1. 2-15-19 NATIONAL GUMDROP DAY NATIONAL WISCONSIN DAY
PROPERTY B SLIDES
NATIONAL GUMDROP DAY
NATIONAL WISCONSIN DAY
CHEESE ISN’T
EVERYTHING!!

2. Music to Accompany Sorenson: Boz Scaggs, Silk Degrees (1976)
Lunch Today
Meet on 12:25
Baker * Burke * Chuback
Della Catena * Fernandez
Rubin * Zawislinski
Next Few DF Sessions:
Current: Rev Prob 2B (Brendan)
12:30 Here
Next 9:40 Here
Then: Rev Prob 2E (Lauren)
Next 9:40 Here
Next 9:40 Here

3. Review Problem 1P(i): Recap Part of an Issue-Spotter
Schmid-Like Speech Access Q
Asked to consider complete denial of access and/or possible restrictions
Can compare to Princeton or big malls re Nature of Physical Space/Nature of Invitation
Can compare FF to typical mall protestors

4. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIA Part of an Issue-Spotter (Recap)
Nature of Physical Space/Invitation: Relevant Facts/Significance?
Enclosed Courtyard Accessible thru Public Walkways
Restaurants & Clinic Open onto Courtyard
Hospital/Classrooms in Surrounding Bldgs
Benches/Tables in Courtyard for Publlic Use
Speakers & Musicians Allowed in
Signs Reserving Right to Exclude

5. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIA Part of an Issue-Spotter
Special Concerns w FF as Speaker
Relevant Facts/Significance?

6. Acadia: Review Problem 1P(i) (cont’d)
Acadia Sunrise

7. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIA Part of an Issue-Spotter
FF as Speaker: Relevant Facts/Significance?
Charismatic/Controversial Religious Figure
Anti-Technology [Might Conflict with Hospital/Medical Activities, Perhaps Justifying Exclusion]
Matter if MMS run by a Mainstream Protestant Denomination?
Other Concerns?  Possible Problems/Regulations?

8. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIA Part of an Issue-Spotter
FF=Speaker: Relevant Facts/Significance?  Possible Regs?
Charismatic/Controversial Religious Figure
Too Many People (+ Press) in Courtyard
Noise
Conflict
Smashes Device
Enclosed Space  More Potential Harm (So can forbid?)
Presumably his own device & not audience member’s
QUESTIONS?

9. Chapter 2. Leased But Not Last: Selected Issues in Landlord/Tenant Law
The Importance of Context:
The Ldld’s Right to Exclude (& Legitimate Interests of Tnts)
Eviction Under the Florida Statutes
Statutory Anti-Discrimination Law & The Right to Transfer
Introduction to Fed’l Fair Housing Statutes
Sorenson & Proof of Discriminatory Intent
Funk & “Reasonable” Refusals to Allow Transfer
Review Problems
Habitability & Related Issues

10. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes
Most Testable Issue re Anti-Discrimination Statutes
Why Ldld Made Decision to Exclude Applicant or Transferee
Generally, My Problem will Suggest At Least One Each of
Discriminatory Reasons (Made on Basis of Protected Characteristic)
Non-Discriminatory or “Legitimate” Reasons (Anything Else)

11. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes
In Short Problem or Issue-Spotter, I’ll Give Detailed Info
You’ll Need to Lay Out & Explain
Evidence Supporting Discriminatory Reason(s)
Evidence Supporting Non-Discriminatory Reason(s)
Then Discuss Significance of All Evidence Together
We will use test from Sorenson that statute is violated if discriminatory reason is “one significant factor” in Ldld’s decision (although actual current rules more complex)
E.g., Review Problems 2D & 2L(part b)

12. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes
In Lawyering Q, I’ll Give Some Info That Suggests Serious Discrimination Issue
You’ll Need to Do Factual Investigation to Find
Evidence Supporting Possible Discriminatory Reason(s)
Evidence Supporting Possible Non-Discriminatory Reason(s)
Useful Also to to Identify Possible Helpful Legal Research on Provisions of Relevant State & Local Statutes (Based on Info in Write-Up of DQs )
E.g., Review Problem 2K (part c)

13. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes
To Help identify Evidence That Might Be Relevant:
Discussion of Sorenson
Note on Evidence on S40-42: Self-Explanatory Except …
S40: Desire of management to see applicants (not just rely on employees to do face-to-face contact)
S40: Treatment of Testers.
S41: Reputation of landlord/housing provider among tenants/in community (re willingness to do business with particular group)
S41-42: “Consistency”/”Corroboration” = Work Both Ways
Questions?

14. EVERGLADES: Sorenson & DQ2.07-2.09
EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

15. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades)
Ps’ Claim: D evicted Ps b/c of race of visitors
D’s Claim: D evicted Ps b/c of history of problems + preparing for party + sight of disfavored ex-tenant
What evidence supported Ps’ Claim?

16. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades)
Evidence supporting Ps’ Claim (Decision b/c of Race):
Timing: Eviction right after D saw Afr-Am women in apt.
D saying “Yes” when asked if race was reason for eviction
N.4: D told “anxious” neighbor he didn’t intend to rent to 2 “black girls”
D admitted he preferred no Afr-Ams as tenants
No Afr-Am residents in D’s Complex
What evidence supported D’s claim?

17. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades)
Evidence supporting D’s Claim (Legitimate Reasons):
Ps’ Prior issues (parties, noise, complaints, harm to apt)
Timing: D testifies fury re party & seeing former tenant
D says “Yes” not true but intended to annoy P
Explanation of D statement re no intent to rent: Hadn’t applied
Explanation of no Afr-Am residents: No Afr-Ams had applied
Participant in Civic Race Relations Project
Whose Story Seems More Convincing?

18. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades)
“Neither we nor our district courts sit to pass upon the taste of litigants or the attractiveness of their positions. Our commitment is to truth and process, with emphasis on the former below and the latter here. A careful inquiry into the process observed in the district court has not convinced us that the truth was not served.” (Last Para. S40)
Assuming [this means that the] court found the D’s story unconvincing…, why didn’t it reverse the decision?
Have to Defer to Jury Decision on Facts, Particularly Credibility of Witnesses
Why Should Appellate Court Defer to Jury’s [implicit] Findings of Fact if Appellate Judges Disagree?

19. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades)
Why Should Appellate Court Defer to [implicit] Findings of Fact by Jury if Court Disagrees?
Visual Observation of Witnesses and of Physical Evidence
Hearing Testimony
She asked me to take her to the dance.

20. Sorenson & DQ2.08 (Everglades)
P’s Primary Claim: Court must find for P as a matter of law b/c D admitted to P that he discriminated.
Test really is “no reasonable jury could find [for D]…”
P relies on Pelzer and Mintzes.
Pelzer: Giving different terms to applicants based on race violates FHA w/o other evidence of bad intent
Mintzes: Blockbusting (3604(e) case): Statements referencing race to induce moving violate statute even if no racial animus

21. Sorenson & DQ2.08 (Everglades)
P’s Primary Claim: Court must find for P as a matter of law b/c D admitted to P that he discriminated.
P relies on Pelzer and Mintzes, but court distinguishes:
In those cases, statements in Q themselves violated FHA
Here, alleged violation is eviction (with bad intent)
Statement here is evidence of intent, not violation itself
D entitled to bring in evidence to rebut
Jury can decide who they believe
Questions on This Point?

22. Sorenson & DQ2.09 (Everglades)
D Atty Asked Q re Marijuana Use (Violating Order)
Why might this harm P’s chances for fair trial (in ~1976)?
[POT-OMAC STORY]
Purpose of Footnote 14 (“lame explanations”)
D Atty Used Peremptory Challenges to Remove Afr-Ams from Jury
Why might this harm P’s chances for fair trial?
Batson v. Kentucky & the Power of Change
Questions?

23. Monday: REVIEW PROBLEM 2D EVERYONE IS ON-CALL; I’LL ASSIGN 3-4 PEOPLE TO EACH SIDE & TAKE ADDITIONAL IDEAS FROM VOLUNTEERS
Possible Discriminatory Reasons for Rejection
Religion (Not Jewish Enough)
Inter-Racial or Inter-Faith Relationship
Israeli
Possible Non-Discriminatory Reasons?
Significance of Specific Facts?
Other Evidence Supporting Discriminatory Reasons?
Other Evidence Supporting Non-Discriminatory Reasons?
Stronger Position Overall? Because?