PROPERTY A SLIDES 2-2-17 GROUNDHOG DAY

Subramanian * Zuckerman Music to Accompany Florida MW Statutes: Carole King, Colour of Your Dreams (1993) Lunch Tomorrow Meet on Bricks @ 12:25 Burns * Gluck * Montano Subramanian * Zuckerman

Application of Shack Review Problems Rev. Prob 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z) DQ1.15: Extension to New Situations Review Problems Rev. Prob 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z) Rev. Prob. 1B (Everglades & Olympic) (Thursday)

APPLYING SHACK: Problem 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z): Jurisdiction follows Shack (means apply the case) G hires MWs to live on farm and pick peaches for several weeks/year LON = Non-profit corporation Purpose is to help teach English to MWs and other agricultural laborers. Wishes to send 1-2 teachers onto G’s land to give English lessons each evening after the day’s work is complete.

APPLYING SHACK: Problem 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z): G hires MWs to live on farm and pick peaches for several weeks/year LON = Non-profit corporation Purpose is to help teach English to MWs and other agricultural laborers. Wishes to send 1-2 teachers onto G’s land to give English lessons each evening after the day’s work is complete. Are the people the owner wishes to exclude sufficiently similar to the service workers allowed access to the farm in Shack that the owner should not be able to exclude them?

Problem 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z): G hires MWs to live on farm and pick peaches for several weeks/year LON = Non-profit corporation Purpose is to help teach English to MWs and other agricultural laborers. Wishes to send 1-2 teachers onto G’s land to give English lessons each evening after the day’s work is complete. Specific Language: “[T]he employer may … not deprive the migrant worker of practical access to things he needs.” Is greater familiarity with English something MWs “need”? If G excluded LON, would G be depriving MWs of “practical access” to greater familiarity with English?

Problem 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z): G hires MWs to live on farm and pick peaches for several weeks/year LON = Non-profit corporation Purpose is to help teach English to MWs and other agricultural laborers. Wishes to send 1-2 teachers onto G’s land to give English lessons each evening after the day’s work is complete. Policy: Protecting Owners’ Interests In what ways could LON potentially interfere with G’s legitimate interests?

Problem 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z): Policy: Protecting Owners’ Interests In what ways could LON potentially interfere with G’s legitimate interests? Less Rest/Sleep for Participating MWs Less Rest/Sleep for Other MWs Tension between Participating MWs & Others Is the potential interference sufficiently large that G should be able to exclude LON?

Problem 1A (Last Names O-R/S-Z): G hires MWs to live on farm and pick peaches for several weeks/year LON = Non-profit corporation Purpose is to help teach English to MWs and other agricultural laborers. Wishes to send 1-2 teachers onto G’s land to give English lessons each evening after the day’s work is complete. What other language from Shack might be useful in resolving this problem?

Application of Shack Review Problems DQ1.15: Extension to New Situations (Last Fri/Tue) Review Problems Rev. Prob 1A Rev. Prob. 1B (Everglades & Olympic) (Pork/Pizza)

EVERGLADES: Rev. Prob. 1B (Landowner) EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

OLYMPIC: Rev. Prob. 1B (MWs) EEL GLACIER

Problem 1B (Everglades/Olympic) A hires MWs to live on farm and pick vegetables for 5 wks/yr. Provides “three good meals a day;” vending machines; coffee. A converted to Islam & forbids pork products on site. Common Sense Reading: “To ensure that she never comes into contact with pork products, Alyssa stopped serving them in her dining hall and forbade both temporary and permanent employees from bringing in any food from outside the farm….”

Problem 1B (Everglades/Olympic) A hires MWs to live on farm and pick vegetables for 5 wks/yr Provides “three good meals a day;” vending machines; coffee. A converted to Islam & forbids pork products on site. A wants to forbid access to pizza delivery where company uses pork products in many menu items. Lots of obvious differences from Shack Dfdts Use other tools to see if allow access anyway.

Problem 1B (Everglades/Olympic) A hires MWs to live on farm and pick vegetables for 5 wks/yr Provides “three good meals a day;” vending machines; coffee A converted to Islam & forbids pork products on site A wants to forbid access to pizza delivery where company uses pork products in many menu items Policy: Protecting Owners’ Interests In what ways could LON potentially interfere with G’s legitimate interests? (Remember that A used to allow pizza delivery before conversion)

Problem 1B (Everglades/Olympic) A hires MWs to live on farm and pick vegetables for 5 wks/yr Provides “three good meals a day;” vending machines; coffee A converted to Islam & forbids pork products on site A wants to forbid access to pizza delivery where company uses pork products in many menu items Policy: Protecting Owners’ Interests Concern is primarily religious Is the potential interference sufficiently large that A should be able to exclude pizza?

Problem 1B (Everglades/Olympic) A hires MWs to live on farm and pick vegetables for 5 wks/yr Provides “three good meals a day;” vending machines; coffee A converted to Islam & forbids pork products on site A wants to forbid access to pizza delivery where company uses pork products in many menu items Specific Language: “[T]he employer may … not deprive the migrant worker of practical access to things he needs.” Is pizza at night something MWs “need”? If A excluded delivery, would A be depriving MWs of “practical access” to pizza at night?

Problem 1B (Everglades/Olympic) A hires MWs to live on farm and pick vegetables for 5 wks/yr Provides “three good meals a day;” vending machines; coffee A converted to Islam & forbids pork products on site A wants to forbid access to pizza delivery where company uses pork products in many menu items What other language from Shack might be useful in resolving this problem?

Other Shack Short Review Problems Similar in Structure & Subject Matter to Review Problems 1A & 1B: Review Problems 1C-1G (S9-10) Review Problem 1C in DF Next Week Can do others on your own Exam Conditions = 5 minutes read/outline + 20 minutes writing Normally, I’d expect to see: Some Discussion of MW interests; O interests; missing facts/alternatives; fact comparison to those explicitly permitted by Shack All tied back to language or facts of case. Over the weekend, I’ll post comments & best student answers for Rev. Probs 1A-1B, then for other Shack probs at end of Chapter.

Alternate Approach to Shack: Florida MW Statutes (1993 & C. King) ME: DQ1.16 SEQUOIA: DQs 1.17, 1.19 (a & c) ACADIA: DQ1.18 & 1.19 (b & d) DQs 1.19 (e) – (f) (DF Sessions Next Week) BADLANDS: Rev. Prob. 1H: (Tuesday)

Working with Statutes: Blowing Up the Text (6) “Other authorized visitors”—Any person, other than an invited guest, who is: (a) A federal, state, or county government official; (b) A physician or other health care provider whose sole purpose is to provide medical care or medical information; (c) A representative of a bona fide religious organization who, during the visit, is engaged in the vocation or occupation of a religious professional or worker such as a minister, priest, or nun; (d) A representative of a nonprofit legal services organization, who must comply with the Code of Professional Conduct of The Florida Bar; or (e) Any other person who provides services for farmworkers which are funded in whole or in part by local, state, or federal funds but who does not conduct or attempt to conduct solicitations.

Working with Statutes: Blowing Up the Text (6) “Other authorized visitors”—Any person, other than an invited guest, who is: … (c) A representative of a bona fide religious organization who, during the visit, is engaged in the vocation or occupation of a religious professional or worker such as a minister, priest, or nun; … or (e) Any other person who provides services for farmworkers which are funded in whole or in part by local, state, or federal funds but who does not conduct or attempt to conduct solicitations.

Working with Statutes: Blowing Up the Text (e) Any other person who provides services for farmworkers which are funded in whole or in part by local, state, or federal funds but who does not conduct or attempt to conduct solicitations.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.16 (Sequoia ME) In what ways do the Florida statutes distinguish between access to “common areas” and access to “private living quarters”? Two Important Distinctions: (1) “Common Areas” v. “Private Living Quarters” (2) “Invited Guest” v. “Other Authorized Visitors”

Florida Statutes: DQ1.16: “common areas” v. “private living quarters” “Invited Guest” under 381.00897(1) Access to “private living quarters” Must leave at “reasonable request” of another resident “Other Authorized Visitors” under 381.00897(2) Access to “common areas” (& looks like “private living quarters”) Subject to reasonable rules re hours of access (with listed minimums) Must leave “private living quarters” at “reasonable request” of another resident.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.16: “common areas” v. “private living quarters” MW Rules for “private living quarters” under 381.00897(7): “migrant workers residing within the same living quarters [may impose] reasonable restrictions on their fellow residents to accommodate reasonable privacy and other concerns of the residents.” “Other Rules” under 381.00897(5) & (6) (presumably for both): Owner/Operator may adopt “other rules regulating access to a camp” if “reasonably related to the purpose of promoting the safety, welfare, or security of residents, visitors, farmworkers, or the owner’s or operator’s business” (5); and “conspicuously posted.” (6)