Court will only agree with this if evidence is very clear Tennesee Valley

Court will only agree with this if evidence is very

This preview shows page 9 - 11 out of 53 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 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
Image of page 9
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.
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 53 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture