June 2006
Monthly Archive
Civil Procedure II #23: Issue Preclusion (aka Collateral Estoppel) Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:14 pm
Issue preclusion (aka collateral estoppel) is a means by which, under certain circumstances, a party that lost on an issue in a prior case does not get the opportunity to relitigate that issue against another party. In this manner certain issues (but not necessarily entire claims) are removed from consideration in later suits.
Little v. Blue Goose Motor Co.
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
Civil Procedure II #22 Claim Preclusion (aka Res Judicata) Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:11 pm
We now turn to preclusion, where prior lawsuits can remove issues or claims from relitigation. Claim preclusion (aka res judicata) operates on the principle that you only get “one bit of the apple.” A plaintiff is forced to bring all of their claims and theories of relief relating to a transaction at once, or be forever barred.
Manego v. Orleans Board of Trade
Landrigan v. City of Warwick
Civil Procedure II #21: Mandamus Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:08 pm
Our final avenue of appeal that we will examine is mandamus, where a lower court judge is forced to take certain actions. Consider a drastic remedy, it is not often granted.
Will v. United States
In re Chimenti
Civil Procedure II #20: Appeal Under USC 1292(b) Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:06 pm
1292(b) of the United States Code allows another avenue of intelocutory relief. We will examine the prongs of that manner of appeal in this episode.
Cardwell v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.
USC 1292(b)
Civil Procedure II #19: Collateral Order Doctrine Tuesday, Jun 27 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:02 pm
Not all appeals have to wait until final judgment. The collateral order doctrine is one avenue of interlocutory appeal, allowing immediate review.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
Will v. Hallock
Sell v. United States
Constitutional Law II #19: Expressive Conduct Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:58 am
All speech is symbolic, with written speech using symbols (ie letters) to convey messages. However, often times valid and worthwhile criminal laws will intersect with symbolic activities (ie expressive conduct). We’ll look at what happens with these intersections in this episode.
United States v. O’Brien
Texas v. Johnson
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.
Constitutional Law II #18: Hate Speech Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:58 am
Perhaps a special breed of fighting words is hate speech. Our discussion of hate speech will give us a new underinclusion doctrine that deals with the “low-value speech” of fighting words, obscenity, etc.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
Wisconsin v. Mitchell
Constitutional Law II #17: Fighting Words Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:58 am
It has often been said that “fighting words” are outside the protection of the First Amendment. What does that mean, and what exactly are fighting words? We’ll look at the evolution of this doctrine in this episode.
Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire
Cohen v. California
The Skokie Cases
Constitutional Law II #16: Prior Restraint Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:57 am
Speech may only rarely be held back from publication because it is considered unlawful. Rather, publication is allowed, with consequences to follow after the fact. When such publication is not allowed, a prior restraint is said to occur, and the First Amendment is not kind to such prior restraints.
Near v. Minnesota
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
NY Times v. United States
Constitutional Law II #15: Various Terms Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:54 am
Before proceeding further, we need to define various terms. Content-neutrality, viewpoint-neutrality, overbreadth, vagueness, secondary effects, and other speech-related doctrines will be discussed here.
PD of the City of Chicago v. Mosley
Renten v. Playtime Theatres