Law Final - Cases Flashcards
(31 cards)
Andrew Speaker Case
Example of multiple legal issues that make it difficult to respond quickly
Facts:
- Andrew Speaker was a lawyer, got a chest x-ray showing something weird in his lungs, tested negative for TB sputum test. They sent him home, asked him to come home in 3 months, then they did a bronchostopy and sent sample off for treatment.
- He ran off to Europe to get married and eventually came back through Canada
South Dakota v. Dole
State can condition spending on state behavior
Rust v. Sullivan
- Facts: With Title X, Congress prohibited the funds from being “used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.” In 1988, DHHS issued new regulations that prohibited projects receiving these funds from not only providing abortions, but also counseling, advising, or promoting the idea that a woman seek an abortion. These regulations were challenged on the grounds that they were not permissibly within the scope of the statute and that they violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
- Holding: the regulations did not violate the legislation in question or the Constitution. The regulations were a permissible construction of statutory law, did not violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the recipients, and did not violate the Fifth Amendment right of women to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy.
Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp (1983)
3 elements of commercial speech:
o Identifies a specific product
o Form of advertising
o Confers economic benefits – exchange for money v. goods
Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
- Facts: Chrestensen violated a New York City municipal ordinance which prohibited distributing printed handbills in the streets bearing “commercial advertising matter.” Chrestensen remade his handbill, by removing the admission fee on the front advertisement and on the reverse side placing a protest against the City Dock Department’s refusal to grant him dockage.
- Holding: “purely commercial advertising” is not protected under the first amendment.
Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1975)
- Facts: ACLU filed a Supreme Court appeal on behalf of a newspaper editor in Charlottesville, Virginia who had published an advertisement for an abortion referral service in New York (where abortion was legal). Virginia charged the editor, Jeffrey C. Bigelow, with violating a state law that made it a crime to encourage abortions via lectures, advertisements, or any other manner. Bigelow was convicted and fined; the Virginia Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, rejecting his First Amendment challenge by pointing to the lowered protections on commercial advertisements.
- Holding: the First Amendment “should prevent states from prohibiting advertisements of products or conduct that is clearly legal at the place advertised.”
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission (1980)
- Is the activity unlawful? Is the speech false, deceptive, or misleading?
- Is the government interest substantial?
- Does the regulation of commercial speech directly advance the state interest?
- Is the regulation no more extensive than necessary to serve the government’s interests?
Central Hudson: Step 1
- Is the activity unlawful? Is the speech false, deceptive, or misleading?
o If YES, speech is NOT protected.
o If NO, so far it is protected and move on to question
o Ex: unsupported product claims, fraud, illegal activity
Central Hudson: Step 2
- Is the government interest substantial?
o Ex: prevention of youth smoking, traffic safety, temperance, gambling reduction
Central Hudson: Step 3
- Does the regulation of commercial speech directly advance the state interest?
o Means/ends inquiry: advertisements, in fact, promote unsafe behavior
o Advance State Interest to Material Degree: Not “remote” or “ineffective” method
o Evidentiary Standard: State must produce objective evidence (plurality of the Supreme Court)
Central Hudson: Step 4
- Is the regulation no more extensive than necessary to serve the government’s interests?
o Reasonable “Fit” between Means/Ends
A little less stringent of a standard than “least restrictive alternative”
o Narrowly tailored: No more extensive than necessary
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
- Facts: Rhode Island passed a law prohibiting the advertisement of alcoholic beverage prices. Rhode Island claimed that it passed the statutory ban to protect consumers from “commercial harms.”
- Holding: All 9 Justices agreed it was unconstitutional, but disagreed on why (plurality).
o Stevens held that governmental impediments to truthful and accurate commercial messages rarely protect consumers. On the contrary, courts must take “special care” when considering such “protective” measures since they often hinder public choice and obstruct necessary debate over public policy issues.
o Rhode Island failed to show that its statutory ban would lower market-wide liquor consumption, must less alter alcohol consumption among abusive drinkers who are most in need of assistance.
o Stevens held that although the Twenty-first Amendment did empower Rhode Island to regulate the sale of liquor, such regulatory power is not to be exercised to the detriment of its constitutional obligation to protect and abide by the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee.
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n v. US (1999)
- Facts: The Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Association (Association) wanted to run advertisements for lawful private casino gambling in Louisiana and Mississippi. The Association challenged the government’s prohibition against such radio- and television-based advertising.
- Issue: Does a federal prohibition against advertising lawful privately-held casino- gambling violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections?
- Holding: Yes. The advertising restrictions were unconstitutional because:
o They applied where the gambling activities being promoted are legal.
o The government failed to demonstrate that its restriction would alleviate harmful gambling practices to any material degree.
o The regulations in question provided only ineffective and remote support for the government’s concerns, since all sorts of other gambling activities would continue unaffected.
o The government restrictions unfairly singled out a specific form of speech for regulation while leaving others untouched.
International Dairy Foods Association v. Amestoy (2nd Circuit Appeals, 1996)
- Facts: Vermont passed a law mandating the disclosure of bovine growth hormone in dairy products. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, which requires irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits
- Holding: the statute causes irreparable harm because it requires them to make involuntary statements whenever they offer their products for sale. Fails Central Hudson test because the interest is not substantial, because the chemical makeup of the two kinds of milk (GMO v. non-GMO) is the same when it is sold.
- Rule: Consumer curiosity is not enough to justify compelling speech
- Dissent – noted the decision effectively denies public truthful, non-misleading information
RUI Corp. v. City of Berkeley (2004)
- Facts: 9th cir upheld local living wage law
- Holding: no infringement of contracts, it noted the power to regulate wages and employment conditions lies clearly within a state’s of municipality’s police power and legislative bodies have broad authority to exercise such power
- 3 part test:
o Is there a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship?
o If yes, does it serve a significant and legitimate public purpose?
o Is it reasonably related to achieving the goal (public purpose)?
Penn. Central Transportation Company v. City of New York (SCOTUS, 1978)
- Facts: owner of Grand Central Terminal wanted to build above it, but it had been designated as a landmark. Owner asserted that the restriction on their use rights amounted to a taking.
- Holding: In deciding whether a particular government action has affected a taking, the court should focus on the character of the action and the extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a whole, using 3 factors:
o 1. Economic impact of regulation on the claimant (who? How serious? Commercial v. residential?)
o 2. Interference with reasonable backed investment expectations – the greater the expectation of what the owner thought he could do with the property, the greater likelihood that the court will find a taking.
o 3. Character of the government action (regulatory v. physical occupation).
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
- Facts: Lucas bought two beachfront properties for 975k, and an Act later passed rendered the property useless.
- Holding: the denial of all economically viable use is a taking 100% diminution in value. Note however that it is very hard to get land considered valueless.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)
- Facts: plaintiff wanted to build a beach club.
- Holding: The entire property is the denominator, use Penn Central balancing test. court extended taking to statutes and regulations that were in place when property acquired
Lingle v. Chevron (2005)
SCOTUS held “regulation has to be so dire to be functionally equivalent to the classic physical taking” – more supporting of PH regulation
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (SCOTUS, 2005)
- Facts: New London Development Corp planned and received state funds to exercise eminent domain to get properties in New London and then build a private waterfront development.
- Holding: Extends public use to include “public purpose”; the exercise of eminent domain does not have to actually be used by the public as long as it is intended to benefit the public.
o The government taking private property from one owner and giving it to another private owner for furtherance of economic development constitutes “public use” because it satisfies a public purpose. - Dissent – There is an indirect harm in not benefitting the town, and the big risk for danger is forcing property owners to make the best use of their property, even if they don’t want to.
Frye v. U.S. (1923)
- Court set standard for scientific evidence later overturned in Daubert
general acceptance test – scientific evidence or theory must be sufficiently establishes to have general acceptance (consensus) in scientific community
Federal Rules of Evidence (1975)
– marked a shift allowed introduction of any scientific or technical evidence that will assist the trier of fact to understand… and a qualified expert may testify to it very broad!
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993)
court interprets Evidence Rule 702 (a federal rule) to change from a general acceptance standard to “gatekeeper” rule to determine the soundness of the expert scientist opinion by reference to a series of non-exclusive factors:
- In order to have evidence admitted, you have to be well used enough to persuade the judge that the testimony meets the standard.
- In 2000, Congress amended Rule 702 to embrace the Daubert rule of trial judge as aggressive gatekeeper for sufficient facts, reliable principles, etc.
- NOTE: Acceptance of the common law standards depends on state.
- 4 Factors – test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence:
o Testing – whether the scientific theory or technique can be and has been tested
o Peer review – whether the theory or technique has been subjected to strictures of peer review and publication
o Error rate – whether there is a high known or potential rate of error
o General acceptance – whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997)
- The trial court could critically examine whether the expert’s conclusions were supported by the studies cited.
