Law School Outline Bank – Lawnix
Be sure to check out our large database of free case briefs.
Diversity is determined as of the date the action is filed. It does not matter if the parties move after the action has commenced. For living persons the determining factor is domiciliary status, i.e. where you are and intend to be indefinitely. See Mas v. Perry.
In the British case Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., the defendant company placed an advertisement in the paper that £100 will be paid to any person who contracts the flu or a cold after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. It is sufficient in the case of a continuing offer that notice of acceptance is supplied at the same time as notice of performance provided that the offer has not been revoked. [...]
Regarding res ipsa loquitur, an inference arises that the defendant has been negligent when the accident causing the harm is a type of accident that ordinarily occurs through the negligence of the class of actors of which the defendant is a relevant member. In Ybarra v. Spangard the plaintiff was injured during surgery but did not know who was responsible. The court permitted res ipsa loquitur. [...]
In Lucy v. Zehmer both parties signed a contract to sell a farm for $50,000 and gave all outward appearances of assent. The plaintiff relied on that contract and incurred expenses in preparation for the purchase of the land. The defendant could not later claim he was intoxicated and that the plaintiff knew he was insincere. [...]
In Hamer v. Sidway a man promised his nephew $5000 if he abstained from drinking, smoking, and gambling until age 21. The rule is that there must be a benefit or detriment to find consideration. In this case the detriment to the nephew was his circumscribed freedom of action. [...]
According to Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 1986, the burden on the moving party to produce evidence to refute the non-moving party’s claim may be discharged by pointing out to the District Court that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case. The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue. [...]
The case See Summers v. Tice. presents an example of the alternative cause test in which two defendants both acted negligently but only one party could have been responsible and the responsible party cannot be determined. The burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove who is responsible and therefore liable. [...]
In Langer v. Superior Steel Corp., the defendant employer promised to pay a pension if the plaintiff employee would not work for a competitor. The plaintiff accepted the offer and the employer stopped paying. The defendant was bound to pay because it benefited from the plaintiff’s refraining from accepting employment from a competitor. […]
Negligence may be established through circumstantial evidence and a party need show merely constructive knowledge, not actual knowledge. As per the pizza slip-and-fall case Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co., no notice requirement is necessary when the operating methods of a proprietor are such that dangerous conditions are continuous or easily foreseeable. [...]
In Marbury v. Madison, outgoing president John Adams appointed midnight judges who were confirmed by Congress. Jefferson refused to deliver the appointments. Marbury sued Madison, Jefferson’s secretary of state, under a law enacted by Congress that gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus to officials of the United States. [...]
In Lochner v. New York, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Bakeshop Act was unconstitutional for violating the Fourteenth Amendment because it interfered with the freedom of contract and did not serve a valid purpose within the scope of state police powers. [...]
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE
A. TYPE OF SUIT ALLOWED (standing concerns who brings suit)
1. If political Q, then dismissed not on the merits (not necessarily political issue (some were though – ex. McCardle))
2. Evolved out of suits in court to challenge state court under the Guaranty Clause (Article IV, sect. 4)
a. Guaranty Clause- guarantees republican form of government in every state
b. Luther v. Borden – claimed insurrectionists entitled to relief
Political Question Doctrine
§ The SC cannot make decisions on political issues
§ Any question arising out of the Guaranty Clause (Article IV § 4: all citizens are guaranteed access to a republican government) is non-justiciable because it is inherently political
o Political questions arise from relationship between branches of the federal government, not between federal and state governments
o It is the job of Congress, not the SC, to determine the path of Republican government
The Federal Executive Power
* If the President has explicit constitutional authority for particular conduct, then the issues are strictly whether the President is acting within the scope of the granted power and whether the President is violating some other constitutional provision.
* If there is a statute authorizing the President’s conduct, then the question is whether the law is constitutional.