June 2006
Monthly Archive
Constitutional Law II #14: Clear and Present Danger II 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
After Holmes and Brandeis left the Court, the Clear and Present Danger test continued to evolve. It finds its current form in the very speech protective Brandenburg test, requiring both likelihood of imminent danger and intent to bring about that danger.
Dennis v. United States
Yates v. United States
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Constitutional Law II #13: Clear and Present Danger I 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
Current Speech Clause jurisprudence has its genesis in the clear and present danger doctrine. This doctrine developed through a number of dissents (and the occasional concurrence) from Holmes and Brandeis.
Schenck v. United States
Abrams v. United States
Gitlow v. New York
Whitney v. California
Constitutional Law II #12: Intro to Free Speech Tuesday, Jun 6 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 10:53 am
We now turn to what has been called the “first among equals” within the Bill of Rights: the Freedom of Speech. We’ll look at the history of the Speech clause, along with the different models that have been suggested for speech protection.
Civil Procedure II #18: Introduction to Appeals Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:00 am
The process of appeal is how trial decisions are reviewed, as well as the law changed if need be. In this episode we’ll examine the federal appellate system and the final judgment rule.
USC 1291
Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Co.
Civil Procedure II #17: Special Verdicts Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:55 am
In the federal system, a jury does not have to simply return a finding for one party along with the money to be paid out (if any). Through the use of special verdicts and special interrogatories, a judge (at the request of the parties) can require the jury to walk through their reasoning step-by-step.
Rule 49
Whitlock v. Jackson
Civil Procedure II #16: Rule 60 / Remittur and Additur Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:45 am
We conclude our look at post-trial motions by (briefly) examining a request for relief from judgment, and spending some time on remittur and additur. Remittur and additur are when a judge maintains the jury decision on liability, but modifies the amount of money awarded.
Rule 60(b)
Dimick v. Schiedt
Civil Procedure II #15: Motion for New Trial / JMoL Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:42 am
In addition to moving for judgment as a matter of law, a litigant might desire a new trial. New trials may be granted for a variety of reasons, including a judge deciding that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence. We’ll examine how motions for new trials and JMoL interact with each other.
Rule 59
Ahern v. Scholz
Civil Procedure II #14: Judgment as a Matter of Law Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:23 am
Sometimes a plaintiff will fail to meet their burden of production, and as such no rational jury could find for them. In those cases judgment as a matter of law can be awarded. (This was previously known as a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, depending on when rendered.)
Rule 50
Galloway v. United States
Civil Procedure II #13: Seventh Amendment III Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:20 am
We conclude our discussion of the Seventh Amendment application to federal civil procedure by examining the historical test of whether an action is legal (requiring right of jury) or equitable (no right of jury). We also briefly discuss jury selection.
Teamsters Local No. 391 v. Terry
Constitutional Law II #11: State Action Monday, Jun 5 2006
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law II and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 2:19 am
The Constitution provides a check on governmental power, but not necessarily a check on private behavior. (Obviously Congress can check private behavior by enacting legislation.) In this episode we will look at when state action exists.
Civil Rights Cases
White Primary Cases
Shelley v. Kramer
Marsh v. Alabama
Flagg Brothers, Inc. v. Brooks
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority