Legal Studies Notes

by B.J. on 10/25/2002 04:01:00 AM 0 comments Print this post

Comments: Post a Comment
[Edited on 10/30/03 to be much more useful to google searchers. This was originally posted to study for my midterms, posting stuff I had trouble grasping. And I relied heavily on this Introduction to Law book by Joanne Banker Hames and Yvonne Ekern. And if this stuff ain't good for you here are some links: nolo.com, lawlinks, alllaw, findlaw.com, the legal information institute,]

Legal Studies:

Bill = Proposed legislation NOT anything confirmed

Related Cases: 1) Koon v. US (1996 - WTF?! ), 2) Coon v. Joseph (1987 - Reagan era)

Keywords: Recidivism (haha, new word ) = tendency to relapse into criminal ways, Sentencing Guidelines ---> Reduces harm in prisons, Emotional distress, gays unrecognized, Frisco not recognizing gay couple

1) Is it me or do the Koons of this world get dicked around by the judicial system ? Koon was an ass because he beat Rodney King, but the courts jacked him around like an amateur Britney Spears in a fake porn video, as the district court from racist ass Simi Valley made him think he was getting a cheap sentence because of concern for their careers and the low risk of Recidivism, when all of a sudden, the Court of Appeals who finally decided that Koon and co. were asses, and Didn't deserve that kind of special treatment.

2) Coon was denied entrance onto a bus in Frisco of all places. Ervin, Coon�s lover, enters and is bitchslapped by the driver. But Coon was the one who sued because of emotional distress, and only heterosexual couples can sue for their partners. So this shit was dismissed. Frisco did not recognize gay gouples.

Related Cases: 1) Sommer v. Gabor (1995), 2) Hustler v. Falwell (1987), 3) Burnett v. National Enquirer (1983), 4) NYTimes v. Sullivan (1961)

Keywords: Libel, Malice, German case, Outhouse, 1st amendment


4) The New York Times case established that malice needed to be proven in a case of libel. Under that principle the following cases are related: 1) Gabor basically calls Sommer a broken down bitch. She loses. On appeal she tries to apply German law and sue for excess damages but loses. She could not prove there was any malice. 3) Hustler had no malice for Falwell. So Falwell lost. National Enquirer was libelous, but only lost $50,000 in compensatory damages.

Cases: 1) Baum v. New York Central Railroad (1958), 2) Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)

Keywords: Negligence, Horse, Fireworks, Proximate Cause

2) While Palsgraf lost the case, the dissenting opinion established what makes up today's law in that duty of care should be a duty owed to society to protect it from unnecessary danger. The question of liability becomes a question of proximate cause, rather than duty of care. This case is what makes drunk drivers more responsible.

1) This case established that damages alone couldn't be grounds for sueing if there was no negligence or some type of legal basis shown. An actor was injured by a horse and sued claiming damages as a result of negligence and breach of warranty. This actor couldn't prove that the owner of the horse had any malice nor knowledge of what the horse would do. The horse just acted like a horse.

Related Cases: 1) Buranen v Hanna (1985), 2) Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 3) Terry v. Ohio (1968), 4) Katz vs. US, 5) Martinez v. Hardtack

Keywords: Illegal search and seizure, 4th amendment, Excessive Force, Katz and his head (hmmmmmm ?)

2) Police raided Mapp's home because they thought there were bombs there, but instead they found a bunch of porn deemed to be against Ohio statute. This case established that authorities can't just take things not in plain view away.

3) This case Terry V. Ohio established that whenever a reasonably prudent officer is warrranted in believing that his/her safety or that of others is endagered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons, aka the exclusionary rule.

4 types of Slander and Libel:

1) Accusation of serious crime
2) Professional incompetence
3) Prostitution
4) Serious illness

Legislative process:

1) Legislation proposed.
2) Introduce bill
3) Refer bill
4) Vote on bill
5) Action by another house
6) Executive options

Writing a Legal paper:

1) Know the facts
2) Analyze
3) Issues
4) Use facts to define issues
a) Relevant Facts � Key, significant
b) Explanatory � Background
c) Unnecessary � Not needed

Should be short, active, and specific.

Id = quotation. You can quote someone if he exists on ID.

Supra = Authorities other than cases and statutes. Authority other than Civics (cases) and Acuras (statutes).

Substantive Laws = Defines rights and duties (e.g. Bill of Rights)

Res Ispita Loquitir = The thing speaks for itself. . .implied negligence (carelessness)

Labels:

 



Home Page