1. 2-6-17 National Frozen Yogurt Day
PROPERTY A SLIDES
2-6-17
National Frozen Yogurt Day

2. Dungca * Huo * Rubin Smith * Sparhawk
More Music to Accompany Florida MW Statutes: Whitney Houston et al., “The Bodyguard” Soundtrack (1993) featuring “I Have Nothing”
Lunch Today
Meet on 11:55
Dungca * Huo * Rubin Smith * Sparhawk
C. Stone * Warner
Logistics:
Contact Sheet Circulating;
Confirm Your Info with 
OR Correct in Margins
Later Today: Pre-Info Memo on Chapter 1 on Course Page
Notes on DQ1.15
Comments/Best Answers for Rev. Probs. 1A & 1B

3. Save The Date: Monday March 27 Test on Chapter 4 @ 8 a.m.
Logistics
70 Minutes (8-9:10 a.m.)
24 Multiple Choice Qs
Closed Book (w Attached Syllabus)
In F109 and A110
On Course Page & Onc 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)

4. MONday Pop Culture Moment
As Valentine’s Day Approaches:
Way Too Much
[Part One]

5. Every kiss begins with Kay®

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

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

8. Unfortunately, it’s usually a story about cholesterol.

9. Previously in Property A
Right to Exclude & MWs
Limits & Scope of Shack Holding (DQ )
Applied Shack to New Situations (DQ1.15; Rev. Probs 1A/1B)
Started Florida Statutes on MWs including key distinction between “invited guests” and “other authorized visitors”

10. Qs on Florida MW Statutes SEQUOIA: DQs 117, 119 (a & c) ACADIA: DQs 118, 119 (b & d)
SEQUOIAS
ACADIA SUNRISE

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

12. Florida Statutes: DQ1.17 (Sequoia)
Ways the Florida statutes are more protective of MWs’ rts than the regime established under Shack include:
Posting Requirement § (6)
Looks like only other MWs can limit invited guests § (1) & (2)
Some types of authorized guests listed explicitly under § (6) for whom access might be uncertain under Shack.
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?

13. Ways are they less protective include …
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) (e.g., no access for press).
No open-ended protection of dignity, destiny, needs, etc.

14. Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Acadia)
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.

15. Florida Statutes: DQ1.18 (Acadia)
Ways that the Florida statutes are clearer than the regime established under Shack include …
Specific Definition of MW in § (4) (per Burns)
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)

16. DIFFICULTIES INTERPRETING LANGUAGE; AMBIGUOUS v. VAGUE
Ambiguous = more than one possible meaning
The government sanctioned his behavior.
[Two ships called “Peerless”]
Vague = meaning is imprecise or unclear
The government handled his behavior well
Kasten point last week re open-ended language in Shack (needs; destiny; dignity, etc.)

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

18. 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): Medical providers & “sole purpose” (I think “sole” is vague despite good Finkel point re trouble-making Drs.)
§ (6)(c): we’ll come back to religious provision w DQ 1.19(b)
§ (6)(e): “funded by local, state, or federal funds”
§ (8)(a): Nice Ptachik idea re “incident of employment” arguably describing all MW housing

19. 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?

20. 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:
Maybe if individual grant money to do story on MWs under (6)(e).
Nice 2016 idea about gov’t funded Public TV/Radio

21. 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?

22. 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?
Again, if receiving funding under (6)(e).

23. 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

24. 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)?
§ (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.

25. 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)?
§ (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.

26. 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.
Bad Q b/c generally invited.
W/o invitation, could be (6)(e) “services” except unlikely to give free pizza, so probably impermissible “solicitation” (= seeking $$$).
With invitation, get to “visit that resident,” so pizza guy can go hang out with MWs, but court unlikely to read provision to allow food sales.

27. Florida MW Statutes: Additional Coverage
DF This Week: DQ1.19 e/f
Review Problem 1H (BADLANDS) Tomorrow
2016 Final Exam Short Problem re Annoying Adolescent (M) Visiting MW Dad; Best arguments re
Can other MWs exclude M under 897(1)
Can Operator exclude M under 897(5)
Heavy focus on “reasonableness”
Other Review Problems
Review Problem 1O(ii) (DF Next Week)
Relevant to Lawyering Q 1N (Everglades) Tomorrow

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

29. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q”
E.g., Review Problems 1M-1N (each about 1/3 of a 60-Minute Q)
Client Gives You Relatively Brief introduction to Set of Problems (Generally 2-4 Major Topics)
Your Job: Create a To Do List of Legal & Factual Research Needed to Advise Client

30. 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 “Isolate MW/Signif. For Well-Being”)
Client probably wants you to negotiate/try to settle in addition to or instead of litigating; can ask Qs aimed at creative agreements.

31. 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

32. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 1 “LAWYERING Q”
First Examples on S16:
Tomorrow: Review Problem 1N (EVERGLADES)
Next Week: Review Problem 1M
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.

33. Possible XQ1: “LAWYERING Q”: Farmer (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:
Are English Lessons significant to MW’s well-being?
If O excludes, is that isolating the MWs from access to English Lessons?

34. Possible XQ1: “LAWYERING Q”: Farmer 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 v. future & material v. emotional)
Significant
Isolate (check looking at individual worksite or aggregating jobs)

35. Possible XQ1: “LAWYERING Q”: Farmer 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 ….
[Hold Qs Until After We’ve Tried Next Time]

36. Property Open to the Public & the Right to Exclude
Generally: Your Money’s No Good Here (Lecture Today/Tomorrow)
Range of Possible Approaches & DQs
Brooks & DQs
Free Speech Rights (JMB including Schmid) (Starting Thursday with OLYMPIC)

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

38. 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).

39. Right to Exclude: Parcels Open to the Public
Helpful to Think About Interests of Parties
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 =
Purposes for Inclusion or Harms from Exclusion
Can help us see possible permissible limitations on inclusion (OK if purposes/harms addressed).