Upgrade to remove ads
Cornell Law IALS Cases and Concepts
Terms in this set (50)
Scott v. Shepherd
Tort; If the third party has acted instinctively (as in 'the heat of the moment') then there will be no break in the chain of causation
Legal Reasoning; these rules only have one element.
Example: 'no person may park on these premises'
Legal Reasoning; these rules set out a list of elements, each and every one of which must be satisfied before consequences result - usually identified by the word "and".
Legal Reasoning; these rules list multiple elements, but only one of those elements must be satisfied to invoke the rule's consequences - usually identified by the word "either/or".
Rules with Exceptions
Legal Reasoning; these rules state a simple rule but contain an exception.
Example: 'a person may not enter unless he has express authority to do so.'
Rules with Multiple Factors
Legal Reasoning; these rules lay multiple factors that need to be considered, but they don't all need to be shown - an example is the minimum contacts test
Rules that require a Balancing Test
Legal Reasoning; these rules require a decision maker to weigh competing interests and decide which carries more weight - the Constitution contains a lot of these.
Legal Reasoning; these rules require an action.
Legal Reasoning; these rules forbid an action.
Legal Reasoning; these rules empower an official to exercise their judgment on whether or not to take a particular action.
Legal Reasoning; these rules simply state what is or is not legal.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
Judicial System and Common Laws; Except in matters governed by the United States Constitution or Act of Congress, the law that is to be applied in any case is the law of the state, there is no general law.
Canons of Interpretation; legal rule meaning 'of the same kind', used by judges to help them interpret the words in a statute.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Canons of Interpretation; to express one thing is to exclude another; if something was left out of a statute, it was meant to be left out.
Noscitur a sociis
Canons of Interpretation; meaning of a word in a series is affected by others in same series; or, a word may be affected by its immediate context.
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
Statutory Interpretation; a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because it is not within the statute's spirit, not within the intention of the statute's makers.
Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Company of California
Tort; doctrine of comparative negligence should take over from the all-or-nothing contributory negligence.
Vincent v. Lake Erie Transportation Co.
Tort; because D stayed moored to dock during storm to protect his ship, it was a private necessity immunizing him from liability for trespass but making him liable for damage to the dock.
E. J. Baehr v Penn O Tex
Contract; a promise without consideration does not create an enforceable contract (consideration).
A promise to forbear from suing may constitute consideration in most cases.
Feinberg v. Pfeiffer Co.
Contract; a promise that induces an action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the contract (promissory estoppel).
Jacob & Youngs v. Kent
Contract; if a party substantially performs its obligations under a contract, that party will not be forced to bear the replacement cost needed to fully comply with the agreement but instead will owe the non-breaching party the difference in value between full performance and the performance received.
Hawkins v. McGee
Contract; damages in a breach of contract case are either reliance or expectation, and may be measured by the difference between the Plaintiff's actual position and the position he would have been in had the contract not been breached.
Boomer v. Atlantic Cement Co.
Property; the damage caused by the cement plant was a servitude on the land. The court held that payment of permanent damages would constitute full compensation for the servitude placed on the land (minoritarianism).
Injunction to be vacated by permanent damages due to large disparity between the consequences of a nuisance and of an injunction.
Connecticut v. Heller
Property; the police power may regulate any business or the use of any property in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare, provided this be done reasonably. To that extent, public interest is supreme and private interest must yield (majoritarianism).
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Property; people do not retain property interest or property rights in their body parts after removal so cannot uphold an action in conversion.
Economic Efficiency; a move from one combination to another makes at least one individual better off without making any other worse off
Economic Efficiency; the situation where one person cannot be better off without making someone else worse off.
Economic Efficiency; a situation where the allocation of resources produces more benefits than costs
Economic Efficiency; a tax imposed on an activity that creates a negative externality
Economic Efficiency; 'let the market work'. Incorporate the social costs into the price and let the customers decide what they want and how much they're willing to pay for it.
Economic Efficiency; if trade in an externality is possible and there are sufficiently low transaction costs, bargaining will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome regardless of the initial allocation of property.
Liability does not matter in this scenario.
Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
Contract; when an element of unconscionability is present at the time of contract formation, the resulting contract is not enforceable.
Marbury v. Madison
Article III; SCOTUS has constitutional authority to review executive actions and legislative acts. SCOTUS has limited jurisdiction, the bounds of which are set by the Constitution, which may not be enlarged by the Congress (establishes Judicial Review)
Trump v. Hawaii
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; the rational basis standard of review considers whether the entry policy under the Immigration and Nationality Act is plausibly related to the government's stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. As a result, the court may consider extrinsic evidence, but will uphold the policy so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds
McCulloch v. Maryland
Article I, Section 8; federal law is stronger than the state law.
The state is not allowed to tax operations of the US Government, as the US Government is created by people of all states, therefore, the individual state would be acting upon people in other states - whom they have no control over.
Shaffer v. Heitner
Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause; when the only contact the defendant has with the forum state is the location of property as defined by state statute, the forum lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant unless the minimum contacts test is satisfied.
Minimum Contacts Test
Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause; the test may be satisfied when:
- Activity is continuous and systematic and the cause of action is related to that activity; or
- When activity is sporadic but the cause of action arises out of a single act; or
- When there is continuous activity that is unrelated to the cause of action, but is substantial enough that it would be reasonable for the forum court to assert jurisdiction
Brown v. Board of Education
Fourteenth Amendment; segregation is a violation of the Equal Protection clause. Separate but equal educational facilities are inherently unequal
In Re Griffiths
Fourteenth Amendment; because classifications based on nationality are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, the state must meet a high burden to justify such a classification (if targeted, it will be strict basis review)
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; by failing to act in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
R. A. V. v. St. Paul
First Amendment; a city may not prohibit expression of particular ideas on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses (content neutral v content based).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; a law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle (i.e., an "undue burden") in the path of a woman seeking an abortion - loosened from "strict scrutiny" to "undue burden".
Bloom v. Illinois
Article III, Section 2 AND Sixth Amendment; serious criminal contempts are so nearly like other serious crimes that they are subject to the jury trial provisions of the Constitution.
Mapp v. Ohio
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment AND Fourth Amendment; all evidence discovered as a result of a search and seizure conducted in violation of the fourth amendment shall be inadmissible in state court proceedings.
People v Goetz
Criminal; a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he reasonably believes that said force is necessary to protect himself (objective test).
Criminal; the time for defense is now
Criminal; the means chosen to defend one's self must be the least costly - i.e. it must have been necessary to act in that way as there was no reasonable alternative to take.
However, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife".
Criminal; the defense must be proportionate to the aggression. It requires a balancing of competing interests and the defense must not be excessive.
Criminal; the defender must intend to repel the attack. Self-defense can only be properly exercised by a person who knows the relevant facts.
Stand Your Ground laws
Criminal; statutes that allow citizens to use deadly force without attempting to retreat, even when they are threatened outside their homes. This contributes to a culture of self-defense being a right to kill instead of being a protective defense in the event it is necessary.
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
Bad Character s101 CJA Gateways
Civil Litigation Cases