Elements: Precedent Flashcards
What was the gist of the precedent unit?
This six case development of privity law illustrates the Langdellian principal of doctrinal development through the case study method, achieved by isolating the few precedent-forming principals from past cases and applying them to new fact-patterns.
Winterbottom v. Wright - postmaster general’s carriage
- Winterbottom v. Wright 1842: a chain of contractual links are insufficient to give one party the right to sue another - privity of contracts ensures the most efficient solution by holding that parties who have directly contracted with one another should remedy issues. Allowing liability here could lead to “unending” liability for manufacturers. (Facts: plaintiff hired as driver and injured by coach supplied by defendant - both parties contracted with Postmaster General but not with one another.)
Longmeid v. Holliday - lamp explodes on wife
- Longmeid v. Holliday 1851: Nonsuit entered when plaintiff was wife of man who had purchased lamp that exploded on her. If duty were owed or if product were inherently dangerous, things would have been different.
Thomas and Wife v. Winchester - mislabeled belladonna
3.Thomas and Wife v. Winchester 1852: a mislabeled bottle of belladonna was found to be an “inherently dangerous item,” allowing Thomas and Wife to sue Winchester, the manufacturer, despite lack of a direct contractual relationship.
Loop v. Litchfield - exploding flywheel
- Loop v. Litchfield 1870: an exploding flywheel was found to be not inherently dangerous because it lasted five years before it exploded.
Losee v. Caldwater - steam boiler explodes
- Losee v. Cadwallader 1873: a steam boiler that exploded after three months was found to not be inherently dangerous because the company that possessed it tested it before it exploded.
Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Company - coffee urn explodes
- Statler v. Ray Manufacturing Company 1909: A coffee urn was found to be inherently dangerous given the inevitable damage which would result from anyone using a negligently constructed one for the purpose it was intended. This case increased uncertainty at the margins which allowed for new legal distinctions to be made. An emergent legal principal implicit in these cases looks to duration as a distinguishing factor - all cases where the manufacturer was liable involved accidents shortly after purchase.
Macpherson v. Buick
Macpherson v. Buick, 217 N.Y. 382 (1916): In this decision, Cardozo ignores the opportunity to latch onto that emerging legal principal when a Buick malfunctions only five months after purchase, instead usurping precedent (not explicitly, but definitively), looking to Winchester, and creating a new three part framework which became the foundation for modern product liability law:
- risk of injury - if the product is made negligently, what are the odds someone will get hurt?
- downstream uses - did the defendant know the buyer would resell the product?
- post-delivery testing - did the defendant know whether safety tests would or could be conducted after sale of the product?
Edward Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, (1790)
past k2 legitimacy - looking to the past is the only sound way to make judgements because our legitimacy, freedom, wisdom etc. all derives from the knowledge we have accumulated over time as a society.
wisdom of generations - Governing requires more practical experience than one person can fit in a lifetime.
compromise k2 prudence - Conflicting interests, slow progress of compromise, legitimacy, central governing factors etc. are key to the social contract between living, dead, and future people preserving order and moderate progress.
4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Chimel v. California
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969): A search of Chimel’s 3 bedroom house which seized numerous objects, invaded drawer’s ect. without a warrant or permission after arresting him was found to be unconstitutional. Held: a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the area in possession or control of the arrestee. This was particularly significant given intentional effort to set a precedent following inconsistent and contradictory rulings.
Riley v. California v. Wurie
Riley v. California v. Wurie, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014) The search and seizure of the data on Riley’s phone after he was arrested during a traffic stop was found to be unconstitutional in light of the substantial amount of information available on a modern cellphone. Justice Roberts wrote, “saying a phone is materially indistinguishable from physical items discussed in cases like Robinson is like saying a horseback ride is indistinguishable from a flight to the moon.”
14th Amendment
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis
Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) Jehovah’s witnesses who saw pledging allegiance to the flag as sacrilegious idolatry sued for tuition to the private school their children were forced to attend after expulsion for noncompliance with Pennsylvania’s mandatory pledge in public schools. Frankfurter held that mandating the pledge was a neutral pursuit of the legitimate state interest of unity, putting aside personal convictions about the law because he recognized its constitutionality and the rational intent of the legislators who wrote it. Stone, dissenting, saw the state’s policy as compelling infraction of sincere religious conviction for the illegitimate state interest of coerced unity.
W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette
W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) Jackon overturned Gobitis in ruling a West Virginia law mandating in-school recital of the pledge unconstitutional. As school attendance is compulsory, requiring a minority religious groups to violate their beliefs through coerced speech is in violation of the 14th amendment, which sometimes requires judicial review of legislatures. Black and Douglass concur, switching sides from Gobitis by maintaining that national security competed with religious freedom but acknowledging that they misjudged the weighing of those factors, and Frankfurter holds the line in his dissent, insisting that the legislature had a reasonable intent and it is not for the court to overturn laws. He does not see the 14th amendment as creating exemptions to laws pursuing legitimate state interests, like those requiring vaccines, medical treatment, etc. regardless of religious views. This case is particularly interesting because of comparisons to the Nazi salute and the rising condemnation of Naziism in 1943.
