PROPERTY D SLIDES NATIONAL HOMEMADE SOUP DAY

Thursday Feb 4 Music to Accompany JMB: Cyndi Lauper, Twelve Deadly Sins (1994)

Review Problem 1K(ii) (Tuesday) Thoughts on Use of FL MW Statutes Using Statutes in Issue-Spotter or Short Problems Assume Comprehensive Statute Pre-empts Common Law Application Often Very Literal (1): Need to Discuss Whether Facts Fit into Specific Statutory Provisions. E.g., Press Not Explicitly Listed, So Only Can Get In (If at All) Through Listed Categories of “Other Authorized Visitors” Clever Clifton Idea: Is “Assembly Area” Necessarily “Common Area” if Only Used for Dean’s Chats?

Review Problem 1K(ii) (Tuesday) Thoughts on Use of FL MW Statutes Using Statutes in Issue-Spotter or Short Problems Application Often Very Literal (2): Assume When Legislature Uses Different Language, It Intends Different Results. E.g., Definition of “Other Authorized Visitors”: Provision re Gov’t Funded Services Bans Solicitation Provision re Reps of Religious Groups Does Not Like Other Problems, Give More Time to Issues that Lawyers Will Fight About and are Central to Overall Resolution

Review Problem 1K(ii) (Tuesday) Thoughts on Use of FL MW Statutes Test Prep: Become Familiar w Statutes We Cover Want Ability to Quickly Recognize Language I Provide Know Similarities & Differences from Other Authorities Understand Where Statute is Relatively Clear/Restrictive (Set # of Types of “Other Authorized Visitors”) v. Less Clear/More Room to Argue (“Reasonable”) Qs on Rev. Prob.1K(ii) or Using Statutes?

Save The Date: Monday March 21 Test on Chapter 8 a.m. Logistics 70 Minutes (8-9:10 a.m.) 24 Multiple Choice Qs Closed Book (w Attached Syllabus) This Room (F209) Will Be on Assignment Sheet Starting Next Week as Reminder Your Responsibilities On-Time Arrival Bring #2 Pencils Get Midterm Anonymous Grading Number in Week after Spring Break Arrange Disability Accommodations (if needed) Address Any Conflicts/Problems w Dean of Students Office (Not Me)

SEQUOIA: REVIEW PROBLEM 1J SEQUOIAS

Review Problem 1J: Info from Client Client uses MWs living onsite to pick crops several wks/yr. Large meeting hall next to MW barracks MWs get Sundays off; invite MWs from nearby farms to hall for Religious Service Social Event after Client seeks advice about whether he has to allow Asked to describe legal/factual research necessary to advise

Review Problem 1J: Overall Framework (ME) Legal Research Needed To Establish Legal Framework 1.Check if state roughly follows Shack by caselaw or statute. 2.Check for precise rules & permissible restrictions. 3.Look for possible caselaw/statutory language addressing specific issues that might arise, e.g., …

Review Problem 1J: Overall Framework (ME) Legal Research Needed To Establish Legal Framework 3.Look for possible caselaw/statutory language addressing: a.Possible Distinction between i)People invited by MWs Check if limited like FL to living quarters Check if limited like Shack if “harm to others”? ii) People who get access w/o invitation b.Relevant tests used in Shack (e.g., customary assns.) c.Genl info about MWs’ use of off-duty time

Review Problem 1J: List of Major Topics Legal & Factual Research Relevant to the Following Aspects of the Problem … (Notes on my list of topics): Lots of ways to approach/organize this problem I’m not looking for any particular structure. Any set of categories/headings (including mine) will overlap to some extent. I tried to design this list to help you see issues; good answers would hit on most of these topics somewhere.

Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA) Legal & Factual Research Relevant to The Religious Services (We’ll Do in Most Detail) Major Topics to Explore?

Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA) The Religious Services: Major Topics Include… Nature of Services (incl. What Happens; Use of Clergy) Possible Harms from Services (incl. C’s Specific Objections) Benefits to MWs (incl. % of MWs Participating; Importance of Services) Alternatives to Use of Hall on C’s Land Follow-Up for Each Major Topic Includes … Thorough/Detailed Development of Facts Ghostbusters Q (“Who Ya Gonna Call?” = HFO) Additional Legal Research

Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA) Legal & Factual Research Relevant to The Social Events 1.Nature of Social Event? 2.Possible Harms Different/Separate from Those Caused By Religious Services? 3.Benefits/Significance to MWs? 4.Other?

Review Problem 1J (ME) Legal & Factual Research Relevant to Client Having Allowed This Access in the Past Generally raises legal issues re implied Ks or estoppel Unlikely here because MWs hired each year for few weeks Could check for written agreements by C or predecessor Worst case: E.g., Prior O agreed to access b/c MWs helped build hall Could check for legal significance of prior authorization (e.g., court then skeptical that harm is great)

Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA) I’ll Post Additional Slides re The Neighboring Farms that Employ MWs General Info to Help You Understand the Situation Plus Comments & Best Student Answers Available at End of Chapter

Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA): BONUS SLIDE Sample Qs re Neighboring Farms that Employ MWs Do C or his employees know which farms other MWs come from? Any Neighboring Farms hosting similar events or willing to? Willing to share costs? Check if C interested in exploring. Check if C has info or if he’s OK with you asking neighbors. How Do Their MWs get to C’s farm? If motorized, could transport work in reverse? If walking, are MWs harming C’s or other neighbors’ land by crossing? When on C’s Farm, Do Other MWs wander around C’s farm or otherwise create security issues?

Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA): BONUS SLIDE Sample Qs: Gen’l Info to Help You Understand Situation How many weeks (or Sundays) are MWs on Cs land? Client Priorities/Concerns (Biggest concerns for C?) Specific trigger for coming to you? Ok with stopping either relig. service or social event & keeping the other? Willing to give MWs $$ or other benefits to stop? What/How Much? Could/Would C change practice of Sunday as off-day? Other uses for hall? That C would prefer? That would block MW use?

Property Open to the Public & the Right to Exclude I.Generally: Your Money’s No Good Here II.Free Speech Rights A.JMB (including Schmid) & DQ (OLYMPIC) B.Review Problem 1I (BADLANDS) (2/9) C.Review Problem 1K(i) (OLYMPIC) (2/11)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Transition Quote (N3 on P84) “[T]he more private property is devoted to public use, the more it must accommodate the rights which inhere in individual members of the general public who use that property.” --Uston quoting State v. Schmid.

OLYMPIC: DQs EEL GLACIER

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: Overview NJSCT holds that large shopping centers must permit protestors to have access to hand out leaflets on social issues. Our Coverage 1.Relevant Interests (DQ ) 2.Logic of Opinion (Me) 3.Application in Future Problems a.Permissible Regulation (DQ1. 26) b.Relation to Other Right to Exclude Problems (Me & DQ1.27)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Possible harms to the owners in JMB: 1.Forced Speech 2.Psychic Harm 3.Interference with Business

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Possible harms to the owners in JMB: 1.Forced Speech 1 st Amdt Claim: Shoppers will assume leafletters speak for management, so Os effectively forced to say things they disagree with Are shoppers likely to view protestor speech that way?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24 O’s Interests (Olympic) Possible harms to the owners in JMB: 1.Forced Speech 1 st Amdt Claim: Shoppers will assume leafletters speak for management, so Os effectively forced to say things they disagree with I’m skeptical that shoppers would view that way Court rejects this claim in portion of opinion not in book

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Possible harms to the owners in JMB: 1.Forced Speech (claim rejected by NJSCt) 2.Psychic Harm Feelings of Lack of Control Over Property Made Worse by Speech if Os Disagree NOTE: Genuine, but hard to Quantify Likely to be Very Significant in this Context?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Possible harms to the owners in JMB: 1.Forced Speech (claim rejected by NJSCt) 2.Psychic Harm Would have to convince court that would make significant difference w lots of other people at mall & very broad public invitation No claims, e.g., re privacy. Plus can exclude completely when mall is closed 3.Interference with Business : Specific Concerns?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Specific Business Concerns Include: Customers May Not Like  Go Elsewhere Interference w Traffic Patterns/Access to Particular Tenants Clean-Up Security/Monitoring Tort Liability/Insurance How significant are these harms likely to be?

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Points re Significance of Specific Business Concerns: Customers may not like, BUT if at all malls, they’ll get used to & other malls won’t be better choices Interference w Traffic & Access Might Be Problem BUT Probably Ways to Address without Complete Exclusion Not Like Foot Traffic Always Flows Smoothly!! Average Daily Traffic = 28,750 People Unlikely to Significantly Impact Clean-Up, Security, etc. Tort Liability  Insurance Premiums (I bet near-zero effect) Note Lack of Specificity in Case re Harms to Malls

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public JMB: DQ1.24: O’s Interests (Olympic) Business Concerns Articulated in Dissent by Garibaldi, J. (Note 3 incorrect; “her” not “him”) Anyone Know Historical Irony of a Garibaldi Taking This Position?

GARIBALDIS LIBERATOR GIUSEPPE JUSTICE MARIE, DISSENTING