26 January 2005: Horton and Aldridge cases
A little review of last week's assigned
readings, more on Horton case and Aldridge case
EDLD
5340
26 Jan 2005
Tonight: finish chapers 1 in both books
- skip to highlighted cases in chapter 4
- back to chapter 3
In about 45 min we will need a piece of paper
remember 3 branches of gov't is setup to have checks and balances, and delegate specific roles to specific branches
If US Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide a case on grounds other than digging into the Constitution (regulatory basis, or statutory basis), they will
- p 5 of A&A, another way of saying "we don't mess with the Constitution"
- inclined to do this by juriprudential precedent
What is important about the cases we read:
- Facts partially, but rarely do the facts turn up exactly the same in another situation
- the challenge, however, is that you usually don't have the same set of facts, there are other variables
- The RATIONALE or the "WHY" is the key point, that is what we should internalize, what were the things that went through the judges minds for the majority to decide the case the way they did
- that is even more important than the outcome: reversal or affirmation
Writs of Certiorari
- an discretionary appeal through which a court can be brought to the Supreme Court
- the Court chooses whether or not it wants to take your case
- Supreme Court almost always chooses its cases to consider because at least 4 of the 9 justices feel it is ready, the parties have standing, etc
Higher court "reaches down" to the lower appeal court and assumes jurisdiction over the case (this is granting Certiorari)
Kemerer and Walsh book is a little imprecise on p 8 with regard to numbers of cases the US Supreme Court hears annually
-
We won't be asked on an exam to define these terms (like Certiorari) on the exam, but a working knowledge of all these terms is essential as a foundation for the rest of this course
p. 15 of A&A
- don't worry about vertical judicial federalism, but the idea of removal of a lawsuit by the defendants from a state court to a federal court is important
- this means if you have both a state law question and a federal law question, plaintiff gets to decide where to file the case
- defendants have occasion to have a case removed largely so the venue (and therefore prospective jury pool) will be more balanced
TERMS:
- venue
- removal (usually from state court to federal, if it goes the other direction it happens when federal court is looking at both state and federal issues and there is a question about state law that the federal government is not able to answer: they will CERTIFY a question back to the state supreme court)
SUPREMECY CLAUSE
look at page 16 in A&A
- cross reference page 74 in A&A
- also look at Article VI of US constitution
p 74: says that Federal law trumps everything else (including state law)
bottom of page 17 inaccuracy in A&A
- often there is not a trial, like the 2nd case we will consider tonight
we will look at both civil and criminal cases in this course
- in civil action, the plaintiff who brings the case must show beyond a preponderance of evidance (this means the see saw must tip one way or the other)
- witnesses, documents, credibility of evidence, everything
- thinking percentage-wise: 51% is better than 49%, the scales of justice tip
conversely for criminal actions not brought by an individual plaintiff but by a prosecutor, like a state attorney general
- has a different standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt
- this is beyond the civil burden of proof / preponderance of evidence
sexual harrassment case can involve both criminal and civil issues
pages 17-18 of Chapter 1: the processes of going to court
- Civil: need plaintiff who says they have been harmed, a contract has been broken, I want an injunction, etc.
-- bring a lawsuit, file a complaint
-- complaint is served on the defendant(s)
-- need both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction
-- timeline is maintained by the trial court
-- defendants are thinking: should we settle? sometimes defendants settle because it is cheaper
-- Fred's thought on public institutions settling: is there a moral obligation for public entities to NOT settle and go to court to see how that comes out / what is resolved
-- defendants also are thinking about types of defenses
-- complaint, an answer, plaintiffs sometimes amend their complaints during/after discovery
In our juriprudential system, it used to be more trial by ambush (no one shared anything about what they knew like Perry Mason)
- we no longer have this trial by ambush system
- esp in civil litigation, each party must disclose what they know and what their documentation will be, what they are going to try and show
- this is setup that way so if both sides know the same things, the liklihood of a settlement or resolution is greater
So this is setup to try and resolve cases short of a trial
- civil litigation: of 100 cases filed, only 1.5 to 2 actually go to trial
- lots of reasons, alternative dispute resolution / mediation is becoming more common
discovery can take lots of directions, can include depositions, interrogatories ask for written answers, asked to produce your records if you have them (important for school officials)
- easy to say you are going to document everything, that is harder to actually do
- those documents are "discoverable" if you go to trial
- if you write down things are going to be harmful to your case, look out, because those documents are discoverable
about half the cases in the textbook HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED
- then we have not had anyone listen to credibility of the witnesses, review the documents, etc.
- if you haven't had a trial you just have allegations, not facts
SO, TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE WAS A TRIAL OR IF THE JUDGE(S) JUST TRIED TO REACH A DECISION
In K&W text, page 29
- discussing pendulum shift, new generation of constitutional rights rulings
- if you are an aspiring school administrator, direction the pendulum is swinging looks pretty good for school administrators
- contrast this to 60s and 70s we had pendulum swinging in favor of student and employee rights
- from Reagan years and to date, even through Clinton administration, pendulum has swung to point of having a lot more balance, there are more eggs in your basket as a school administrator, having more autonomy, etc.
- still need to be informed, use good judgement, etc.
pp. 37 to 41 in K&W
- Texas in Texas Education Code, Chapter 26, captures "for parents"
- didn't do this before 1995 and Senate Bill 1 (when education code was sunsetted)
- this is chapter on parental rights and responsiblities (not many other states have something like that)
- probably 95% of Texas parents are not aware of this statutory chapter (this is statutory "clout" that parents have)
Look at A&A page 117 on Hortonville
- Wisconsin like Texas says that teachers cannot strike
- what was alternative to Supreme Court's decision in favor of the Hortonville school district? Having judges run our schools?
- Wisconsin supreme court ruled in favor of the teachers, US Supreme Court reversed
full Hortonville case is on:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=426&invol=482
there was one procedural and one substantive here
Notice the 5th amendment extends due process protection from federal actions, post-civil war the 14th amendment was adopted to extend those protections of life, liberty and property to state actions
- protectioins are both procedureal and substantive
amount of process that is due varies depending on facts and circumstances
in Hortonville
- teachers were the original plaintiffs, because they felt they were wronged
- Wisconsin Supreme Court said teachers were right and ruled against the district
- in US Supreme Court, the school district appealed so the teachers become the defendants
TERMS:
appellant/appellee
petitioner/defendant
teachers in Hortonville could have prevailed if they could have shown that board members had made up their minds previously, they were not really impartial
- attorneys should have proven the bias, not assumed it was there, asking board members if they are impartial and able to be impartial
rest of this story: many of the Hortonville teachers were rehired, but not all of them
- in 2 year interim, between original action (firing teachers) and Supreme Court decision, some of those striking teachers were rehired
Next: p 136 Aldridch case
Question: who was Gary R. Aldridge?
- doesn't make sense that he was the superintendent and potested
Our challenge esp as we look at torts in upcoming weeks, look at the facts and
Look in WebCT at Chapter 51 on open meetings (Texas statutory provisions governing open meetings)
- subchapter D: exceptions when meetings are required to be open
See Section 551.071 of Texas Government Code
meetings of governing boards are intended to be open, not closed
- exceptions of when they can be closed are pretty limited to given circumstances that very state to state (personnel matters, property purchasing decisions, consulting with an attorney, etc.)
All board meetings that are open do not have to allow public discussions
in past for this class, each student was required to attend 2 school board meetings
FOR NEXT WEEK IN ADDITION TO COURSE OUTLINE ASSIGNMENTS:
on 141 look at Rhode Island Case
on 128 look at nepotism case (not a Texas case, the attorney general of Texas came out with a new interpretation of that, so now Kemmer and Walsh points on this are NOT accurate)
on 143 look at Hebron
FOR NEXT WEEK: read the tort cases, focus on the facts, get ready for a lot of "what ifs" with those
26 Jan 2005
Tonight: finish chapers 1 in both books
- skip to highlighted cases in chapter 4
- back to chapter 3
In about 45 min we will need a piece of paper
remember 3 branches of gov't is setup to have checks and balances, and delegate specific roles to specific branches
If US Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide a case on grounds other than digging into the Constitution (regulatory basis, or statutory basis), they will
- p 5 of A&A, another way of saying "we don't mess with the Constitution"
- inclined to do this by juriprudential precedent
What is important about the cases we read:
- Facts partially, but rarely do the facts turn up exactly the same in another situation
- the challenge, however, is that you usually don't have the same set of facts, there are other variables
- The RATIONALE or the "WHY" is the key point, that is what we should internalize, what were the things that went through the judges minds for the majority to decide the case the way they did
- that is even more important than the outcome: reversal or affirmation
Writs of Certiorari
- an discretionary appeal through which a court can be brought to the Supreme Court
- the Court chooses whether or not it wants to take your case
- Supreme Court almost always chooses its cases to consider because at least 4 of the 9 justices feel it is ready, the parties have standing, etc
Higher court "reaches down" to the lower appeal court and assumes jurisdiction over the case (this is granting Certiorari)
Kemerer and Walsh book is a little imprecise on p 8 with regard to numbers of cases the US Supreme Court hears annually
-
We won't be asked on an exam to define these terms (like Certiorari) on the exam, but a working knowledge of all these terms is essential as a foundation for the rest of this course
p. 15 of A&A
- don't worry about vertical judicial federalism, but the idea of removal of a lawsuit by the defendants from a state court to a federal court is important
- this means if you have both a state law question and a federal law question, plaintiff gets to decide where to file the case
- defendants have occasion to have a case removed largely so the venue (and therefore prospective jury pool) will be more balanced
TERMS:
- venue
- removal (usually from state court to federal, if it goes the other direction it happens when federal court is looking at both state and federal issues and there is a question about state law that the federal government is not able to answer: they will CERTIFY a question back to the state supreme court)
SUPREMECY CLAUSE
look at page 16 in A&A
- cross reference page 74 in A&A
- also look at Article VI of US constitution
p 74: says that Federal law trumps everything else (including state law)
bottom of page 17 inaccuracy in A&A
- often there is not a trial, like the 2nd case we will consider tonight
we will look at both civil and criminal cases in this course
- in civil action, the plaintiff who brings the case must show beyond a preponderance of evidance (this means the see saw must tip one way or the other)
- witnesses, documents, credibility of evidence, everything
- thinking percentage-wise: 51% is better than 49%, the scales of justice tip
conversely for criminal actions not brought by an individual plaintiff but by a prosecutor, like a state attorney general
- has a different standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt
- this is beyond the civil burden of proof / preponderance of evidence
sexual harrassment case can involve both criminal and civil issues
pages 17-18 of Chapter 1: the processes of going to court
- Civil: need plaintiff who says they have been harmed, a contract has been broken, I want an injunction, etc.
-- bring a lawsuit, file a complaint
-- complaint is served on the defendant(s)
-- need both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction
-- timeline is maintained by the trial court
-- defendants are thinking: should we settle? sometimes defendants settle because it is cheaper
-- Fred's thought on public institutions settling: is there a moral obligation for public entities to NOT settle and go to court to see how that comes out / what is resolved
-- defendants also are thinking about types of defenses
-- complaint, an answer, plaintiffs sometimes amend their complaints during/after discovery
In our juriprudential system, it used to be more trial by ambush (no one shared anything about what they knew like Perry Mason)
- we no longer have this trial by ambush system
- esp in civil litigation, each party must disclose what they know and what their documentation will be, what they are going to try and show
- this is setup that way so if both sides know the same things, the liklihood of a settlement or resolution is greater
So this is setup to try and resolve cases short of a trial
- civil litigation: of 100 cases filed, only 1.5 to 2 actually go to trial
- lots of reasons, alternative dispute resolution / mediation is becoming more common
discovery can take lots of directions, can include depositions, interrogatories ask for written answers, asked to produce your records if you have them (important for school officials)
- easy to say you are going to document everything, that is harder to actually do
- those documents are "discoverable" if you go to trial
- if you write down things are going to be harmful to your case, look out, because those documents are discoverable
about half the cases in the textbook HAVE NOT BEEN TRIED
- then we have not had anyone listen to credibility of the witnesses, review the documents, etc.
- if you haven't had a trial you just have allegations, not facts
SO, TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE WAS A TRIAL OR IF THE JUDGE(S) JUST TRIED TO REACH A DECISION
In K&W text, page 29
- discussing pendulum shift, new generation of constitutional rights rulings
- if you are an aspiring school administrator, direction the pendulum is swinging looks pretty good for school administrators
- contrast this to 60s and 70s we had pendulum swinging in favor of student and employee rights
- from Reagan years and to date, even through Clinton administration, pendulum has swung to point of having a lot more balance, there are more eggs in your basket as a school administrator, having more autonomy, etc.
- still need to be informed, use good judgement, etc.
pp. 37 to 41 in K&W
- Texas in Texas Education Code, Chapter 26, captures "for parents"
- didn't do this before 1995 and Senate Bill 1 (when education code was sunsetted)
- this is chapter on parental rights and responsiblities (not many other states have something like that)
- probably 95% of Texas parents are not aware of this statutory chapter (this is statutory "clout" that parents have)
Look at A&A page 117 on Hortonville
- Wisconsin like Texas says that teachers cannot strike
- what was alternative to Supreme Court's decision in favor of the Hortonville school district? Having judges run our schools?
- Wisconsin supreme court ruled in favor of the teachers, US Supreme Court reversed
full Hortonville case is on:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=426&invol=482
there was one procedural and one substantive here
Notice the 5th amendment extends due process protection from federal actions, post-civil war the 14th amendment was adopted to extend those protections of life, liberty and property to state actions
- protectioins are both procedureal and substantive
amount of process that is due varies depending on facts and circumstances
in Hortonville
- teachers were the original plaintiffs, because they felt they were wronged
- Wisconsin Supreme Court said teachers were right and ruled against the district
- in US Supreme Court, the school district appealed so the teachers become the defendants
TERMS:
appellant/appellee
petitioner/defendant
teachers in Hortonville could have prevailed if they could have shown that board members had made up their minds previously, they were not really impartial
- attorneys should have proven the bias, not assumed it was there, asking board members if they are impartial and able to be impartial
rest of this story: many of the Hortonville teachers were rehired, but not all of them
- in 2 year interim, between original action (firing teachers) and Supreme Court decision, some of those striking teachers were rehired
Next: p 136 Aldridch case
Question: who was Gary R. Aldridge?
- doesn't make sense that he was the superintendent and potested
Our challenge esp as we look at torts in upcoming weeks, look at the facts and
Look in WebCT at Chapter 51 on open meetings (Texas statutory provisions governing open meetings)
- subchapter D: exceptions when meetings are required to be open
See Section 551.071 of Texas Government Code
meetings of governing boards are intended to be open, not closed
- exceptions of when they can be closed are pretty limited to given circumstances that very state to state (personnel matters, property purchasing decisions, consulting with an attorney, etc.)
All board meetings that are open do not have to allow public discussions
in past for this class, each student was required to attend 2 school board meetings
FOR NEXT WEEK IN ADDITION TO COURSE OUTLINE ASSIGNMENTS:
on 141 look at Rhode Island Case
on 128 look at nepotism case (not a Texas case, the attorney general of Texas came out with a new interpretation of that, so now Kemmer and Walsh points on this are NOT accurate)
on 143 look at Hebron
FOR NEXT WEEK: read the tort cases, focus on the facts, get ready for a lot of "what ifs" with those
Posted: Wed - January 26, 2005 at 08:47 PM |
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Get More Info
Comments and Trackbacks powered by HaloScan.com.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category: 4
Published On: Feb 02, 2005 10:24 PM
Total entries in this category: 4
Published On: Feb 02, 2005 10:24 PM
