PROPERTY D SLIDES

Thu Jan 30 Music: Paul Simon, Graceland (1986) Class Contact List Circulating for Proofreading Put a Check by Your Name or Make Appropriate Corrections New on Course Page Chapter 2 Supplement Posted Syllabus & Assignment Sheet Updated End of Chapter 1 Supplement Revised Lunch Today (Meet on 12:25) Fata; Homan; Kirkland; Lipschulz; Romero; Rosendorf; Westerhorstmann

PROPERTY D (1/30) Right to Exclude cont’d Florida Statute on Right to Exclude & MWsFlorida Statute on Right to Exclude & MWs Parcels Open to the Public: Background Common Law & Common Carriers Civil Rights Statutes Brooks

ARCHES: DQ DELICATE ARCHES

Florida Statutes: DQ1.17 (Arches) In what ways are the Florida statutes more protective of migrant workers’ rights than the regime established under Shack?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.17 (Arches) Ways the Florida statutes are more protective of MWs’ rights than the regime established under Shack include … Posting Requirement § (6) Retaliation Claim § (Purpose; cf. Landlord-Tenant Law) Looks like only other MWs can limit invited guests § (1) & (2) Explicit about amount of time allowed for access. § (2) Seems to limit O’s legitimate interests to safety, welfare, security, business § (5)  suggests no religious interest In what ways are they less protective?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.17 (Arches) Ways are they less protective include … Types of authorized uninvited guests limited to exclusive list & items on list arguably more constrained. § (6) No open-ended protection of dignity, destiny, needs, etc.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Arches) Statutes often provide clearer guidance than cases because they can incorporate more details and employ more precise language. Identify at least three ways that the Florida statutes are clearer than the regime established under Shack.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Arches) Ways that the Florida statutes are clearer than the regime established under Shack include … Authorized uninvited guests limited to exclusive list. § (6) Explicit treatment of religious visitors. § (6)(c) Clear distinction between invited & uninvited guests. § (1) & (2) Explicit list of O’s legitimate interests. § (5) Identify at least three places that the Florida statutes employ language that is ambiguous or vague.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Arches) Identify at least three places that the FL statutes employ language that is ambiguous or vague. Ambiguous = more than one possible meaning The government sanctioned his behavior. Vague = meaning is imprecise or unclear well The government handled his behavior well

Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Arches) Places that the FL statutes employ language that is ambiguous or vague include … § (1), (2), (5), (7): “reasonable request;” “reasonably related to;” “reasonable restrictions.” § (6)(b): “sole purpose” § (6)(c): see DQ 1.19(b) § (6)(e): “funded by local, state, or federal funds”

BISCAYNE: DQ1.19 SUNRISE AT ADAMS KEY

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (Biscayne) Under the Florida statutes, can a farm owner exclude any of the following people if not specifically invited by a migrant farmworker (be prepared to identify the specific statutory provision that best resolves the question): (d)The pizza delivery people described in Review Problem 1B on S8. Bad Question! Pizza delivery people always are invited. Interesting issue: Do they fit w/in following definition: “Invited guest”—Any person who is invited by a resident to a migrant labor camp or residential migrant housing to visit that resident.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (Biscayne) Under the Florida statutes, can a farm owner exclude any of the following people if not specifically invited by a migrant farmworker (be prepared to identify the specific statutory provision that best resolves the question): (b)The members of the religious group described in DQ1.15(b) on S7. § (6)(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.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (Biscayne) Under the Florida statutes, can a farm owner exclude any of the following people if not specifically invited by a migrant farmworker (be prepared to identify the specific statutory provision that best resolves the question): (b)The teachers from LON described in Review Problem 1A on S8.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (Biscayne) Under the Florida statutes, can a farm owner exclude any of the following people if not specifically invited by a migrant farmworker (be prepared to identify the specific statutory provision that best resolves the question): (b)The teachers from LON described in Review Problem 1A on S8: if receiving funding under (6)(e) (f) The sociologist described in Review Problem 1E?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (Biscayne) Under the Florida statutes, can a farm owner exclude any of the following people if not specifically invited by a migrant farmworker (be prepared to identify the specific statutory provision that best resolves the question): (f) The sociologist described in Review Problem 1E: if receiving funding under (6)(e) or a “gov’t official” under (6)(a) (a)Members of the Press (not explicitly listed): Any way to get at least some individual reporters in?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (Biscayne) Under the Florida statutes, can a farm owner exclude any of the following people if not specifically invited by a migrant farmworker (be prepared to identify the specific statutory provision that best resolves the question): (a)Members of the Press: Maybe if individual grant money to do story on MWs? (e) The representatives of AMIT described in Review Problem 1C: I think same analysis as press.

FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS Choose Three of Four XQ1: LAWYERING XQ2: SHORT ANSWERS (Choose Three of Four) XQ3: OPINION/DISSENT XQ4: TRADITIONAL ISSUE-SPOTTER

FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q” E.g., Review Problems 1H-1I (each about 1/3 of a 60-Minute Q) Client Gives You Relatively Brief introduction to Set of Problems (Generally 3-4 Subjects) Your Job: Create a To Do List of Legal & Factual Research Needed to Advise Client

FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q” Your Job: Create a To Do List of Legal & Factual Research Needed to Advise Client Don’t Try to Determine Who Wins; By Definition You Have Insufficient Info Usually Best to Organize by Topic (v. All Legal then All Factual). Turn Possible Legal Tests into Specific Factual Qs (I’ll demonstrate for “Practical Access to Things MWs Need”) Client probably wants you to negotiate/settle in addition to or instead of litigating; can ask Qs aimed at creative agreements.

FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q” Your Job: Create a To Do List of Legal & Factual Research Needed to Advise Client In Grading, I Reward: Knowing When There Are Multiple Possible Rules (& What They Are) Imagination: What Relevant Evidence Might There Be? How Would You Find It? (Xmas Lights & Police Records) Thoroughness & Specific Detail

FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q” Review Problems 1H and 1I Next Week To help you approach this new set of tasks, I’ve added instructions breaking each problem down into component parts. These are available on the coursed page on revised pages S17-18 in the updated version of the Chapter 1 Supplement.

PROPERTY D (1/30) Right to Exclude cont’d Florida Statute on Right to Exclude & MWs Parcels Open to the Public: BackgroundParcels Open to the Public: Background Common Law & Common CarriersCommon Law & Common Carriers Civil Rights StatutesCivil Rights Statutes Brooks

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Coverage 1.Ability to Reject Paying Customers You Don’t Like: “Your Money’s No Good Here.” a)Common Law Rules b)Civil Rights Statutes c)Brooks 2.Next Time: Right to Exclude v. Exercise of 1 st Amdt Rights (JMB & Schmid)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Helpful to See Possible Rules as a Continuum Can exclude anyone for any reason Can exclude unless falls within specified forbidden reasons or circumstances. Must accept anyone who shows up w $$ (unless specific prior harmful conduct).

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Helpful to Think About Interests ff Parties Owners’ Interests = Owners’ Interests = Purpose for Exclusion or Harms from Inclusion Can help us see viable less restrictive alternatives to complete exclusion. Interests of Customers & Public = Interests of Customers & Public = Purpose for Inclusion or Harms from Exclusion Can help us see possible permissible limitations on inclusion.

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Common Law Approaches Simple Version of Continuum Under Common Law Can exclude anyone for any reason (Common Law re most businesses) Must accept anyone who shows up w $$ unless specific prior harmful conduct. (Common Law Innkeeper). Traditional exceptions to Right to Exclude for necessity & ordinary gov’t operations mostly non-controversial. We’ll focus on rules triggered by nature of business, like the Innkeeper Rule

REDWOOD: DQ REDWOODS & FERNS

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Innkeeper Rule & DQ1.20 (Redwood) Professor Epstein’s explanation for the common law rule that innkeepers and common carriers had to accept all paying customers is that the rule was needed to counteract monopoly power those businesses often had. Else can charge extra to customers who are stuck (11pm in York) If limited # of rights to operate business granted by gov’t, services should be available to all Can you think of other possible explanations?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Innkeeper Rule & DQ1.20 (Redwood) Professor Epstein: Rule Counteracts Monopoly Power. Other Possible Explanations Include: Could View as Moral Duty (See Joseph & Mary) These services important to state’s commerce & wealth even if no monopoly; want business people to have access Possible costs of this rule to the landowner or to society?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Innkeeper Rule & DQ1.20 (Redwood) Possible Costs of This Rule Include: Os lose discretion/personal freedom re customers; can’t exclude do to, e.g., politics or dislike Possible increased security costs; can’t turn away b/c look sleazy or “feels off” so may need more protection May raise prices to public

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Civil Rights Statutes General Operation They don’t protect specified groups of people, but everyone Prohibit certain types of decisions made on the basis of specified characteristics like race, sex, religion, disability E.g., Title II (P84) Covers decisions about access by listed types of businesses (hotels, restaurants, etc.) “on the ground of” race, religion or national origin State Statutes often broader in reach: covering more forbidden characteristics and more types of businesses or transactions

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Civil Rights Statutes Updated Continuum Can exclude anyone for any reason (Common Law re most businesses) Can exclude for any reason except limited list of forbidden characteristics (Civil Rights Statutes) Must accept anyone who shows up w $$ unless specific prior harmful conduct. (Common Law Innkeeper Rule).

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Civil Rights Statutes & DQ1.21 (Redwood) What are the justifications for Civil Rights statutes prohibiting discrimination regarding access to public accommodations? Would it be preferable to replace these statutes with a version of the common law Innkeeper Rule (i.e., any commercial establishment open to the general public cannot exclude anyone except people who have actually damaged or disrupted the business)?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public DQ1.22 Private Club Exceptions to Civil Rights Statutes Standard Explanation: Entitled to some relatively private place to meet/assemble where you can exercise a greater right to exclude (e.g., IRA supporters & British) Rosendorf point in 1 st class re avoiding forced association Cynical Partial Explanation: Congress regularly exempts itself. Should these exceptions exist? For many commentators, turns on access to power Economic; Political; maybe Social Women gain access to JCs b/c business deals made there Eating Clubs at Princeton: similar concerns re power