Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Advertisements

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. In re Richard A. ALCORN and Steven Feola Supreme Court of Arizona, 202 Ariz. 62, 41 P.3d 600.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. COURCHESNE Supreme Court of Connecticut, 262 Conn. 537, 816 A.2d 562 (2003) Case.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. BUTLER 19 Ohio St.2d 55, 249 N.E.2d 818 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. DECK v. MISSOURI 125 S.Ct (2005) Case Brief.
Courts and Court Systems Chapter 2. Copyright © 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning Objectives Explain the difference between trial and appellate courts. Explain.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COHEN v. BAYSIDE S&L 62 Misc.2d 738, 309 N.Y.S.2d 980 (1970) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PONDER v. GRAHAM 4 Fla. 23 (1851) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BLANTON v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 489 U.S. 538 (1989) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. COLBY v. CARNEY HOSPITAL 356 Mass. 527, 254 N.E.2d 407 (1969) Case Brief.
Supreme Court Cases. Solem V. Helm Issue: Was Helm’s constitutional right of freedom from cruel and unusual punishment violated?
The Five Main Sources of U.S. Law
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. PAPACHRISTOU v. JACKSONVILLE 405 U.S. 156 (1972) Case Brief.
© 2006 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Right Reserved. CHAPTER 2 PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS.
COMMON LAW, CASE LAW AND PRECEDENT
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GRIFFIN v. CALIFORNIA 380 U.S. 609 (1965) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BROWN v. SOUTHLAND 620 F.Supp (E.D.Mo. 1985) Case Brief.
The Supreme Court. A. The Constitution B. Laws passed by Congress C. Treaties D. Diplomats from other countries E. Ships at sea F. Disputes in which the.
Chapter Three Laws: Their Sources. Constitutional Law The federal government and each state have constitutions. Constitutions are documents whose primary.
© 2005 by Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 CALIFORNIA CIVIL LITIGATION TRIAL PROCEDURES.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. GOGGIN v. NEW STATE BALLROOM 355 Mass. 718, 247 N.E.2d 350 (1969) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. McDERMOTT v. HARRIS Florida Circuit Court, Leon County, No (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. Nov.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. Pamela L. PETERS Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 263 Wis.2d 475, 665 N.W.2d 171 (2003)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. CARRUTHERS v. STATE Supreme Court of Georgia, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE FARM v. CAMPBELL 538 U.S. 408 (2003) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. LYNCH v. LYNCH 164 Ariz. 127 (1990) Case Brief.
Classifying Law Sources of Canadian Law. What do you think? 1.Which of these situations involve law? 2.Explain how the law is involved in the situations.
Foundations of Australian Law Fourth Edition Copyright © 2013 Tilde Publishing and Distribution Chapter 4 How courts make laws.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. WYMAN v. NEWHOUSE 93 F.2d 313 (2d Cir. 1937) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. STAFFORD 223 Kan. 62, 573 P.2d 970 (Kan. 1977) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. UNITED STATES v. JEWELL 532 F.2d 697 (2d Cir. 1976) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. NEWMAN v. SUMMY CO. 133 F.2d 465 (2d Cir. 1943) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSBY v. STATE 894 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2004) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STATE v. WILLIAMS Supreme Court of Iowa 695 N.W.2d 23 (2005) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. STUMP v. SPARKMAN 435 U.S. 349 (1978) Case Brief.
Section 1.1 The Foundations of Law Section 1.1 The Foundations of Law Morality refers to a society’s values and beliefs about right and wrong. Ethics.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. OREGON STATE BAR v. SMITH 149 Or.App. 171, 942 P.2d 793 (1997) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. FINE v. DELALANDE, INC. 545 F.Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1982) Case Brief.
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved. RIEMERS v. GRAND FORKS HERALD 688 N.W.2d 167 (N.D. 2004) Case Brief.
The Judicial Branch December 15, The Judicial Branch a Review What article of the Constitution outlines the Judicial Branch? What branch of government.
Intro to the Appellate Process When a party loses at trial they have the right to appeal the decision. An appeal is always about whether the law was correctly.
MORISSETTE v. UNITED STATES 342 U.S. 246 (1952)
SALTZMAN v. AHERN 306 So.2d 537 (Fla.App. 1975)
STATE v. WINDER 348 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)
The Judicial Branch Chapter
Chapter 1 Legal Framework Affecting Public Schools
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
MARTIN v. MARCIANO 871 A.2d 911 (R.I. 2005)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
Chapter 1 Legal Framework Affecting Public Schools
The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law
The Federal Court System
Legal Basics.
Sorting Out the Courts SS.7.C.3.11: Diagram the levels, functions, and powers of the courts at the state and federal levels.
The Role of the Federal Courts
Chapter 6 Issue Identification
BROWN v. BROWN 300 So. 2d 719 (Fla. DCA 1974)
The Role of the Judicial Branch (courts)
Bell Ringer: Write five questions you think may be on the test for chapter 7 Include the test question and the answer The questions can be ABC choice,
STATE v. KINGMAN 463 P.2d 638 (Wash. 1970)
NORRIS v. TOWN OF WHEATLAND 613 N.Y.S.2d 817 (S.Ct. Monroe Cty. 1994)
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
ARENA LAND & INV. CO., INC. v. PETTY 69 F.3d 547 (10th Cir. 1995)
Unit 5 LEGAL SYSTEMS OF THE WORLD
Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning.
PEOPLE v. ALEXANDER 53 Ill.App.2d 299, 202 N.E.2d 841 (1964)
Sorting Out the Courts SS.7.C.3.11: Diagram the levels, functions, and powers of the courts at the state and federal levels.
Sorting Out the Courts SS.7.C.3.11: Diagram the levels, functions, and powers of the courts at the state and federal levels.
Evidence - tends to prove a fact by proving other events or circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference of the occurrence of the fact.
Chapter 4 Case Law and Case Briefing
Presentation transcript:

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. OF CALIFORNIA 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226,119 Cal.Rptr. 858 (1975) Case Brief Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. PURPOSE: This case demonstrates how a court may overrule a long-standing precedent while introducing readers to the important concepts of contributory and comparative negligence. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. CAUSE OF ACTION: Negligence. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. FACTS: Plaintiff made an improper turn through an intersection and was struck by defendant who was racing to pass through the intersection while the stoplight was yellow. The case was heard without a jury and the judge found both plaintiff and defendant negligent and entered a judgment in favor of the defendant based on California law. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court of California should overrule precedent establishing contributory negligence in favor of the doctrine of comparative negligence. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. HOLDING: Yes, the Court adopts pure comparative negligence. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. REASONING: The doctrine is inequitable in its operation because it fails to distribute responsibility in proportion to fault. Twenty-five state legislatures have abrogated the “all or nothing” rule of contributory negligence and enacted statutes calculated to assess liability in proportion to fault; Florida effected the same result by judicial decision. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. LI v. YELLOW CAB CO. DISSENT: Justice Clark argues that this is a legislative question, particularly in light of the different forms of comparative negligence adopted by the legislatures of other states. Copyright 2007 Thomson Delmar Learning. All Rights Reserved.