100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 48 pages.
Court will only agree with this if evidence is very clear Tennesee Valley Authority v. Hill (1987) (below)Why do courts have to interpret?Legislatures draft bills purposely with deliberate imprecisionSome concepts are too difficult to define without reference to a set of facts Amendment and deletion process leaves many bills less clearChoice of language of a bill may have been the result of a compromise
Language is imperfect and few words are susceptible to just one meaningIncreasingly common in the statesCovers banking law, criminal law, education, consumer sales, motor vehicle lawWhy does it exist?Deals with the structure and day to day operation ofthe governmentSome things just can’t be regulated by common lawlike criminal activities- it needs to be clear what people can/cannot do It can remedy new problems Uniform state statutes: page 93Our federal system permits great variation in law from stateto statestates known as “laboratories of democracy”advantageous bc some states can try a particular approach to a legal/regulatory problemdoesn’t work well - it can be abandonedworks well - other states can copy the successNCCUSL is an org that drafts uniform or model laws with the hope that many states will adopt themEx: Uniform Commercial Code that governs contracts for the sale of goods in the U.S., governs leases of goods, provides the law of commercial paper, governing the rights and obligations of the makers of notes, drawers of checks, and endorsersof negotiable instrumentsUCC Articles2 governs contracts for the sale of goods2A governs lease of goods3 governs the rights and obligations of the makers of notes, drawers of checks, and endorsers of negotiable instruments (the law of commercial paper)4-8 deal with more specialized situations9 covers all kinds of secured transactionsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 8:oAllowed a plaintiff to file a proper complaint simply by “a short and plain statement of the claim” oConley v. GibsonThe US Supreme Court ruled that a complaint should not be dismissed for “failure to state a claim”
The decision guided lower federal courts and state courtsOverruled in 2007 by Bell Atlantic Corp v. TwomblyCourt held that a district court can dismiss a complaint without having to go so far as to conclude that there is no doubt that the plaintiff can simply not ever prove it’s claimAshcroft v. Iqbal (2009)oOn 9/11 Iqbal was arrested and not served his constitutional rightsoComplaint said that they adopted an unconstitutional policy and got harshconfinement based on his race/religion/national originoThey tried to dismiss it but court said nooHe pleaded guilty, served time, went back to Pakistan, then filed a lawsuit for being treated poorly while serving his time, said Ashcroft was leader behind it all oThey said although there are no facts currently, it does not mean it didn’t happenGood to remember—plaintiff must prove the allegations. Defendant does not actually have to prove anything.