December 2005
Monthly Archive
Constitutional Law I #37: Affirmative Action II Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:55 am
We now return to Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action case. (Please see News and Views #3 for additional treatment of the case.) Along the way we will discuss formal vs. substantive equality, as well as group rights vs.individual rights.
Grutter v. Bollinger
Standard Podcast [18:30m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Ira Krakow's "Racial Quotas in University Admissions: The Bakke and Grutter Cases" [8:01m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadConstitutional Law I #36: Affirmative Action I Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:53 am
We now begin our discussion of affirmative action. We will discuss the differences between policy and law, remedial measures, and a Supreme Court case that attempts to harmonize the 5th and 14th Amendments.
City of Richmond v. Croson
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
Constitutional Law I #35: Race-Based Regulation II Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:52 am
We continue our discussion of race-based regulation. A statute banning inter-racial marriage will be struck, a race-preferring custody law will meet a similar fate, while a facially neutral test with disproportionate effects will survive. Note that the first two cases have significant applicability to the current debates regarding homosexuality.
Loving v. Virginia
Palmore v. Sidoti
Washington v. Davis
Constitutional Law I #34: Race-Based Regulation I Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:51 am
We will begin our discussion of strict scrutiny-inducing race-based regulation by looking at cases that did not have the benefit of the contemporary formulation of the same. White-only juries will be struck, while Japanese-American detentions will be upheld.
Strauder v. West Virginia
Korematsu v. United States
Standard Podcast [15:29m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Ira Krakow's "Was the Internment of Japanese Americans in World War II Legal?" [6:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadConstitutional Law I #33: Rational Basis Review Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:49 am
We now begin our in-depth examination of equal protection under the 14th Amendment. There are three standards currently employed by the Supreme Court, and rational basis review is the most lenient of these standards.
NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co.
United States v. Carolene Products Co.
Torts #50: Assault Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:47 am
Assault is distinct from battery, as the former does not require physical contact. We’ll look at some cases to familiarize ourselves with the elements of a civil assault.
I de S et ux v. W de S
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hill
Torts #49: Battery Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:46 am
Battery is perhaps the simplest intentional tort, but still has its share of complexity. We will discuss the elements of battery, the distinction between single intent and dual intent requirements, and how mentally ill defendants are treated in regards to battery.
Wallace v. Rosen
Leichtman v. WLW Jacor Communications
Manning v. Grimsley
McGuire v. Almy
White v. Muniz
Torts #48: Introduction to Intentional Torts Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:44 am
We now move from negligence to the study of intentional torts. These intentional torts make up approximately 5% of tort actions today, and comprise assault, battery, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels. We will also discuss the concept of transferred intent.
Ranson v. Kitner
Torts #47: Statute of Limitations Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:26 am
A statute of limitations (and its cousin the statute of repose) serve to put a time limit on when a tort action can be brought. Once the statute of limitations has passed, the merits of an individual lawsuit become irrelevant.
Teeters v. Currey
Torts #46: Privileges and Immunities Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:24 am
Certain types of actors are granted legal immunity from torts. For example, children generally cannot sue their parents, and sovereign immunity is often used by the state. We will examine these privileges and immunities, and see how they have evolved over the years.