elements b power point slides class #27 wednesday, november 4, 2015 national candy day (crush it!!!)

ELEMENTS B POWER POINT SLIDES

Class #27 Wednesday, November 4, 2015National Candy Day (Crush It!!!)

Music to Accompany Hadacheck:

Scott Joplin: His Greatest Hits

Richard Zimmerman, PianoMusic 1899-1912 Recording 2005

FRIDAY EXTENDO-CLASS

8:50-10:50Including Advice on Choosing 1L Elective

Fajer’s Exam Technique Workshops

Today & Tuesday 11/10

in Room E352

@ 12:30-1:50 pm

FACT PATTERN O (2012):Property in Human Gestures

• L-Bow begins doing “Elbowing Gesture” (EG) in conjunction with his impressive basketball plays while in college.

• Shortly after turning pro, L-Bow starts doing charitable ads featuring EG.

• Many people try to do EG but very few can; L-Bow sends congratulations to people who succeed.

Several years pass Several years pass 2012 2012

FACT PATTERN O (2012):Property in Human Gestures

Several years pass Several years pass 2012 2012•4/12: KG does spectacular dunk with EG in women’s college basketball finals; L-Bow tweets approval. •11/12: KG has becomes Cane-Ade spokesperson; Cane-Ade runs ad including video of dunk w EG•11/12: BB starts marketing exercise program using video of himself doing EG. •“Last week” (as of time of exam, so 12/12): L-Bow sues to enjoin commercial use of EG.

OXYGEN: REV. PROB. 2GEXAM Q1 (Escape):

Human Gestures

Discuss whether, if the ACs are the relevant authority, L-Bow retainsretains sufficient property rights

to the “elbowing” gesture (EG) to prevent BB and/or Cane-Ade from using the EG in their

marketing campaigns.

OXYGEN: REV. PROB. 2G EXAM Q1 (Escape): Human Gestures

Under ACs, does L-Bow retain sufficient property rights to the EG to prevent use of EG in marketing

campaigns?

•Assume that, for the purposes of applying the animals cases, L-Bow is the OO of the EG.

•Assume that human gestures do not receive trademark or copyright protection and that no other applicable [legal] doctrines address property rights in human gestures.

•Note that if you don’t think there should be any property rights in human gestures, you discuss that in Q2 (not here).

OXYGEN: REV. PROB. 2GEXAM Q1 (Escape):

Human GesturesUnder ACs, does L-Bow retain sufficient property rights

to the EG to prevent use of EG in marketing campaigns?

I’m Just Working with People I Call on from PanelI’m Just Working with People I Call on from Panel

•Arguments re Marking/Finder’s Knowledge?

•Arguments re Protecting OO’s Labor/Industry?

OXYGEN: REV. PROB. 2G EXAM Q1 (Escape): Human Gestures

Arguments re Abandonment/Pursuit/Time?Arguments re Abandonment/Pursuit/Time?

• L-Bow begins doing EG in college. Turns pro & starts doing charitable ads featuring EG.

• Over next several years, L-Bow congratulates people who do EG.

• 4/12: KG does EG; L-Bow tweets approval.

• 11/12: Cane-Ade ad with video of KG dunk & EG

• 11/12: BB marketing uses video of himself doing EG.

• 12/12: L-Bow sues to enjoin commercial use of EG.

Argument By AnalogyFriday: Rev. Prob. 2J (URANIUM)(URANIUM)

Assume Property Rights Only Available for Assume Property Rights Only Available for Gestures Strongly Associated with Particular Gestures Strongly Associated with Particular (Famous) Individuals AND Not Widely Used (Famous) Individuals AND Not Widely Used

Otherwise. We’ll Discuss: Otherwise. We’ll Discuss:

•Fact Similarities & Differences

•Usefulness of Factors Not Discussed Today

•Alternatives: Some Examples, then Compare to

– If Strongly Associated w Particular Indiv and Not If Strongly Associated w Particular Indiv and Not Commonly Used Before Indiv., Indiv. Can Control Commonly Used Before Indiv., Indiv. Can Control All Commercial UseAll Commercial Use

– No Property Rights in Gestures at AllNo Property Rights in Gestures at All

Introduction to Unit Three : Constitutional

Protection of Private Property

LECTURE & LECTURE & KRYPTON (DQ3.01-3.04)KRYPTON (DQ3.01-3.04)

Unit Three : Constitutional Protection of Private Property

State Regulations of Land Use Frequently Limit What Landowners

Can Do With Their Land and/or Reduce Its Value.

Under What Circumstances Does the U.S. Constitution Require that the

State Compensate the Landowner for These Effects?

Unit Three : Constitutional Protection of Private PropertyKey Differences from Units One &

Two•Whole Unit is Single Line of Cases from Same Court, So Need to Work With as a Group

•As You Already Know, US Supreme Court Opinions Longer & More Complex

•Context:– Not State Court Working with Common Law of

Property

– Federal Court Determining if State Law Violates US Constitution (Takes Us to DQ3.01)

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.01: Role of Fed’l Court

(Krypton)When Federal Courts review state statutes to determine whether they violate the U.S. Constitution, most people believe their role does not include determining whether the statute is a good idea as a matter of policy.

Why shouldn’t a Federal Court strike down a state statute because it is stupid?


(Krypton)Why shouldn’t a Federal Court strike down a state

statute because it is stupid? Common Answers Include:

•Democratic Theory– State Legislature is Elected Body; Fed’l Court is Not– Bill of Rights Generally as Limit on Democracy

•Relative Expertise: – Legislature Can Do Better Fact-Finding– See DQ1.58 after Albers


(Krypton)Upshot = Default Rule is Deference to

State Legislation•Many Bad Laws are Constitutional•State Legislatures Allowed to do Stupid Things Unless They Violate a Specific Constitutional Provision (Parent Analogy)


(Krypton)Parent Analogy

“You Are Not Leaving the House in That!!”


(Krypton)Default is Deference to State Legislation•States Allowed to do Stupid Things Unless They Violate a Specific Constitutional Provision •Relevant Provision Here is Takings Clause of Fifth Amendment (Applicable to States through Fourteenth Amendment)


(Krypton)Takings Clause of the Fifth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “[N]or shall private property be taken for

public use without just compensation”

What sort of cases do you think the framers intended to prevent

when they included this provision in the Constitution?


(Krypton)Takings Clause : “[N]or shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”

1.Eminent Domain (Property not Elements)– Govt Deliberately Attempts to

Purchase Private Property (“Condemnation”)

– Takings Clause requires:– “For Public Use” (Midkiff, Kelo, etc.)– “Just Compensation” (= Fair Market

Value)


(Krypton)Takings Clause : “[N]or shall private

property be taken for public use without just compensation”

1.Eminent Domain (Property not Elements)– Takings Clause requires:

– “For Public Use” = Concern About Govt Handing Out Prizes to Favored Individuals

– “Just Compensation”


(Krypton)Takings Clause : “[N]or shall private property

be taken for public use without just compensation”

1.Eminent Domain (Property not Elements)– Takings Clause requires “Public Use” and– “Just Compensation” = Concerns About – Ensuring Govt Has to Consider/Budget to Take

Land

– Protecting/Encouraging Investment in Land

– Taking Property to Punish Disfavored Individuals

– Redistributing Wealth




1.Eminent Domain (Property not Elements)– Takings Clause requires “Public Use”

and– “Just Compensation” = Concerns About – Taking Property to Punish Disfavored

Individuals

– Redistributing Wealth

– Speculation re Madison & Slavery




1.Eminent Domain Cases

2.Takings Cases (Elements Unit Three)– Govt Not Trying to Purchase, but to

Regulate– Property Owner Claims Regulation

Effectively “Takes” Property so Gov’t Must Cease or Pay (“Inverse Condemnation” Action)




1.Eminent Domain Cases

2.Takings Cases (Elements Unit Three)– Property Owner Claims Regulation

Effectively “Takes” Property so Govt Must Cease or Pay (“Inverse Condemnation” Action)

– Little Historical Evidence Connecting Framers to These Claims


(Krypton)Takings Cases (Elements Unit Three)Takings Cases (Elements Unit Three)

•Property Owner Claims Regulation Effectively “Takes” Property so Govt Must Cease or Pay

•Left with Hard Q of When Govt Must Pay– Really No Historical Guidance

– Generally Defer to State Legislative Process

– Can’t Pay for All Loss of Value (Military Bases; Opium Poppies)

Unit Three : IntroductionRelevant Considerations in

Takings Cases• We’ll Look at Cases & Theorists to

Determine What’s Relevant• Cases Complex (Like Escape Cases)– Use a Variety of Factors– Can Use Charts to Keep Track

Unit Three : Constitutional Protection of Private Property;

Special ToolsSpecial Tools• Recurring Hypo: “Airspace Solution to

Hammonds Problem” (Introduced in DQ2.36 & DQ3.03)

• Minimum Requirement for Constitutionality: Rational Basis Review (Introduced in DQ 3.04)

• The “Demsetz Takings Story” (Introduced in DQ 3.05)

• In Class: Replace Briefs w Introductory Line of Qs for Each Case (E.g., DQ3.06, 3.12, 3.22)

• Four Theorists (Each Panel will Introduce One)-- Oxygen: Joseph SaxOxygen: Joseph Sax --Uranium: Frank Michelman--Uranium: Frank Michelman

-- Radium: Richard Epstein -- Radium: Richard Epstein --Krypton: Bruce --Krypton: Bruce AckermanAckerman

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.03: Airspace Solution

(Krypton)“Airspace Solution to Hammonds

Problem”•Suppose Kentucky adopts a statute treating empty underground gas reservoirs like airspace needed for airlines. The statute:

(a) allows the gas company to store its gas under Ms. Hammonds’s property without paying rent; and

(b) prohibits her from extracting it.


(Krypton)• Suppose Kentucky adopted a statute that

(a) allowed the gas company to store its gas under Ms. Hammonds’s property without paying rent; and (b) prohibited her from extracting it.

• Suppose Ms. Hammonds then claims this is an unconstitutional taking of her property.

Do you think this is the kind of harm the Takings Clause forbids? Why or

Why Not?


(Krypton)• Suppose Kentucky adopted a statute that

(a) allowed the gas company to store its gas under Ms. Hammonds’s property without paying rent; and (b) prohibited her from extracting it.

• Suppose Ms. Hammonds then claims this is an unconstitutional taking of her property.

We’ll apply the authorities we study to this problem to help see what

they do.

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.04: Police Power

(Krypton)““Police Power” = Basic Authority of State Gov’tsPolice Power” = Basic Authority of State Gov’ts

•Can regulate to protect/further “HSWM”• Health• Safety• Welfare [general well-being including economic success] • Morals

•Good lawyer can tie virtually any state law to one of these purposes

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.04: Rational Basis Review

(Krypton)Is Challenged Law “Rationally Related Is Challenged Law “Rationally Related

to a Legitimate State Purpose”?to a Legitimate State Purpose”?

–Minimal Test for Constitutionality Under Due Process & Equal Protection Clauses

– Applies When No Specific Constitutional Provision is Violated

– Very Deferential: Gov’t Virtually Always Wins


(Krypton)““Rationally Related to Legitimate State Purpose”Rationally Related to Legitimate State Purpose”

–What is Purpose?

– Is Purpose Legitimate? • Arising under Police Power (HSWM)• Not Just to Harm Individuals or Group

– Is Law “Rationally Related” to Purpose?


(Krypton)““Rationally Related to Legitimate State Purpose”Rationally Related to Legitimate State Purpose”

–What is Purpose?

– Is Purpose Legitimate?

– Is Law “Rationally Related” to Purpose?• Not asking if “rational” to a psychologist or

economist• Term of art = a rational legislator could

believe the state law will help further its purpose, at least a little bit• Doesn’t have to be best option or even

particularly good


(Krypton)• Apply to Airspace Solution

–What is Purpose?

– Is Purpose Legitimate? • Arising under Police Power • Health Safety Welfare Morals

– Is Law “Rationally Related” to Purpose?• Could a rational legislator believe the state

law will help further its purpose, at least a little bit?

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.05: Demsetz Takings

StoryDescription of How Takings Cases

Arise•Change leads to rising externalities•Creates a demand for a change in the law. •After the change, people affected by the new law complain that their property rights have been taken.

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.05: Demsetz Takings Story

Airspace Solution as ExampleAirspace Solution as Example•Change leads to rising externalities.• Hammonds decided Gas cos. move gas out of Ky.• Gas prices in Ky increase.

•Creates a demand for a change in the law. • Ky legislature (hypothetically) passes statute adopting

Airspace Solution •After the change, people affected by the new law complain that their property rights have been taken. • Hammonds might claim Airspace Solution is a Taking of

her portion of the underground gas pool

Unit Three : IntroductionDQ3.05: Demsetz Takings

StoryDescription of How Takings Cases Arise

•Change leads to rising externalities•Creates a demand for a change in the law. •After the change, people affected by the new law complain that their property rights have been taken.

Long Term Q for You: Long Term Q for You: If this story represents a common pattern among Takings cases, what does that suggest about the

proper role of the Takings Clause?


Takings CasesSurvey of Instincts About What Facts

Matter(All 6 Matter: 2015: 7/41; 2014: 13/94)

2015 2014 2012•% Reduction in Value 88% 88% 90%•Ban on Intended Use 85% 90% 90%•Purpose of Regulation 71% 63% 54%•$$$ Amount Reduction 59% 59% 62%•$$$ Amount Left 49% 56% 43%•Return on Investment 32% 39% 26%


Takings CasesSurvey Data on Instincts

A B C D ECurrent Use Unlimited Eliminated Limited Limited Unlimited

% Value Lost 60% 5% 80% 10% 60%

Value Lost N/A N/A $80K $1M $120K

Orig. Purchase

Just Now N/A N/A N/A 5 Yrs @ 50K/200K 80K

Avg. Rank (1 = Strongest)

20152014/2012

2.93.0/3.0

2.82.6/2.8

1.91.7/1.8

3.63.6/3.5

3.84.0/3.8

Name the Musical Group:• 1st Billboard #1 Hit in 1958

• Won 5 Grammys; Nominated for 8 More

• Featured in Major Studio Motion Picture in 2011

Hint:Hint:

Name the Musical Group:• 1st Billboard #1 Hit in 1958

• Won 5 Grammys; Nominated for 8 More

• Featured in Major Studio Motion Picture in 2011

Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. (1922)

Introduction to Set Up Discussion for Next Two Classes

Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.Background: Pennsylvania LawProperty Rights in PennsylvaniaThree Types; Each is Separate “Estate in

Land”

1.Surface

2.Mineral (here, coal extraction)

3.Subsidence: – Right to Decide Whether to Keep

Surface in Place or Undermine It. – Can be Held By Surface Owner or

Mineral Rights Owner

Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.Background: Factual ContextCoal Companies (CCs) Owned Large

Tracts of Land, Initially Holding All Three Estates

•Sell Surface Rights Surface Rights to Individuals, Businesses, Local Governments (who become “Surface Owners”).

•Contracts of Sale & Deeds for these Sales…

– Explicitly retained for CCs both mineral rights mineral rights & subsidence rightssubsidence rights;

– Required CCs to give noticenotice to surface owners before undermining.

Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.Background: Factual Context

• Penn. Legislature concerned re widespread effects of CCs exercising subsidence rights

• Passes Kohler Act– Forbids CCs from mining in a way that causes

surface to collapse where home or other structure affected.

– Exception if owner of mineral rights mineral rights also owns surfacesurface & lot is more than 150 feet from improved lots owned by others.

– Effect is to bar CCs from exercising some Subsidence Rights Subsidence Rights for which they had explicitly contracted.

Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.Background: Procedural History

• Pursuant to contract, D coal co gives notice to P surface owner that it will exercise its Subsidence Rights and undermine surface.

• P sued to prevent undermining, relying on Kohler Act

• TCt: Kohler Act bars undermining, but unconstitutional

• Pa SCt: Act = Legit. Exercise of State Power; P Wins

• Appeal to US SCt (via Writ of Error as in Hadacheck) b/c claiming a State Law violates Federal Constitution

• US SCt Opinion = 1922

Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. (1922)

Read Carefully; Important Differences between Holmes Majority & Brandeis Dissent

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

RADIUM: DQs 3.06-3.09

Hadacheck v. SebastianBackground: Growth of Los

Angeles• WATER: Aqueduct Completed in 1913

• OIL: Discovered 1876; SoCal produces 25% of world’s oil in 1920s

• MOVIE INDUSTRY: Beginning 1910– Weather/Sunlight (Better than Florida b/c Drier

& Little Rain)

– Proximity to Mexico & Patent Evasion

• POPULATION (~50,000 in 1890)– 1900 = ~ 102,000– 1910 = ~ 319,000– 1920 = ~ 577,000– 1930 = ~1,238,000

elements b power point slides class #27 wednesday, november 4, 2015 national candy day (crush it!!!)

Documents

human gestureslbow

sufficient property

bow tweets approval

human gesturesarguments

human gesturesdiscuss

human gesturesunder

human gesturesseveral

bb marketing