PROPERTY D SLIDES National Corn Chip Day

Friday Jan 29 Music: Paul Simon, Graceland (1986) Lunch Today Meet on 12:25 Danklou * DeGiovanni Estrella * Fernández * Windham

As Valentine ’ s Day Approaches : Way Too Much Part One

Every kiss begins with Kay®

and Jane Seymour Bond Girl Medicine Woman Queen of TV Miniseries Third Wife of Henry VIII

“Behind Every Open Heart is a Story” ~present~ Jane Seymour’s “Open Heart” Collection

Unfortunately, it’s usually a story about cholesterol.

Alternate Approach: Florida MW Statutes 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) EVERGLADES: Rev. Prob. 1K(ii): (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) 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: Florida Statutes: DQ1.16: “common areas” v. “private living quarters” “Invited Guest” under (1) Access to “private living quarters” Must leave at “reasonable request” of another resident “Other Authorized Visitors” under (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: Florida Statutes: DQ1.16: “common areas” v. “private living quarters” MW Rules for “private living quarters” under (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 (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)

SEQUOIA: DQs 117, 119 (a & c) ACADIA: DQs 118, 119 (b & d) SEQUOIAS ACADIA SUNRISE

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

Florida Statutes: DQ1.17 (Sequoia) more 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 less protective In what ways are they less protective?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.17 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 (Acadia) Statutes often provide clearer guidance than cases because they can incorporate more details and employ more precise language. clearer Identify at least three ways that the Florida statutes are clearer than the regime established under Shack.

Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Acadia) 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) Explicit time frame for visits. § (2)

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

Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Acadia) 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”

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19(a) (Sequoia) 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): Members of the Press (not explicitly listed): Any way to get at least some individual reporters in?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (a) 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): Members of the Press: 1.Maybe if individual grant money to do story on MWs under (6)(e). 2.Nice Moss idea about gov’t funded Public Television (maybe limited by clever Monje point about “solicitations.”)

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (b) (Acadia) 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): The members of the religious group from DQ1.15(b)? Relevant Statutory Provision is § (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. Let’s Break it Down

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19 (b) (Acadia) 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): The members of the religious group from DQ1.15(b)? A representative of a bona fide religious organization § (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 (b) (Acadia) 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): The members of the religious group from DQ1.15(b)? engaged in the vocation or occupation of a religious professional or worker § (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(c) (Sequoia) 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): The teachers from LON from Review Problem 1A?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19(c) (Sequoia) 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): (c) The teachers from LON described in Rev Prob 1A. If receiving funding under (6)(e).

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19(d) (Acadia) 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): The pizza delivery people described in Rev Prob 1B. Why is (d) a bad question?

Florida Statutes: DQ1.19(d) (Acadia) 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 Rev Prob 1B. 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: Review Problem 1K(ii) From Spring 2014 Final Exam Part of larger Issue-Spotter You can see how I edit & present statutes For Tuesday (EVERGLADES) FF Meet definition of “Other Authorized Guest”? If he does, or if he’s “Invited Guest,” What Limits OK? By Manager Sam By Other MWs Interesting Q: What does “REASONABLE” mean here?

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 1I-1J (each about 1/3 of a 60-Minute Q) Client Gives You Relatively Brief introduction to Set of Problems (Generally 2-4 Major Topics) To Do List Your Job: Create a To Do List of Legal & Factual Research Needed to Advise Client

FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q” To Do List 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 “Isolate MW/Signif. For Well-Being”) 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” First Examples on S17: -Tuesday 2/2: Review Problem 1J (SEQUOIA) -Tuesday 2/9: Review Problem 1I (BADLANDS) To help you see how to approach this new set of tasks, I’ve included additional instructions for each problem, breaking it down into component parts.

Possible XQ1: “LAWYERING Q”: O Q re English Lessons for MWs Work with possible test: “Cannot isolate MW in any respect significant to MW’s well-being.” TOO GENERAL except as Headings TOO GENERAL except as Headings: Are English Lessons significant to MW’s well-being? If O excludes, is that isolating the MWs from access to English Lessons?

Possible XQ1: “LAWYERING Q”: O Q re English Lessons for MWs Work with possible test: “Cannot isolate MW in any respect significant to MW’s well-being.” (Legal) Similar relevant language in statute or cases? Subsequent decisions re: English lessons or similar recurrin g visits or educational? Explaining/defining: Well-Being (check immediate material interests v. future or psych. Significant Isolate (check looking individually or aggregating jobs)

Possible XQ1: “LAWYERING Q”: O Q re English Lessons for MWs Work with possible test: “Cannot isolate MW in any respect significant to MW’s well-being.” (Factual) Evidence re MWs’ Need for English Literature from/about Org (& other orgs helping MWs) Talk to O & employees Internet/Social Science on Job Opportunities, etc. re English generally & re MWs Evidence re Isolation ….

Property Open to the Public & the Right to Exclude I.Generally: Your Money’s No Good Here A.Range of Possible Approaches & DQs B.Brooks & DQs (BADLANDS) (1/29-2/2) II.Free Speech Rights A.JMB (including Schmid) & DQ (OLYMPIC) (2/4) B.Review Problem 1I (BADLANDS) (2/9) C.Review Problem 1K(i) (OLYMPIC) (2/11)

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public 1 st Topic: When Do Private Businesses on Private Property Have the Right to Reject Particular Paying Customers : “Your Money’s No Good Here.”

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 or present danger).

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Helpful to Think About Interests of Parties Owners’ Interests = Owners’ Interests = Purposes for Exclusion or Harms from Inclusion Can help us see viable less restrictive alternatives to complete exclusion (OK if purposes/harms addressed). Interests of Customers & Public = Interests of Customers & Public = Purposes for Inclusion or Harms from Exclusion Can help us see possible permissible limitations on inclusion (OK if purposes/harms addressed).

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) Common Law Innkeeper 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

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Innkeeper Rule & DQ1.20 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 Else can charge extra to customers who are stuck 11pm in York in 1700 Cf. Looking for motel driving through West Texas or Nebraska If limited # of rights to operate business granted by gov’t, services should be available to all. If limited # of rights to operate business granted by gov’t, services should be available to all.

Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public Innkeeper Rule & DQ1.20 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 to allow trade-related travel.