the children are not old enough to appreciate the danger therein is obligated to exercise reasonable care in protecting the children from the item.Judgment for P affirmed.

***First Mention of the Restatement 339***1. The owner is aware that children play in the place where the item is located2. The possessor knows or should know that the item is risky to children3. The children, bc of their youth, are unaware of the dangers created by the use

of the item4. The cost to the owner of maintaining the safety of the item is small compared

to the damage to the children that could result from the item not being properly secured.

5. Also it is not reasonable to expect parents to hover over their children all the time that is where the liability comes in on the part of owners of property dangerous and enticing to children.

This case is similar to Sanchez in that the fact that the children were trespassing isn’t so clear-cut. By Sanchez they lived on the property where the accident took place and by Copfer they were playing in the lot adjacent to the lot where they lived.Wilford v Little AC Cali 1956- first pool case- no liabilityJustices in opinion: Valee with Parker Wood and Ashton concurringFacts: P fell into neighbor’s pool and drowned. There was nothing surrounding the pool and the Ds could have easily installed a gate at minimal cost.**Error: P’s lawyers could have argued the trap theory on the diving board- instead they argued it on the pool but Peters said no COA in water related injuries**

7

Procedural Posture:D objected to P’s amended complaint; P failed to respond so a motion to dismiss was granted. P appeals.Issue:Is there a COA where a 4 yr old child fell into the pool of a neighbor and drowned?

Holding:B/c the attractive nuisance doesn’t apply to water and Sanchez only extended liability in water cases to hidden traps and the pool is not a hidden trap, there is no COA.

Wilford modifies the hidden trap theory from Sanchez by saying that the trap must be artificial, uncommon, and dangerous

Judgment for D affirmed.Knight v Kaiser AC Cali 1957- established zero liability in sand pilesOpinion written by: McComb with Schenk, Schauer, and Spence concurringFacts:P’s son was playing on sand piles maintained by the D. There was a conveyor belt nearby. The son was asphyxiated and died.Procedural Posture:D was granted a demurrer against the P’s third amended complaint and the P was not granted the opportunity to amend his complaint. P is recovering for damages for his son’s death.Issue:Do sand piles constitute an attractive nuisance thereby imposing liability on the D?Holding:because sand piles are naturally occurring- similar to water, there is no liability imposed on the D to secure the sand piles from trespassing children.

This is similar to Knight in that the P could have argued the attractive nuisance doctrine or trap theory on the conveyor belt but failed to recognize that just as by Knight when they failed to identify the diving board as a hidden trap. The court in

Reynolds calls Knight a failure of proof.Judgment for D affirmed.Dissent written by: TraynorCreated a blanket rule of zero liability when it comes to sand piles is not smart. We need to move away from rigid categories and towards a case by case analysis.Reynolds v Wilson SC Cali 1958- swimming pool case with liability to DOpinion written by: Schenk with Gibson, Carter, and Traynor concurringFacts:Ds owned a swimming pool surrounded by a gate with a big gap. The pool was visible from the street and the P, 2, was invited there to play many times. The babysitter was supposed to be watching him. He climbed out of a window, fell into the algae filled pool, and suffered brain damage.Procedural Posture:

8

Suit for personal injuries. Appeal by D based on a denial of a JNOV following a verdict for the P.Issue:

1) Can this case be applied under 339.2) If 339 doesn’t apply, can action be brought under the trap theory b/c the pool

was covered in algae.3) If 1 and 2 don’t work, can the D still be held liable based on the fact that the

child was an invitee rather than a trespasser.This is similar to Sanchez and Copfer in that it isn’t so clear that the child was

trespassing as he had been allowed in the pool beforeHolding:When every element of 339 is present and there is a hidden trap, there is liability for injuries occurring to trespassing children in swimming pools.Judgment for the P affirmedDissent written by: SpenceIn regards to the trap theory, this case is different from Sanchez b/c:

In Sanchez the trap was maintained and operated by the owner o Over here, the condition was present w/o any active effort of the D to

maintain it. In Sanchez there was no way for a/o to know it was there

o Whereas over here the water at the top was clear.Garcia v Soogian SC Cali 1959– case where the girl jumps over the windowpanesOpinion written by: Gibson with Shenk, Traynor, and Peters concurringFacts:P was 12 and was trespassing with her friends on D’s lot when it was dark out. Not knowing that there was a stack of glass windowpanes she jumped, landed on them, and broke her leg. D was aware children would trespass and constantly warned them away and there was a neighborhood man who would also warn them away.Procedural Posture:Trial w/o a jury, P recovered damages for injuries. D appealed.Issue:Did the D exercise reasonable care sufficient to remove liability.Holding:The P should have, b/c of her age, been able to recognize the danger in jumping around a construction site after dark. The walls were stacked neatly and the cost of further care would have been great. There is no additional duty imposed beyond the reasonable care that the D did in fact exercise.

The circumstances that a condition giving rise to injury is common in character does not necessarily exclude liability, that the ability to appreciate danger varies with the age and mental capacity of the child, and that what is important is not whether conditions are common in character but whether

their dangers are fully understood by children.

9

Liability must be determined on a case-by-case basis and not by placing cases in rigid categories

Restatement 339 has now been adopted as the law in CaliforniaJudgment for P is reversedConcurrence in judgment but dissent in reasoning written by: SpenceThe reversal should just be based on the precedent set in Knight regarding no liability for injuries sustained by or on building materials or construction sites.King v Lennen SC Cali 1959- Opinion written by: Gibson with Traynor, Peters, and White concurringFacts:Ds owned a pool with a partially constructed fence. There were animals surrounding the pool that were visible to the children. At the time of the accident the pool was dirty and opaque. An 18-month-old child drowned in pool that he frequented with his family by the invitation of the Ds.

This is similar to Reynolds, Sanchez, and Copfer in that it isn’t so clear that the child was trespassing as he was invited to the pool by the Ds.

Procedural Posture:Ps brought action for wrongful death of their son. Demurrer to the complaint was sustained w/o leave to amend and P now appeals.Issue:Did the failure to maintain the pool constitute a trap?Holding:B/c the pool was murky and a child of 18 mos can’t be xpected to understand the danger of going into it, and erecting a fence would have been extremely low cost to D, the D is liable.Judgment reversed with a new judgment for P

The common nature of a danger, such as that of drowning in a pool, should not bar relief if the child is too young to realize the danger.

Even very young children cannot always be kept under the supervision of their parents

o The question whether a parent in a wrongful death case was guilty of contributory negligence in permitting his young child to play unattended near the defendant's property will ordinarily be for the trier of fact.

This case officially overruled Peters and KnightChapter 5:Precedent

Frederick Schauer- precedent is a way of life. It allows impartiality in that judges are bound by earlier decisions and don’t have as much personal leeway.

Loose view of precedent- any decision or point made in the case is bindingo The courts argue about the language of the decision and the previous

court’s intention

10

Narrow view of precedent- there is one holding and that is the binding law. There is less leeway for future decisions.

Criticisms of precedent: Lower courts are bound whether they agree w previous decision

or not The first time an issue is raised and precedent is formed, regardless of

whether done correctly, it will create precedent Based on the precedent est, before the case even begins one

side may have a bug advantage Even though the court may want to decide one way, b/c they

have to think about how this decision will impact the future, they may decide differently

Defenses of precedent: Fairness Predictability Efficiency Legitimacy

Planned Parenthood v Casey The court refused to overturn Row b/c they felt that the impact on the country’s morale would affect the legitimacy of the court.

B/c the court has no real power, their legitimacy lies in the peoples’ faith in the court and constant overruling of previous decisions may make people question whether the court knows what it’s doing.

Chapter 7- Statutes and the Common Law The law in statutes is spelled out whereas in common law it must be found.

o Statutes are therefore harder to get around whereas finding the court’s absolute meaning in common law is more difficult and therefore easier to get around.

o Common law is only made by the judiciary whereas with statutes the legislature gets involved.

Legislative supremacy means that the legislature can alter the judiciary’s ruling but as long as statutes are within constitutional bounds, the judiciary cannot alter the legislature’s ruling.

Bills are applied prospectively

Case SequenceFilmore v Metropolitan Life Insurance (SC Ohio 1910) Facts:P alleged that he is owed 239,000 w interest as part of a life insurance payment which should have been made to him. The insurance company said that b/c the P killed his wife and was convicted of manslaughter, they should not have to pay.Procedural Posture:P filed a demurrer objecting to the D’s claims on the grounds that they were insufficient to mount a defense. The demurrer was overruled and the P didn’t want

11

to pursue it anymore so judgment was entered to dismiss the petition and the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court.Issue:Can the P collect b/c he alleges the murder wasn’t intentional and the statute only denies recovery for intentional killings?Holding:Because the objection is purely technical and the action was caused intentionally and there is no recovery of insurance for intentional acts, he cannot collect.IntentionalismJudgment affirmedDeem v Millikin (Ohio Circ Ct 1892)

Ohio Statute:1) A person, subject to only specific limitations, can direct who should be the

beneficiaries of their estate2) If the person dies w/o a will, the estate goes to the closest surviving relative

Facts:A widow died and bc she had no will her estate went to her son. The son mortgaged the property to cover debts. This is a suit bw the lenders and the son’s siblings who claim he didn’t have a right to mortgage the property b/c the son was hanged for being found guilty of murdering his mother.Procedural Posture:Lower court said bc the son inherited the entire estate, the mortgage was valid.Issue:Does the fact that the son murdered his mother change his rights to the estate?Holding:The statute should be taken as it was written and under the textualist interptetation of the statute, he is entitled to inherit the estate.Judgment affirmedRiggs v Palmer (SC NY 1889) Opinion written by: EarlFacts:A grandson lived with the grandfather until the GF died. When the GS was 16, knowing his GF may limit his inheritance, poisoned his GF to get access to the $.Procedural Posture:Appeal by P from a judgment dismissing complaint.Issue:Can the GS inherit even though he murdered the estate owner?Holding:The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that allowing Elmer to profit from his crime would violate tenets of universal law and maxims. The court held that the legislature could not be reasonably expected to address all contingencies in crafting laws and that, had they reason to suspect one might behave in the manner Elmer did, they certainly would have addressed that situation. This interpretation is a purposivism interpretation.Dissent written by: Gray

12

He argued that the criminal law established punishment for the murder. For the court to deny the estate to Elmer was to add significant further punishment to what Elmer received under the criminal statute, something the court was not permitted to do without the express, written statute. The written statutes that existed did not sanction the action of the court and the court cannot simply create or imagine such statutes so as to obtain a morally pleasing result. Gray's view of literal interpretation of the statute was in contrast with the majority opinion that gave the legislators' intentions influence over the actual statutes in place.Judgment dismissing complaint affirmed. Judgment for the P.

Wadsworth v Siek (TC Ohio 1970)Facts:Rosaline Seik made out a will leaving her mother, brother, nieces, and nephews as beneficiaries of her estate. Later that year she married John and he beat her to death. He pled guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to prison.In Ohio there is a statute that gives the spouse at least some part (50%) of the estate

even if there was nothing left for the spouse in the willBut there is another statute in Ohio that says:

A/o found guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder can’t inherit any part of the estate the person they killed

Issue:Can the P inherit based on his statutory right even though he was convicted of manslaughter?Holding:The court said that b/c the statute didn’t include manslaughter, the P is entitled to his half of the estate.

The fact that he was charged w murder is irrelevant bc he was ultimately found guilty of manslaughter.

o It is not the court’s job to legislate and add in the conviction of manslaughter. The fact that the court forgot it or chose not to is not the court’s option to change.

Following this case, Ohio amended the statute to include one who is convicted of or pleads guilty to manslaughter, murder in the 1st, or murder in the 2nd, and it added

that they should in no way benefit from the estate- not just the will.Shrader v Equitable Life Assurance Society (SC Ohio 1985)Facts:A woman was strangled in a parking garage and no one was ever arrested or charged for her death. D had two life insurance policies that named her husband as the primary beneficiary and her parents as the secondary. Insurance co left the funds w the court and had the parents and husband argue it out.Procedural Posture:TC found he killed her. AC reversed and said he needed to be proven a criminal in the SC.Issue:

13

Can someone against whom no criminal charges were filed, be found civilly liable for the death?Holding:Yes. The court found that he did murder her and based on the following reasons found that he could not have any part of her estate:

The statute was enacted to prevent criminals from benefitting from the estate of their victims, this statute doesn’t apply bc the husband was never convicted or charged with the murder but common law can still be used to preclude the murderer from inheriting.

If s/o feloniously commits murder he cannot inherit but bc he was not convicted the statute doesn’t stand

Bc the statute prohibiting a murderer from inheriting the estate of s/o who they murdered is a civil statute, civil courts should be allowed to determine whether the individual in fact murdered and therefore should not be able to inherit.

Judgment of AC reversed.Chapter 8:Theories of Statutory Interpretation

Agency- they are the agents of the legislature and carry out their decisions based on how the legislature made the statute with minimal discretion

Partnership- courts work with the legislature to create a sound body of lawThe legislature is superior to the judiciary in every respect except when it comes to constitutional issues.Courts as Agents of the Legislature- the court’s place in interpreting statutes

1. Traditional Intentionalisma. Judiciary focuses on the intent of the drafters of the statuteb. Judiciary looks at the circumstances surrounding the enactment,

transcripts, congressional hearings, and texts.2. Imaginative Reconstructing

a. This approach requires the judge to study the language and history of the time as well as values and attitudes at the time the statute was enacted.

3. Purposivisma. Intent is what the legislature had in mind when making the statute-

purpose, however, is what they wanted the statute to accomplish (intent is about means, purpose is about ends).

b. They believe that in order to properly understand a statute, it’s more important to focus on the purpose of the statute rather than the intent

4. Textualisma. Focus solely on what the text says and introduce in no other sources.b. They are supporters of the Public Choice criticism of intentionalism

which says that trying to determine the intent of a statute is pointless b/c statutes are usually the result of a series of compromises and not the result of one main idea.

Courts and Legislatures as Law Making Partners1. Independent judicial agreement

14

a. The majority legislature should not have the authority to make legal decisions- the legislative process should take place in the court room.

2. Dynamic statutory interpretationa. Courts should interpret the statutes based on the current times. They

believe that even the statutes themselves can change based on the evolving times.

3. Legislative supremacya. The courts should not have a hand in the legislative process b/c it

impedes the supremacy of the legislature.

Church of the Holy Trinity v United States SCOTUS 1892Facts:Holy Trinity Church signed an employment contract with a minister in the UK named Warren. At the time, such employment contracts were illegal under US law (23 Stat. 332).

The law explicitly prohibited any "...person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States... under contract or agreement... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States..."

There was an exception in the Statute (§5) that included actors, artists, lecturers, or domestic servants.

Procedural Posture:TC found for the US that Holy Trinity was in violation b/c the exceptions to the statute expressly left out pastors. Holy Trinity appeals to the SCOTUS.Issue:Is there an exception for pastors under the law?Holding:The court said that pastors were not included b/c the intention and purpose of the legislation doesn’t match up to preventing pastors from coming to the US.

Canons of Interpretation- a letter may be w/in the statute but not w/in the statute b/c it’s not w/in the intentions of the legislature

The US is a Christian nation. There is no way the legislators intended to prevent pastors from coming here.

The statute includes the words ‘manual laborers’. Pastors are not. At the time the legislation was enacted the purpose was to prevent the influx

of illegal immigrant workers to perform cheap, unskilled labor- pastors don’t qualify under this purpose.

The reason for the reversal was that the pastor was a public speaker and therefore not included in the ban.Judgment reversed.Sources of Statutory Interpretation:

1. Text a. Over here b/c the plain meaning of the text disallowed the pastor

from working in this country Brewer didn’t dwell on it.2. Beyond Text

15

a. S/t can be included in a statute w/o necessarily being in the letter of itb. It was noted by Justice Frankfurter that one of the most difficult parts

of statutory interpretation is figuring out how far external sources should be allowed to determine the text

3. Statute Titlea. Over here the title invoked the word laborers which the court used by

saying ministers aren’t considered laborers.4. Purpose

a. Brewer used the purpose of the legislators’ intentions in drafting this statute rather than their intentions- their purpose being to keep out migrant laborers.

b. Criticism:i. Not the court’s job to interpret

ii. It’s one sided5. Historical and Legislative Content

a. Look at the social and political conditions during the time when the statute was passed

b. At the time the statute was passed, they were trying to prevent an influx of unskilled workers.

6. Legislative historya. Holy Trinity relied on the hearings, testimony, and house report that

surrounded the passing of the statute as well as a discussion in the Senate Report which directly addressed the legislative intent of the statute

7. Later amendmentsa. Amendments that affect the outcome but were passed after the initial

court’s decision was rendered8. Public policy

a. It seems that what is most important to Justice Brewer is the fact that this nation was founded on a religious premise and he refuses to read any legislation in any other way.

Statutory Uncertainty:Statutes are never clearly resolved or understood b/c:

1. The intricacies and nuances in statutes can never be fully expressed w mere words- language is limiting

2. Statutes are often applied in situations where they were not meant to be applied so drafters attempt to think of every possible scenario

3. The legislative process makes it inherently difficult to construct a statute4. Statutes are often the product of a group effort so trying to get a very specific

and detailed statute passed can be difficult so they are usually more general.Vagueness and Ambiguity of statures differ in that with vagueness, adjectives can present the most issue- what does the word actually mean such as the word cool- what are its parameters- where does s/t go from cool to hot. Whereas ambiguity can mean two different things- seizure has two completely separate meanings.Chapter 10:Reading Statutory Texts

16

Nix v HeddenTomatoes are grown and eaten as vegetables. Dictionary definitions are only aids to help the memory and understanding of the court.University of Utah Hospital v BethkeThere was an argument over whether ‘as such’ only included hospitals in Idao. The court interpreted ‘as such’ to include all hospitals like the one in Idaho.Punctuation and Grammatical Uncertainty

Young v Community o Said that the commissioner should mitigate risk in food ‘as he finds

necessary’ Court said it was unclear, relied on doctrine of deference and

deferred to the agency’s internal views Justice Stevens in dissent said it did require the commissioner

to regulate the aflatoxin Rule of the last antecedent

o In the phrase is ambiguous, the words qualify the phrases right before it

A provision that may seem ambiguous can be clarified when it is viewed in context

United States v RessamFacts:D gave false information when passing through customs. His car was searched and explosives that he intended to use in the US were found.

He was convicted under 18 USC 1001 for making a false statement Also convicted under 18 USC 844h for carrying an explosive during the

commission of a felony that can be prosecuted within the USo Issue with the meaning of the word ‘during’

Procedural Posture:TC convicted of the D. AC overturned saying that ‘during’ means in relation to the crime.Issue:Does the word ‘during’ mean in the commission of the act or whether the explosives just happened to be there?Holding:The word ‘during’ does not mean in relation to. Regardless of whether the explosives were used during the actual act or not, the statute applies.

Majority used the most natural reading of the statute The statute was modeled after another statute that was later modified but

the explosives statute was remained intact which means that the legislature intended for it to remain the same.

Dissent: Cited house report that the statute was intended to criminalize and impose

harsh penalties on the misuse of the explosives Meaningful silence- the omissions of something in one part and its inclusion

in another means Congress intended for it to be omitted.

17

Literalism- different form textualism b/c it requires the word to be used in context

o Smith v US- the use of a gun means its use for its intended purpose***In Ressam they are looking at the actual enacted versions of two statutes and saying that the two statutes that became law diverge in their meaning so the debate is about the actual statutory interpretation. In Ashcroft, they’re looking at the internal legislative history of the statute- they’re not comparing two enacted statutes***US v Scrimegeour (5th circ 1981)P appeals from DC dismissal of 5 count indictment against D for knowingly making false statements before a grand jury

P admitted statements were falseDismissal was based on DC interpretation of statute that said if the statements hadn’t affected a/o or they were recanted, there would be no charges

Although criminal statutes are construed narrowly, that does not mean that the intent of the legislature should not be utilized

o According to the SC, unless the context says otherwise disjunctive statements are one or the other. However, b/c in this context it’s not possible that the legislature meant to allow a/o who recants to get off scot free, the word ‘or’ means ‘and’ in this instance

Canons of InterpretationLinguistic Canons:Ejusdem Generis

That when a general term follows a list of particular terms, the general term only applies to things similar to the particular terms.

o Cars, trucks, tractors, or other vehicles with four wheels doesn’t include plains

Noscitur a Sociis Determine the meaning of a statute based on the words around it

Expressio Unius There is a theory that the inclusion of one set implies the exclusion of

anothero Holy Trinity- the inclusion of a group of exceptions implied the

exclusion of those not listedo Brockamp- suit against IRS for missing deadline to claim rebate and

the court rejected the argument that it was due to disabilities b/c the provision allowed certain exemptions but didn’t include disabilities

Why canons are applied inconsistently:o If the legislature chooses to remain silent regarding certain topics,

that can be taken to mean many different things- they are implying certain things by their exclusion and the exclusion doesn’t mean that they forgot to address it

18

o Many times a lack of inclusion is the result of a poor job on the part of the legislature in properly drafting a statute in that the issues that will arise from its application are not properly addressed

Popkin: the omission of Y may only have to do with the fact that X had the legislature’s intention and so that’s why they focused on X- omission doesn’t mean exclusion

Block v Community Nutrition endored by Easterbrook- rules against the Ps by saying that b/c the process by which the milk was sold did not include consumers, that omission is tantamount to exclusion

The Rule Against Surplusage We avoid reading statutes in ways that render words useless

Bethke- mentions that had the legislation wanted to include all hospitals, as such would be extra so the ct interprets the statute in a way as to make the words as such make sense

The Rule of the Last Antecedent A doctrine of interpretation by which a court finds that qualifying words or

phrases refer to the language immediately preceding the qualifier, unless common sense shows that it was meant to apply to something more distant or less obvious.

o The qualifiers should only apply to the words immediately preceding

Substantive CanonsAbsurdity CanonArguments for ignoring the plain meaning of text:

1. Absurd results- many believe that when following the plain meaning leads to absurd results, the literal definition shouldn’t be used

a. Issues with absurdity doctrine:i. What justifies this exception- who said removing the

interpretation from the text is allowedii. Where does the text go from absurd to not absurd

2. Legislative intent- oftentimes the text can conflict with the intenta. Posner said of the decision in Locke that the intention of the

legislatures was obviously to include the 31st i. The critique of the dissent in Locke was that in the statutory

text doesn’t convey what the legislation wanted, then is the statute ever binding? Also, by the judiciary determining the intent, aren’t they really determining their own intent?

1. Although the court could have voted for including the date, that would undermine the faith in the statutes

3. Background norms- if the textual meaning conflicts with background normsRule of Lenity

Where there is ambiguity in a criminal statute and there are equal differing interpretations we resolve it in favor of the D

Federalism Canons

19

There are canons that say that if there’s ambiguity that weighs federal and statutory interpretations that may infringe on state autonomy, we go according to the interpretation that rules in favor of the states

o Gregory v Ashcroft- we want states to be able to choose their own judges and policies about how to hire and fire them

Issues with applying a substantive canon based on the general policies surrounding it:

1. Statutes are ambiguous- who said the court should rely on background principled to settle the ambiguity

2. Where does the court find the principle on which to base its decision and how does it know it’s the correct one

3. Their interpretation isn’t necessary in every case so when are they used- they can’t be applied sporadically when the court decides to do so

United States v LockeFacts:Under federal statute, in order to preserve claims on federal land, the notice must be filed prior to December 31st. P filed on December 31st and lost his claims to the land.Procedural Posture:DC said Ds complied by filing on the 31st

Issue:Does the meaning of the statute prevent filing on the 31st?Holding:The plain meaning of the text of the statute provides the filing should be before the 31st and b/c its unambiguous there’s no reason to interpret any other way.Dissent:Most deadlines are on the 31st- the end of the calendar year and the fact that it said before the 31st is merely a legislative oversight.Chapter 12- Legislative History

You only look at the statute when the meaning of the statute is ambiguous- Justice Stevens

o This rule implies that words are the best evidence of the meaning and intent of the legislature

The criticism of this is that whether s/t is ambiguous or not depends on who’s reading it

Hierarchy of legislative sources:o Committee reports and especially conference committee reports carry

the most weight, statements made by sponsor of the bill or floor manager are also pretty weighty (statements by others carry less weight and statements by opponents carry virtually no weight), concerns or particular witnesses and the weakest are statements made after the bill is passed b/c they bear no weight on what happened at the time the statute was passed.

Constitutional illegitimacy

20

Legislation is passed through a system laid out in the constitution. Legislative history has not gone through that process and relying on it as a means for achieving intent is wrong

Inaccurate evidence of actual views Now, b/c the legislatures know what their reports can

influence, their legitimacy is in great question- they are merely publishing them to affect judicial opinion

Indeterminacyo Legislative history is infinitely manipulatable- it is so vast it can be

construed in a million different ways Unavailability and Cost

Chapter 13- Statutes in the Administrative Stateo Executive:

Appointed by president and serve within the scope of the executive branch

Includes cabinet and other free standing agencies The leadership of executive agencies changes with each

presidencyo Independent:

Multi member, bi partisan commissions The positions are staggered and last for longer periods than

executive The appointees can be fired by president but only for good

cause They have a greater degree of independence than executive

There has been a shift from independent to executive agencieso Executive:

Appointed by president and serve within the scope of the executive branch

Includes cabinet and other free standing agencies The leadership of executive agencies changes with each

presidencyo Independent:

Multi member, bi partisan commissions The positions are staggered and last for longer periods than

executive The appointees can be fired by president but only for good

cause They have a greater degree of independence than executive

There has been a shift from independent to executive agenciesDuties:

They are in charge of setting regulations They are in charge of issuing permits They inspect and enforce their regulations

21

Judicial and Executive aspects to all agencies: Their judicial function exists in:

o Applications for permits and licenseso Alleged violations of statutes, regulations, and licenses

Their executive aspect functions in:o Inspecting, policing compliance, and bringing enforcement actions

either before the agency or in courto Executive:

Appointed by president and serve within the scope of the executive branch

Includes cabinet and other free standing agencies The leadership of executive agencies changes with each

presidencyo Independent:

Multi member, bi partisan commissions The positions are staggered and last for longer periods than

executive The appointees can be fired by president but only for good

cause They have a greater degree of independence than executive

There has been a shift from independent to executive agenciesThey are in charge of setting regulations

They are in charge of issuing permits They inspect and enforce their reg The judicial function exists in:

o Applications for permits and licenseso Alleged violations of statutes, regulations, and licenses

The executive aspect functions in:o Inspecting, policing compliance, and bringing enforcement actions

either before the agency or in courtThe agencies are required to interpret the statutes under which they operate

Agencies are also required to explain and refine their understanding of the statute

Regulatory precedents are just as important as judicial decisions Regulations are subject to interpretation and amendment by the courts

Whether the court chooses to conform will depend upon: Thoroughness of evidence Validity of its reasoning Consistency with earlier and later pronouncements

o This is similar to horizontal stare decisis for persuasive authority

Skidmore v Swift and Co. (SCOTUS 1944)When the views of an administrator are put forth in an informal way they should be respected b/c of administrator’s expertise even though no statute requires his views be conformed to.

22

Chevron USA v NRDC (SCOTUS 1984)Chevron Steps:When a court reviews an agency’s construction of a statute:

1. If congress has addressed the ambiguity, the regulation must give way to Congress’s interpretation

2. If congress hasn’t addressed the matter then the q is whether the agency’s interpretation is permissible under the statute

a. Silence of the other branches is tantamount to delegation to the agencies

23