LEB 320F 1st Edition Lecture 4 Outline of Last Lecture I US Constitution II Supreme law of the US IV Commerce clause A Interstate B Intrastate III Gonzales v Raich IV Supremacy clause pre emption V Granholm v Heald VI Full faith credit VII Privileges and Immunities clause VIII The Bill of Rights 10 A Freedom of religion B Freedom of speech IX Pit News v Pappert X Equal protection XI Affirmative action XII Gruter v Bollinger Outline of Current Lecture I Due process II Eminent Domain A Full B Partial III Kelo v City of New London IV Dispute resolution V US Dual court system VI Removal jurisdiction VII Pisciota v Old National Bancorp Inc VIII Jurisdiction IX Schwarzenegger v Fred Martin Motor Co XXIV Venue X Conflicts of law Current Lecture Due process o No deprivation of life liberty property without due process o State may take life liberty property o What process is due o Procedural right to be heard impartial judge may come into play Substantive fundamental right v compelling state interest Takings o Eminent Domain o Full partial Kelo v City of New London o Summary In 2000 New London Connecticut was an economically distressed city City reactivated the New London Development Corporation NLDC a private nonprofit entity to create jobs increase tax and other revenues and revitalize the city Land was needed and the use of the power of eminent domain to acquire remainder of property from unwilling sellers for compensation caused 9 landowners to sue to stop what they called an illegal taking Landowners appealed this case to the Supreme Court Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible public use under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment In favor of city of New London o Public purpose o Texas reaction No urban renewal stated twice o Sometimes taking part of your land will destroy whole value Dispute resolution o What type of court system o With what powers over o Which property US o o o o o Dual court system State federal Each supreme in their own right Problems when there s conflict between court systems Most claims are state claims Exception courthouses in same town o Most litigation is state law claims in state court Exception Federal diversity jurisdiction Complete diversity Corporations Jurisdiction of federal questions Concurrent exclusive Removal jurisdiction Pisciota v Old National Bancorp Inc o Summary Plaintiffs Luciano Piscota and Daniel Mills accessed the Old National Bancorp ONB website and entered personal information to apply for banking services In 2005 a third party hacked the ONB website and stole personal info of tens of thousands of ONB customers including Piscota and Mills Plaintiffs sued ONB for negligence and breach of contract and sued the company that maintained the website NCR for negligence Court granted both parties motions and dismissed the case o Bank setled o No liability on the bank o Court had to figure out state law Jurisdiction o The power to adjudicate and judge Personal o jurisdiction Plaintiff submits by filing Defendant must have minimum contacts Notice hearing impartial judge contacts o Subject mater jurisdiction 2 flavors general o specific Schwarzenegger v Fred Martin Motor Co o Summary Fred Martin Motor Co an Ohio car dealership ran 5 full page color ads in local newspaper in Akron Ohio that contained a small photo of Arnold Schwarzenegger without his permission Plaintiff Schwarzenegger sued for 95 000 for invasion of privacy tort Defendant moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction Schwarzenegger contends that Fred Martin s contacts with California are so extensive its subject to general jurisdiction District judge dismissed suit and plaintiff appealed Venue where defendant resides where action occurred Forum non convenies if yes to both subject mater and personal jurisdiction Conflicts of law
View Full Document