ClassNotesFederalCourtsSubrin

LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)


Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 526c526

Friday, January 3, 2002 (Class 12)



Friday, January 3, 2003 (Class 12)




Changed: 572c572

Tuesday, January 7, 2002 (Class 13)



Tuesday, January 7, 2003 (Class 13)




Changed: 611c611

Wednesday, January 8, 2002 (Class 14)



Wednesday, January 8, 2003 (Class 14)




Changed: 652c652

Friday, January 10, 2002 (Class 15)



Friday, January 10, 2003 (Class 15)




Changed: 704c704

Tuesday, January 14, 2002 (Class 16)



Tuesday, January 14, 2003 (Class 16)




Changed: 800c800

Wednesday, January 15, 2002 (Class 17)



Wednesday, January 15, 2003 (Class 17)




Changed: 872c872

Friday, January 17, 2002 (Class 18)



Friday, January 17, 2003 (Class 18)




Changed: 911c911

Tuesday, January 18, 2002 (Class 19)



Tuesday, January 18, 2003 (Class 19)




Changed: 949c949

Wednesday, January 19, 2002 (Class 20)



Wednesday, January 19, 2003 (Class 20)




Changed: 1003c1003

Friday, January 21, 2002 (Class 21)



Friday, January 21, 2003 (Class 21)




Changed: 1058c1058

Tuesday, January 28, 2002 (Class 22)



Tuesday, January 28, 2003 (Class 22)




Changed: 1116c1116

Wednesday, January 29, 2002 (Class 23)



Wednesday, January 29, 2003 (Class 23)




Changed: 1146c1146
* Can sigle hiring decision by sheriff be considered "policy" triggering municipal liability?
* Can single hiring decision by sheriff be considered "policy" triggering municipal liability?

Changed: 1204c1204

Friday, January 31, 2002 (Class 24)



Friday, January 31, 2003 (Class 24)




Changed: 1257c1257

Tuesday, February 2, 2002 (Class 25)



Tuesday, February 2, 2003 (Class 25)




Changed: 1308c1308

Wednesday, February 5, 2002 (Class 26)



Wednesday, February 5, 2003 (Class 26)




Changed: 1358c1358
* United States Supreme Court now deciding whether anti-injuction act allows the federal court to injoin the state courts.
* United States Supreme Court now deciding whether anti-injunction act allows the federal court to injoin the state courts.

Added: 1363a1364,1365

Friday, February 7, 2003 (Class 27)





Added: 1409a1412,1550

Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (Class 28)




* Ex Parte Young: can sue individual for prospective relief to enjoin them from enforcing unconstitutional law. Can also get declaratory judgment when it doesn't infringe on state treasury.
* Areas of law implicated: US Constitution, Ex Parte Young, 1983, declaratory judgment act.
* Anti-Injunction Statute: Federal Court cannot enjoin State Court pending proceeding except for three exceptions (notwithstanding Ex Parte Young).
* Mitchum': Anti-Injunction Statute doesn't apply to 1983 suits--Ex Parte Young'' is "back in"--federal court could enjoin state court.
* Younger: Can't enjoin state criminal proceeding except Dumbrowski exception--patently unconstitutional, seems egregious. Stresses equitable nature; discretion is implicit.
* Dumbrowski: repeated harrassing indictments.
* Steffel: allows declaratory judgment if criminal proceeding is not yet pending.

Hicks v. Miranda




[422 U.S. 332] 1975 United States Supreme Court (cb765)

* Police seize pornographic films, file criminal charges against employees; owner of theater suing in federal court to have obscenity statute declared unconstitutional; owner then brought up on criminal charges.
* Court holds that, even though criminal case started after the federal case, Younger abstention applies.
* Could be collateral estoppel (issue preclusion): criminal case was not appealed, federal court should give full faith and credit to state decision. But not addressed in opinion (not raised by parties).
* Dissent: no proceedings against plaintiffs at time they file case.
* U.S. Constitution, 1983, declaratory judgment act: statements by Congress that they wanted you to be able to do this.
* Could be inviting state prosecution by filing federal suit.
* At time, three judge panel including one circuit court judge would hear constitutional challenges of state statutes with automatic right of appeal to United States Supreme Court (no longer the case).

* State court enjoin federal court.
* Parallel proceedings are possible, but whoever decides first is res judicata.

* Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff: preliminary injunction is considered to be a 'proceeding of substance on the merits' under Hicks standard for federal proceedings prior to state criminal case.
* Up until NOPSI in 1989, it appeared that there was no stopping point to Younger abstention.

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.




[420 U.S. 592] 1975 United States Supreme Court (cb773)

* State nuisance (civil) suit, similar to criminal suit, Court allows Younger abstention.
* Nuisance suit was against prior owner, plaintiff is now current owner.
* Congress has told District Courts, however, that can hear these cases under 1983 (and 1443).
* But isn't federalism more implicated in criminal case where state has taken some action, rather than civil suit where individual can file complaint and thereby potentially deprive plaintiff of federal forum?

* Trainor v. Hernandez (cb782): Civil fraud suit brought by State; District Court found unconstitutional attachment; Supreme Court reverses, saying State was a party and District Court should have abstained.
* Juidice v. Vail (cb782): Contempt order in civil suit between non-state actors; Supreme Court again requires abstention, State has interest in integrity of judicial integrity.
* Moore v. Sims (cb783): State takes children from house; District Court found process unconstitutional; Supreme Court again requires abstention because this is judicial action and constitutional issues could have been heard at state level.
* Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. (cb785): Pregnant woman fired by Christian school, files state administrative complaint; School seeks to have Federal District Court enjoin state administrative proceeding; Supreme Court again requires Younger abstention: administrative proceeding was judicial in nature, State has strong interest in prohibiting sex discrimination (note this is different from prior explanations of state interest in process).
* O'Shea v. Littleton (cb786): Civil rights action against county attorney, investigator, magistrate, and judge, claiming racial discrimination. Court requires Younger abstention.
* Rizzo v. Goode (cb787): Abstention required when plaintiffs seek to enjoin Philadelphia police and Mayor from discriminatory unconstitutional action.
* Pennzoil Company v. Texaco (cb787): Texaco sues in Federal District Court to enjoin $13B judgment against it from State Court; Texas law required bond for amount of judgment in order to appeal. Court agains requires abstention, either under Younger or Rooker-Feldman doctrine (federal courts cannot act to review state court decisions).

New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans




[491 U.S. 350] 1989 United States Supreme Court (cb788)

* Court finds against abstention; Scalia seems to be giving dissenters view: "When Congress tells us to hear cases, we should hear them."
* Hard to distinguish from Rizzo and O'Shea.



Wednesday, February 12, 2003 (Class 29)




* Abstention could be stay of Federal case, to give state court time to elucidate state law; or case can be thrown at altogether.
** Pullman abstention: case isn't being thrown out, rather asking for clarification of law.
** Younger and others: case is thrown out of federal court.
* Discussion of equitable discretion: abstention comes in at early stage of case, but equitable discretion usually applies to temporary restraining order or injunction, on the question of irreperable harm.

Burford v. Sun Oil Co.




[319 U.S. 315] 1943 United States Supreme Court (cb792)

* Complex system for drilling oil wells; drawing from one well can deprive another area of oil.
* Some wells getting special allotments, others not, claim of Constitutional violation.
* Supreme Court decides case should not be heard in federal court for "equitable reasons".
* Texas has integrated system with administrative agency working in tandem with state courts who have localized hearings to get specialization in technical area.
* State needs one coordinated system because of sophisticated "cause and effect" from any decision.
* Why couldn't federal court decide federal question issue without addressing state law?
* Supplemental jurisdiction doesn't relate to diversity issues, however, which is how state law questions are here.
* Highly regulated and technical area; centralized method of appeals.
* Frankfurter dissent: the whole essence of diversity jurisdiction is that federal courts are supposed to decide state law issues.

* Alabama Public Service Comm. v. Southern Railway Co.: regulatory scheme running throughout State found to justify Burford abstention.

* Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux: Special nature of eminent domain as sovereign prerogative justifies abstention. District Court keeps jurisdiction awaiting clarification.
** Dismissal vs. stay is not necessarily all that different given issue preclusion.

Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Company




[517 U.S. 706] 1996 United States Supreme Court (cb805)

* California insurance commissioner is trustee of private insurance company, suing Allstate. Allstate removes to federal court under diversity jurisdiction, seeking to enforce Arbitration; Allstate moves to remand to state court because of unclear, complex state law (Burford).

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States




[424 U.S. 800] 1976 United States Supreme Court (cb815)

* Ongoing lawsuits in state courts determining water rights; also federal suit brought by United States government to determine water rights for American Indians.
* Court holds that this is not Pullman, Younger, or Burford abstention situation.
* Not unclear question of state law; not pending state case where state party and not criminal; could have some elements of Burford.
* Plaintiff has right to be in federal court, specifically given by Congress.
* Unique characteristics:
** Parallel litigation
** State litigation may be "first in time" if we consider United States addition not to be start.
* Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corporation: just because parallel state litigation is occurring doesn't mean case should be dismissed. If court has jurisdiction it should keep going.

Wilton v. Seven Falls Company




[515 U.S. 277] 1995 United States Supreme Court (cb826)

* Does language in Cone concerning limited application of Colorado River Water abstention mean that court should weigh all the variables in Cone for declaratory judgment cases?
* Two questions
** What should federal District Court is declaratory judgment case consider with respect to dismissal?
*** Basically seems to be question of efficiency, based on word may in declaratory judgment act, relies on Brillhart to say you don't need exceptional circumstances for declaratory judgment.
** What is standard of review of Circuit Court reviewing District Court's decision to dismiss?
*** Abuse of discretion, even when state case starts after federal case.
* Diversity case; question still remains whether this would be appropriate in federal question.

* Start on Friday with Question 4 Part 2


Friday, February 14, 2003 (Class 30) ==


Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education et al. ===

1984 United States Supreme Court (mat)

* Claim preclusion issue to be decided on basis of state preclusion law.

Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.




1982 United States Supreme Court (mat)

* Question of whether state administrative proceeding is claim preclusion for federal 1983 suit.
* Title VII: Federal Agency can give weight in examining what state agency did, but to say "substantial weight" requirement implicitly repeals 1738. If court review of state agency decision has occurred, it will have estoppel effect.
* Dissent: review only decided that decision was not arbitrary or capricious; did not decide on the merits, thus should not be given full faith and credit.

University of Tennessee et al. v. Elliott




1986 United States Supreme Court (mat)

* Agency decision, not followed by court review, then new case brought both under 1983 and Title VII.
* Issue preclusion on 1983 claim but not based on full faith and credit clause or statute, because ALJ decision was not a court decision.
* Court creates federal common law for 1983 cases: unreviewed state administrative decisions present issue preclusion in federal court.

* Leaves question of why have federal District Court system?




Federal Courts

Prof. Steve Subrin

Tuesday, November 26, 2002 (Class 1)

History

Problem Set

Reading Notes

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

[387 U.S. 136] 1967 United States Supreme Court (cb102)

Wednesday, November 27, 2002 (Class 2)

Justiciability

Muskrat v. United States

[219 U.S. 346] 1911 United States Supreme Court (cb26)

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

[387 U.S. 136] 1967 United States Supreme Court (cb102)


Tuesday, December 3, 2002 (Class 3)

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

[387 U.S. 136] 1967 United States Supreme Court (cb102)

Problem Set P1Q3

Standing

Allen v. Wright

[468 U.S. 737] 1984 United States Supreme Court (cb34)


Wednesday, December 4, 2002 (Class 4)

Allen v. Wright

(continued)

[468 U.S. 737] 1984 United States Supreme Court (cb34)

Federal Election Commission v. Akins

[524 U.S. 11] 1998 United States Supreme Court (cb58)

Friends of the Earth, Incorporated v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, (TOC), Inc.

[528 U.S. 167] 2000 United States Supreme Court (sp2)

National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.

[522 U.S. 479] 1998 United States Supreme Court (cb75)


Friday, December 6, 2002 (Class 5)

National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co.

[522 U.S. 479] 1998 United States Supreme Court (cb75)

DeFunis? v. Odegaard

[416 U.S. 312] 1974 United States Supreme Court (cb111)

Political Question

Nixon v. United States

[506 U.S. 224] 1993 United States Supreme Court (cb122)


Tuesday, December 10, 2002 (Class 6)

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons

[<461 U.S. 95]> 1983 United States Supreme Court (mt1)

Questions

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Osborn v. Bank of the United States

[22 U.S. 738] 1824 United States Supreme Court (cb198)


Wednesday, December 11, 2002 (Class 7)

Osborn v. Bank of the United States

[22 U.S. 738] 1824 United States Supreme Court (cb198)

American National Red Cross v. Solicitor General

[505 U.S. 247] 1992 United States Supreme Court (cb207)

Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills

[353 U.S. 448] 1957 United States Supreme Court (cb209)

National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co.

[337 U.S. 582] 1949 United States Supreme Court (cb218)

Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley

[211 U.S. 149] 1908 United States Supreme Court (cb222)

Gully v. First National Bank

[299 U.S. 109] 1936 United States Supreme Court (cb226)

American Well Workers Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co.

[241 U.S. 257] 1916 United States Supreme Court (cb235)

Shoshone Mining Co. v. Ruttner

[177 U.S. 505] 1900 United States Supreme Court (cb237)

Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.

[255 U.S. 180] 1921 United States Supreme Court (cb238)


Friday, December 13, 2002 (Class 8)

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson

[478 U.S. 804] 1986 United States Supreme Court (cb243)

Problem P2Q1

Declaratory Judgment


Tuesday, December 17, 2002 (Class 9)

Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.

[339 U.S. 667] 1950 United States Supreme Court (cb259)

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust

[463 U.S. 1] 1983 United States Supreme Court (cb262)


Wednesday, December 18, 2002 (Class 10)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

[304 U.S. 64] 1938 United States Supreme Court (cb327)

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States

[318 U.S. 363] 1943 United States Supreme Court (Douglas) (cb339)

National Trust & Savings Association v. Parnell

[353 U.S.29] 1956 United States Supreme Court (cb342)

United States v. Yazell

[382 U.S. 341] 1966 United States Supreme Court (cb343)

Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation

[487 U.S. 500] 1988 United States Supreme Court (Scalia) (cb358)


Friday, December 20, 2002 (Class 11)

United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.

[440 U.S. 715] 1979 United States Supreme Court (cb347)

    1. Follow state laws -- rules of decision act
    2. Federal common law -- need total uniformity
    3. Federal common law which follows state law
    4. Federal common law which follows state law with exceptions

Atherton v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

[519 U.S. 213] 1997 United States Supreme Court (cb374)

Semtek International Incorporated v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

[531 U.S. 497] 2001 United States Supreme Court (sp24)


Friday, January 3, 2003 (Class 12)

Part II Question 3

Implied Causes of Action

Cannon v. University of Chicago

[441 U.S. 667] 1979 United States Supreme Court (cb406)

California v. Sierra Club

[451 U.S. 287] 1981 United States Supreme Court (cb419)

Alexander v. Sandoval

[532 U.S. 275] 2001 United States Supreme Court (sp31)


Tuesday, January 7, 2003 (Class 13)

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

[403 U.S. 388] 1971 United States Supreme Court (cb388)

Schweiker v. Chilicky

[487 U.S. 412] 1988 United States Supreme Court (cb427)


Wednesday, January 8, 2003 (Class 14)

Schweiker v. Chilicky

(continued)

[487 U.S. 412] 1988 United States Supreme Court (cb427)

Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions

Murdock v. City of Memphis

[87 U.S. 590] 1875 United States Supreme Court (cb840)


Friday, January 10, 2003 (Class 15)

Fox Film Corp. v. Muller

[296 U.S. 207] 1935 United States Supreme Court (cb856)

Michigan v. Long

[463 U.S. 1032] 1983 United States Supreme Court (cb866)

Standard Oil v. Johnson

[316 U.S. 481] 1942 United States Supreme Court (cb878)

Reconstruction Finance Corporation v. Beaver County

[328 U.S. 204] 1946 United States Supreme Court (cb881)


Tuesday, January 14, 2003 (Class 16)

Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board

[531 U.S. 70] 2000 United States Supreme Court (sp92)

Procedural Law as Bar to Federal Review

Herndon v. Georgia

[295 U.S. 441] 1935 United States Supreme Court (cb898)

Orr v. Orr

[440 U.S. 268] 1979 United States Supreme Court (cb908)

Ford v. Georgia

[111 S.Ct. 850] 1991 United States Supreme Court (mat)

    1. Procedural rule is unconstitutional
    2. Constitutional rule, but haphazardly applied (as in Ford)
    3. No legitimate state interest served by rule

Sovereign Immunity and 11th amendment

Chisholm v. Georgia

[2 U.S. 419] 1794 United States Supreme Court (cb559)


Wednesday, January 15, 2003 (Class 17)

Hans v. Louisiana

[134 U.S. 1] 1890 United States Supreme Court (cb560)

Seminole Tribe v. Florida

[517 U.S. 44] 1996 United States Supreme Court (cb635)


Friday, January 17, 2003 (Class 18)

Seminole Tribe v. Florida

(continued)

[517 U.S. 44] 1996 United States Supreme Court (cb635)

Lapides v. Board of Regents

[122 S.Ct. 1640] 2002 United States Supreme Court (sp64)

Alden v. Maine

[119 S.Ct. 2240] 1999 United States Supreme Court (mat)


Tuesday, January 18, 2003 (Class 19)

Kimel et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al.

[2000 U.S. LEXIS 498] 2000 United States Supreme Court (mat)

Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority

[122 S. Ct. 1864] 2002 United States Supreme Court (sp70)

Ex parte Young

[209 U.S. 123] 1908 United States Supreme Court (cb571)


Wednesday, January 19, 2003 (Class 20)

Kimel et al. v. Florida Board of Regents et al.

(continued)

[2000 U.S. LEXIS 498] 2000 United States Supreme Court (mat)

Ex parte Young

(continued)

[209 U.S. 123] 1908 United States Supreme Court (cb571)

Edelman v. Jordan

[415 U.S. 651] 1974 United States Supreme Court (cb587)

Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe

[521 U.S. 261] 1997 United States Supreme Court (cb598)


Friday, January 21, 2003 (Class 21)

Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe

(continued)

[521 U.S. 261] 1997 United States Supreme Court (cb598)

Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman

[465 U.S. 89] 1984 United States Supreme Court (cb671)

Problems

1983

Hafer v. Melo

[502 U.S. 21] 1991 United States Supreme Court (mat)

Monroe v. Pape

[365 U.S. 167] 1961 United States Supreme Court (cb465)


Tuesday, January 28, 2003 (Class 22)

Monroe v. Pape

(continued)

[365 U.S. 167] 1961 United States Supreme Court (cb465)

Parratt v. Taylor

[451 U.S. 527] 1981 United States Supreme Court (cb552)

Zinermon v. Burch

[494 U.S. 113] 1990 United States Supreme Court (cb556)

P3Q3

Monell v. Department of Social Services

[436 U.S. 658] 1978 United States Supreme Court (cb485)


Wednesday, January 29, 2003 (Class 23)

Monell v. Department of Social Services

(continued)

[436 U.S. 658] 1978 United States Supreme Court (cb485)

City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik

[485 U.S. 112] 1988 United States Supreme Court (mat, cb507)

Board of the County Commissioners v. Brown

[520 U.S. 397] 1997 United States Supreme Court (cb509)

Qualified Immunity

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

[457 U.S. 800] 1982 United States Supreme Court (cb534)

Anderson v. Creighton

[483 U.S. 635] 1987 United States Supreme Court (cb541)

(sp50)


Friday, January 31, 2003 (Class 24)

Violation of Federal Statutes by State Officials

Pennhurst State School and Hospital et al v. Halderman et al.

1981 United States Supreme Court (mat)

Sue Suter v. Artist M. et al.

1992 United States Supreme Court (mat)


Tuesday, February 2, 2003 (Class 25)

Blessing v. Freestone

[520 U.S. 329] 1997 United States Supreme Court (mat)

P3Q5

Doctrines of Restraint

Patsy v. Board of Regents

[457 U.S. 496] 1982 United States Supreme Court (cb712)


Wednesday, February 5, 2003 (Class 26)

Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.

[312 U.S. 496] 1941 United States Supreme Court (cb724)

P4Q1

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona

[117 S.Ct. 1055] 1997 United States Supreme Court (mat)

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

[398 U.S. 281] 1970 United States Supreme Court (cb697)


Friday, February 7, 2003 (Class 27)

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers

[398 U.S. 281] 1970 United States Supreme Court (cb697)

Younger v. Harris

[401 U.S. 37] 1971 United States Supreme Court (cb738)

Steffel v. Thompson

[415 U.S. 452] 1974 United States Supreme Court (cb753)


Tuesday, February 11, 2003 (Class 28)

Hicks v. Miranda

[422 U.S. 332] 1975 United States Supreme Court (cb765)

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.

[420 U.S. 592] 1975 United States Supreme Court (cb773)

New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans

[491 U.S. 350] 1989 United States Supreme Court (cb788)


Wednesday, February 12, 2003 (Class 29)

Burford v. Sun Oil Co.

[319 U.S. 315] 1943 United States Supreme Court (cb792)

Quackenbush v. Allstate Insurance Company

[517 U.S. 706] 1996 United States Supreme Court (cb805)

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States

[424 U.S. 800] 1976 United States Supreme Court (cb815)

Wilton v. Seven Falls Company

[515 U.S. 277] 1995 United States Supreme Court (cb826)


Friday, February 14, 2003 (Class 30)

Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education et al.

1984 United States Supreme Court (mat)

Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp.

1982 United States Supreme Court (mat)

University of Tennessee et al. v. Elliott

1986 United States Supreme Court (mat)



LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)

This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited February 16, 2003 2:26 pm ET (diff)
Search: