Legal Process

Class Notes

Case Briefs

  1. Boomer v Atlantic Cement: 9/7/10 ; allocation of dispute-resolution power between the market, the courts, and the political process is tied to the number of participants in a negotiation and the complexity of the issues; court discards the "nuisance = injunction" doctrine.
  2. Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.: 9/14/10 ; Numbers and complexity govern not only what remedies are available, but also whether the court is willing to overlook standard rules of property law; court discards the "coming to the nuisance" doctrine.
  3. McCastle v. Rollins Environmental Services of Louisiana: 9/14/10 ; We should approach certification of class action plaintiffs pragmatically, not formalistically, lest we unfairly bar reasonable claims.
  4. Reader v. Magma-Superior Copper Company: Not discussed ; the size of a class impacts the practicality of class-action litigation, but the larger the pool of plaintiffs, and the more diffuse the harm, the more the class-action mechanism is needed.
  5. United States v. Carolene Products Co: 9/21/10 ; the court won't interfere in interstate commerce laws designed to protect the public (i.e., acting against minoritarian bias), but they might act to protect minorities (i.e., when there's majoritarian bias).
  6. Fasano v. Board of County Cmmissioners of Washington County: 9/21/10 ; Court steps in to counter minoritarian bias (developers) who are maybe stepping on homeowner property rights by controlling zoning decisions.
  7. Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel: 10/5/10 ; majoritarian (outsider) bias and zoning
  8. Korematsu v. United States: 10/5/10 ; Overt majoritarian bias; court's will is overcome by the national security argument
  9. City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center Inc.: 10/5/10 ; Majoritarian bias again-- zoning quasi-suspect categories
  10. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mt. Laurel II: 10/12/10 ; Elaborate and resource-draining plans to counter foot-dragging; lots of good commentary on the relationship between the courts and the legislature
  11. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council: 10/12/10 ; Government-managed pharmacy cartel and commercial speech
  12. Helling v. Carey: 10/19/10 ; medical malpractice and custom; court abandons custom as dispositive in a clear-cut case
  13. Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Company: 10/19/10 ; Strict liability as a signal-sending device, and a compensation-providing device
  14. McDougald v Garber: 10/26/10 ; Unpalatable results when we declare that tort damages are for compensation only
  15. Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company: 10/26/10 ; Ford calculates B < P * L, but does not take non-pecuniary harm into account; how big can punitive damages get?
  16. Barber Lines Asymmetric Information v. M-V Donau Maru: 11/9/10 ; No recovery for purely economic damages; people in this position should rely on market insurance or contracts. To do otherwise will result in over-deterrence.
  17. Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Condominium Association: 11/16/10 ; You knew you couldn't have cats when you bought the place...
  18. Weaver v. American Oil Co: 11/16/10 ; Unenforceable based on disfavored clause and unequal bargaining power
  19. Wolff v. Fallon: 11/16/10 ; Restriction lifted, but it's a close call
  20. Trustees of Columbia College v. Thomas Thatcher: 11/16/10 ; Restriction lifted, but it probably was not necessary to do so
  21. United States v. Causby: 11/23/10 ; Flying over is a taking
  22. Batten v. United States: 11/23/10 ; Flying near is not a taking (numbers and complexity)
  23. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: 11/23/10 ; A total taking must be compensated, but not if the thing taken would be a public nuisance; also, average reciprocity of advantage
  24. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: 11/23/10 ; The harder it is to figure out the value of a taking, the less likely it is to be compensated
  25. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.: 11/30/10 ; No economic substantive due process; the "substantially advances" test is way too broad