Read through the subsection in this chapter entitled “Decisions and Opinions.”

(c) A third group will explain why judges and justices write concurring and dissenting opinions, given that these opinions will not affect the outcome of the case at hand, which has already been decided by majority vote.

Read through the subsection in this chapter entitled “Decisions and Opinions.”

(a) One group will explain the difference between a concurring opinion and a majority opinion.

On July 5, 1884, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks— ”all able-bodied English seamen”—and a teenage English boy were cast adrift in a lifeboat following a storm at sea. They had no water with them in the boat, and all they had for sustenance were two onepound tins of turnips. On July 24, Dudley proposed that one of the four in the lifeboat be sacrificed to save the others. Stephens agreed with Dudley, but Brooks refused to consent—and the boy was never asked for his opinion. On July 25, Dudley killed the boy, and the three men then fed on the boy’s body and blood. Four days later, a passing vessel rescued the men. They were taken to England and tried for the murder of the boy. If the men had not fed on the boy’s body, they would probably have died of starvation within the four-day period. The boy, who was in a much weaker condition, would likely have died before the rest. [Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. (Queen’s Bench Division, England) 273 (1884)]

b. Should judges ever have the power to look beyond the written “letter of the law” in making their decisions? Why or why not?

On July 5, 1884, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks— ”all able-bodied English seamen”—and a teenage English boy were cast adrift in a lifeboat following a storm at sea. They had no water with them in the boat, and all they had for sustenance were two onepound tins of turnips. On July 24, Dudley proposed that one of the four in the lifeboat be sacrificed to save the others. Stephens agreed with Dudley, but Brooks refused to consent—and the boy was never asked for his opinion. On July 25, Dudley killed the boy, and the three men then fed on the boy’s body and blood. Four days later, a passing vessel rescued the men. They were taken to England and tried for the murder of the boy. If the men had not fed on the boy’s body, they would probably have died of starvation within the four-day period. The boy, who was in a much weaker condition, would likely have died before the rest. [Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. (Queen’s Bench Division, England) 273 (1884)]

(a) The basic question in this case is whether the survivors should be subject to penalties under English criminal law, given the men’s unusual circumstances. Were the defendants’ actions necessary but unethical? Explain your reasoning. What ethical issues might be involved here?

Where would you look to find the relevant California and federal laws?

AOL, LLC, mistakenly made public the personal information of 650,000 of its members. The members filed a suit, alleging violations of California law. AOL asked the court to dismiss the suit on the basis of a “forum-selection clause” in its member agreement that designates Virginia courts as the place where member disputes will be tried. Under a decision of the United States Supreme Court, a forum-selection clause is unenforceable “if enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which suit is brought.” California courts have declared in other cases that the AOL clause contravenes a strong public policy. If the court applies the doctrine of stare decisis, will it dismiss the suit? Explain. [Doe 1 v. AOL LLC, 552 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2009)]

In this chapter, we stated that the doctrine of stare decisis “became a cornerstone of the English and American judicial systems.” What does stare decisis mean, and why has this doctrine been so fundamental to the development of our legal tradition?

What is the primary source of the law that is at issue here?

This chapter discussed a number of sources of American law. Which source of law takes priority in the following situations, and why?

(d) A state constitutional amendment conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

This chapter discussed a number of sources of American law. Which source of law takes priority in the following situations, and why?

(c) A state statute conflicts with the common law of that state

This chapter discussed a number of sources of American law. Which source of law takes priority in the following situations, and why?

(b) A federal statute conflicts with a state constitutional provision.

This chapter discussed a number of sources of American law. Which source of law takes priority in the following situations, and why?

(a) A federal statute conflicts with the U.S. Constitution

Are the plaintiffs seeking a legal remedy or an equitable remedy?

A county court in Illinois is deciding a case involving an issue that has never been addressed before in that state’s courts. The Iowa Supreme Court, however, recently decided a case involving a very similar fact pattern. Is the Illinois court obligated to follow the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision on the issue? If the United States Supreme Court had decided a similar case, would that decision be binding on the Illinois court?