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 imprecision
Some concepts are too difficult to define
without reference to a set of facts
Amendment and deletion process leaves
many bills less clear
Choice of language of a bill may have been
the result of a compromise
Language is imperfect and few words are
susceptible to just one meaning
Increasingly common in the states
Covers banking law, criminal law, education, consumer
sales, motor vehicle law
Why does it exist?
Deals with the structure and day to day operation of
the government
Some things just can’t be regulated by common law
like criminal activities- it needs to be clear what
people can/cannot do
It can remedy new problems
Uniform state statutes: page 93
Our federal system permits great variation in law from state
to state
states known as “laboratories of democracy”
advantageous bc some states can try a
particular approach to a legal/regulatory
problem
doesn’t work well - it can be
abandoned
works well - other states can copy
the success
NCCUSL is an org that drafts uniform or model laws with
the hope that many states will adopt them
Ex: 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 endorsers
of negotiable instruments
UCC Articles
2 governs contracts for the sale of
goods
2A governs lease of goods
3 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
situations
9 covers all kinds of secured
transactions
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 8:
o
Allowed a plaintiff to file a proper complaint simply by “a short and plain
statement of the claim”
o
Conley v. Gibson
The 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 courts
Overruled in 2007 by Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly
Court 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 claim
Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009)
o
On 9/11 Iqbal was arrested and not served his constitutional rights
o
Complaint said that they adopted an unconstitutional policy and got harsh
confinement based on his race/religion/national origin
o
They tried to dismiss it but court said no
o
He 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
o
They said although there are no facts currently, it does not mean it didn’t
happen
Good to remember—plaintiff must prove the allegations.
Defendant does not actually have to prove anything.
