LEB 320F Exam 1 Lecture - LEB 320F Exam 1 Lecture Textbook Notes Cases SOLDANO v ODaniels(CH 1-Wrongful death action close relatives sue those who

LEB 320F Exam 1 Lecture - LEB 320F Exam 1 Lecture Textbook...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 22 pages.

LEB 320F Exam 1 Lecture & Textbook Notes Cases: SOLDANO v O’Daniels (CH 1) -Wrongful death action, close relatives sue those who caused a death Tort- negligence or assault and battery -Case from 1977 where Soldano got in a fight with Villanueva. Villanueva pulled a gun. Guy runs out of the bar where this fight occurs, across the street, to use the phone to call police. bartender across the street refuses!! Villanueva shoots and kills Soldano. Family of Soldano is SUING bartender & owner of bar for refusing to let person use the phone. -Defendants: Bartender and owner -Bartender refused to call police or let someone use the phone -Family of the victim are suing the bartender and owner for not letting a third party use the phone that might have prevented the shooting -Agency- the bartender’s employer also can be held liable since the bartender was acting in the scope of his employment -The bartender owed a duty to the plaintiff’s decedent -See Gold's notes for more GONZALES v RAICH (CH 5) How federal courts analyze whether congress has acted within the scope of its constitutionally granted legislative power. Controlled substances of marijuana. Federal Vs State law - Federal law—controlled substances act, but California law—compassionate care act (individuals can use and grow marijuana under doctor’s supervision) -Does congress’s power to regulate interstate markets for medical substances encompass the portions of markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally? -Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce - Federal government won because state law falls within the commerce power. Preemption issue—balancing test skewed towards fed government NEW YORK v BURGER (CH 6) -Burger owned a junkyard, New York police did a warrantless investigation, Burger did not have documents for vehicles and stolen parts were found. Burger was charged with stolen property and he moved to suppress the evidence -AA law v constitutional (right to privacy) law, challenged by Burger -Warrantless searches may occur in businesses open to the public -Agency issuing rules must also make decisions as to facts and policies. DECISION- warrantless search seems to be constitutional, thus, evidence against Burger obtained in court CLARK v OTIS (CH 8) Clarks sued Otis in wrongful death. Employee was drunk on the job, boss told employee to go home, walked him to his car, and sent him off. Was it foreseeable that Matheson could be involved in an accident if allowed to drive home drunk? -Reasonable Foreseeability that he would get into an accident. Matheson killed two people -If that manager didn’t put the employee on the road, those two people might not have died. Causal connection was valid.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 22 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • BREDESON
  • Law, Ethics, Supreme Court of the United States, Shared Ethics

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture