Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Outlines (Cyberlaw (Speech (Personal Jurisdiction (calder, Zippo, Young,…

- - - - calder
      - Zippo
      - Young
      - Boschetto
      - Tamburo
      - Reno v. ACLU
- - - - Lee Optical
        
        Don't ask what interest it - just if reasonable one exists
        
        Stepwise ok - no need for perfect fit
      - Railway Express
        
        Step-wise solutions are fine - ad trucks
      - Sensational Smiles
        
        Could be oral health reason - purpose is irrelevant
        
        Concurrence says stop talking after you get RBR
    - - Moreno
        
        Food stamps - ct required actual evidence of fit
        
        Discouraging hippies interest
        
        Easily evaded by separate cooking facilities
        
        Bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group impermissible
        
        Preventing Fraud interest
        
        Valid interest - but not related to food stamp goal
        
        Possible reasons for bite
        
        Politically unpopular - bias v. poor people
        
        Taking away bbenefits
        
        Bare desire to harm
        
        Enumerated powers - no federal EP clause
      - Cleburne
        
        Permit denied for mentally retarded group home
        
        Ct says MR is like age - not clear illness, not same across board, best for legislature
        
        Fed gov has enumerated rights for MR - thus they have political power
        
        slippery slope - if this is QSC, need to make one for age, disabled, infirm
      - Beazer
        
        Classification?
        
        Majority: methadone users vs. everyone else
        
        requires decent fit with ends that reflect legitimate policy
        
        Dissent: 1 year+ treatment vs. nonusers
        
        Requires closer fit and actual evidence - RBR +
        
        Goal?
        
        safety/efficiency - capable workforce - employability
  - - - Brown Cases
        
        Green
        
        Freedom of Choice - not enough, doesn't address patterns of segregation
        
        counterargument - goverment imposed distinctions are the harm, not the patterns
        
        Swann
        
        Once unitary achieved, need deliberate, intentional seg to reopen
        
        Relief tied to historical problem
        
        Race-conscious bussing ok
        
        Keyes
        
        Maj: evidence of purposeful discrim in one raises PF case of district discrim
        
        Powell deal - proof of intent unnecessary + EPC doesn't require busses
        
        Milliken
        
        no interdistrict remedy for intradistrict problem
        
        district lines are meaningful
        
        taxes/schoolboards disrupted
        
        Jenkens
        
        Jenkins 1 - ct can't raise taxes
        
        Jenkins 2 - interdistrict/intradistrict - one district in vacuum
        
        Thomas concurrance - don't care about patterns, don't rest holding on social science that rests on black inferiority
      - Plessy
        
        "Reasonable exercise of police power"
        
        Laws cannot enforce social rights/status
        
        Badge of inferiority - abstraction of history
        
        Harlan dissent - const. is colorblind
      - Brown
        
        Themes
        
        De Jure v. De Facto
        
        Desegregation v. Integration - former
        
        Nondiscrimination (colorblindness) vs. Accommodation (knowledge)
        
        Anti-classification vs. anti-subordination
        
        Interest covergence - discrim and cold war criticism
        
        Ct holds force of law makes impact unique
        
        Judges must be countermajoritarian - check power of majority
      - Bolling
        
        Ct holds no reason for varying
        protections against segregation
        
        Doesn't matter which gov - the harm is the same
        
        Political realism - how it will be perceived
        
        Segregation here fails RBR - arbitrary
        
        Can vary based on the type of power - see DOMA
    - - Race gets SS
      - Here, upheld due to military necessity
    - - Are mex-americans a class? unclear
      - No t narrowly tailored - staying, know the laws
    - - Arlington Heights
        
        Need discriminatory purpose as motivating factor - not here
        
        Mixed motives may shift burden to Gov
      - Feeney
        
        Veteran preference - no purpose to discriminate
        
        Valid interests aimed at
      - McClesky
        
        Must show purpose when claiming racist prosecution
      - Washington v. Davis
        
        Disparate impact alone doesn't show purpose/intent
    - - Can't look at private biases to deny custody
      - Since race taken into account by gov, DJ
    - - Croson
        
        Holding - AA gets SS
        
        Scalia - all classification are bad
        
        O'Connor (maj) - has the danger of being bad
        
        need SS to "smoke out" bad racism
        
        MBE case: Blacks were not a minority in Richmond
      - Wygant
        
        Ct holds favoring minorities over seniority in firing unconstitional
        
        Interests? Remedial/role models - both fail
      - Fisher
        
        Defer to university onn whether diversity is compelling - not on narrow tailoring
      - Parents Involved
        
        Jackson - declared unitary, no DJ - so no voluntary deseg
        
        Seattle - never segregated - can't voluntarily deseg
      - Aderand
        
        SS for Fed Classifications on Race
        
        Skepticism – of all uses of race – overruling Metro
        
        Consistency – all race get strict scrutiny, not based on purpose
        
        Congruence – equal protection the same in 5th and 14th amendment
      - Grutter - race as a plus factor is ok - goal of critical mass of diversity
        
        Thomas dissent - aesthetic interest
      - Gratz - point system invalid
    - - Homosex sodomy statute struck down
        
        violates substantive DP
  - - - Gender based preference for administering estate struck down - arbitrary
      - test
        
        Reasonable, not arbitrary
        
        Fair and substantial relation to object of litigation
    - - Reed's "arbitrary" meant forbidden reason
        
        Ct. looked at impact of teaching these arrangements
      - Different support proof requirements for male/female servicepeople fails
      - Powell concur - sex as administrative convenience is wrong
    - - Sex based discrim gets intermediate scrutiny
        
        "substantially related" to "important" "government interest"
      - concern with amorphous terms + applying sex discrim to men
    - - gender based classification needs:
        
        exceedingly important/persuasive justification
        
        substantially related to important and actual government interest
        
        not based on stereotypes
  - - - Dividing?
        
        Length of time/PR vs Citizens for Welfare
      - Goal?
        
        Favor own citizens
      - Ct. gives SS - based on History/Relation/Immutability/PP - fails
      - Implied - alienage is irrelevant to state goals
    - - Fed gets RBR - defer to Congress in scrutiny (weird)
      - Ct says it's about types of noncitizens
      - Fed has unique interest in immigration
    - - Noncitizens can't be notaries
        
        Ct holds - such weak fit, unconstitutional
      - claimed political function exception
        
        ct says no, no same req for higher positions
      - Rehnquist dissent
        
        Constitution already discriminates
        
        Too much reliance on footnote 4
        
        Not clear noncitizens are D/I
        
        Slippery slope in making new groups
    - - Poor
        
        no protected class
        
        no rational definition
        
        • Under Carolene products, they may need protection
        
        Diffuse/anonymous – hard to come together to fight
        
        No determinate line here – hard to classify
      - Majority - passes RBR
        
        interest in local control over education
      - Dissent - 3-factor test
        
        Importance of right
        
        History of discrimination
        
        Government interest
    - - Don't look to specific terms of case - look in general for relevance to government decisionmaking
      - Undocuimented are not protected class - undocumented children get a little more scrutiny
      - Education is not a fundamental right - but it's important
      - Nonetheless, unconstitutional
        
        Link to Marshall dissent in Rodriguez - test
      - Dissent - creating a quasi-suspect class
  - - - Violates EP - animus vs homosexuals
        
        Can't choose one trait and exclude based on that
        
        "unusualness trigger"
        
        when law seems unusual, we suspect animus
      - Dissent
        
        this is just voter preference
        
        it's fine to outlaw - why can't we discourage
        
        Counter - Kennedy
        
        These types of moral decisions are not legitimate government interests - no matter how strongly you hold them
        
        Counter - Scalia
        
        then strike down anti-nudity, adultery laws
    - - Thomas dissent - Lawrence was negative right, this is positive
      - Majority - unconstitutional - assumes reasons are fake
    - - Factors in favor of IS
        
        Relation to ability
        
        immutable characteristic
        
        limited political power (judge assumes by group size)
      - Gives IS - compares to sex discrimination
      - Unconstitutional - W.D. Pa
- - - - MR 1.13(a)
        
        REpresent org, which acts through constitutents
      - MR 1.13(B)
        
        If you (actually) know of legal violation, must report - can infer, can't ignore obvious
      - Cal RPC 3-600(a)
        
        Client is org itself - may report up for legal violation - stops at withdrawal
      - Duty of Independence
    - - Legal system
      - not be oppressive
      - efficient adjudication, client interest
      - partners/guardians to business
    - - MR 1.2(a)
        
        Defer to clients judgments - lawyer decides how to achieve - implied authorization
    - - MR 2.1
        
        Must: professional judgment/candid advice
        
        May: social/econ/poli/moral factors
    - - MR 1.12(d)
        
        if you withdraw - can only disclose if active C/F
      - MR 1.13(C) - can report out, as long as it's illegal
  - - - For narrow - prevent "zone of silence"
      - For broad - keep lawyer in loop
    - - Control Group - Consolidated Coal - State
        
        Position of control/decision participate
        
        Or is authorized member of upper level group
      - Subject Matter
        
        regular duties of EE; sufficiently identified; job within SM of representation
      - Merideth
        
        comm for legal advice; actually kept confidential
      - Upjohn - Priv extends to lower employees - covers communications, not facts
    - - Bieter - functional equivalent of EE - privileged
      - Kovel - "translating" tax info - privileged
      - Ackert - outside investor proposing product - not privileged - not for legal advice (substantially)
    - - Neuder
        
        EE fired; corp claims priv, lawyer helped fire; ct says fails "primary purpose" test
      - Kellogg, Brown & Root
        
        comm privileged if legal advice one of the "significant" purposes, not primary purpose
    - - MR 1.6(A)
        
        Can't reveal unless implied consent/authorization
      - MR 1.6(B)
        
        Can reveal if:
        
        Death/SBI
        
        Crime/Fraud - your services used
        
        P/M/R Substantial injury for financial interests of another - your services used
        
        Lawyer seeking advice
        
        Claim/defense
        
        Comply with court order
        
        Conflicts of interests
      - Cal RPC 3-100(B)
        
        Can reveal to prevent: Crim act; Likely death/SBI; of an individual
  - - - Fact - substantial need/UH
      - Opinion - high bar - CA prohibited
    - - FRCP 26(B)
        
        Limit - IAL; for trial by/for opponent
    - - CCCP 2018.020
        
        Allow privacy to lawyers
        
        Prevent other side from stealing work
        
        Absolute bar on opinion WP
    - - Grouping is OWP - not discoverable
    - - Auditors wrote down, Lawyer's analysis - protected
    - - Adlman (broad)
        
        "because of", would not be prepared in same form - subj
      - Textron (narrow)
        
        motivation; use; reasonable anticipation - subj + obj
  - - - Client holds - waived if either acts as if not confidential