Landmarks January 4, 2022 - May 10, 2022

Question 1

Landeros v. Flood: 1976 in California Supreme Court

Answer 1

(battered child case)
Q: Is a physician who fails to diagnose child abuse liable for negligence/medical malpractice?
A: Yes; It ruled that Dr. Flood was negligent for the failure to diagnose child abuse.

Question 2

DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS: 1989 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 2

(Joshua)
Q: Does state have a constitutional obligation to protect a child from violence by a private citizen?
* state has no constitutional duty to protect

Question 3

Application of Gault (1967)

Answer 3

(obscene phone call)
* juveniles have the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (right to notice of charges, right to counsel, privilege against self-incrimination, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses)

Question 4

Fare v. Michael C. (1979)

Answer 4

(16yo asked to talk with his probation officer (instead of lawyer) after murder)
* Miranda rights (the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present during questioning) didn’t extend to the request for a probation officer. The Court stated that Miranda rights are not to be expanded without compelling reason, and that juveniles are not fundamentally incapable of understanding their rights as described in the Miranda warnings. Therefore, Michael’s confession was ruled admissible.

Question 5

Board of Education v. Rowley: 1982 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 5

(sign language kid)
Amy Rowley was a deaf student and given some accommodations (hearing aid, individual tutoring and speech therapy). However, parents wanted her to have a sign language interpreter in all classes. School denied this request and parents filed a lawsuit claiming that she was denied “free appropriate public education” by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA). Court stated that she had achieved academic success with the services already in place.

Question 6

Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984)

Answer 6

(urinary catheterization kid)
Q: Is a child with spina bifida entitled to urinary catheterization during school hours under the EAHCA?
A: Yes.
Court ruled that CIC is a “supportive service” and if it is unavailable then Amber would not have been able to attend school.

Question 7

Painter v. Bannister (1966)

Answer 7

(hippie dad)
* In a custody case, the primary consideration is the best interest of the child.

Question 8

Santosky v. Kramer (1982)

Answer 8

standard of proof required in parental rights termination cases: clear and convincing evidence

Question 9

Graham v. Florida: 2010 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 9

Q: Does sentencing a juvenile to life without the possibility of parole for a nonhomicide offense violate the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment?
A: Yes
S: Mr. Graham was a juvenile charged with robbery x 2. He was sentenced to life without parole. U.S. Supreme Court stated that 8th Amendment prohibits sentence of life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders.

Question 10

Miller v. Alabama: 2012 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 10

(Miller the killer)
Mr. Miller was a juvenile charged with murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. U.S. Supreme Court stated that 8th Amendment prohibits sentence of life without parole for juvenile homicide offenders.

Question 11

Rouse v. Cameron (1966)

Answer 11

(Guy from DC carrying 600 rounds of ammunition)
Right to treatment for insanity acquittees

Question 12

Wyatt v. Stickney (1972)

Answer 12

Patients in mental health institutions have a “right to treatment” - not just custodial care - under the U.S. Constitution.
“Wyatt Standards”:
1) humane psychological and physical environment
2) adequate staffing
3) individualized treatment plans

Question 13

Youngberg v. Romeo (1982)

Answer 13

(Nicholas Romeo)
According to the Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment, Mr. Romeo has a right to safe conditions of confinement, freedom from bodily restraints and training or rehabilitation. The State has a duty to act with professional judgment to ensure his safety with bodily restraints.

Question 14

Application of President and Directors of Georgetown College Inc. (1964)

Answer 14

Question: Does imminent danger of death trump an incompetent patient’s religious objections to emergency medical treatment in the District of Columbia?
Answer: Yes.

Question 15

Rogers v. Commissioner of Dept. of Mental Health (1983)

Answer 15

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case that affirmed the right of mental health patients to refuse antipsychotic medication unless they are deemed legally incompetent
* Rights-driven model: Rogers
1) competency & substituted judgment determinations are made in court by judge
2) substituted judgment treatment decision must be made before a hospitalized patient can be forcibly medicated (what the patient would want)
3) emergencies are exceptions

Question 16

Rennie v. Klein, 720 F.2d 266 (1983)

Answer 16

Court of Appeals held that antipsychotic drugs may be administered to involuntarily committed mentally ill patients whenever, in the exercise of professional judgment, such an action is deemed necessary to prevent the patient from endangering himself or others. The Court affirmed its earlier decision that New Jersey procedures satisfied Due Process requirements.
* Treatment-driven model: Rennie
* treatment-driven model: the physician makes the decision to determine what is in the best interest of the patient. The decision-making process is left to the medical professional’s judgment.

Question 17

Hargrave v. Vermont (2003)

Answer 17

Question: Does a validly executed durable power of attorney, which specifies preferred treatment alternatives, carry the same weight for individuals
hospitalized for mental illnesses as for those without mental illness?
Answer: Yes.

Question 18

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)

Answer 18

Competent individuals have a constitutionally protected liberty interest to refuse unwanted medical treatment under the Fourteenth Amendment, but states can require clear and convincing evidence of a patient’s wish to end life-sustaining treatment when the patient is not competent to make the decision.

Question 19

Roy v. Hartogs (1976)

Answer 19

Question: Does sexual intercourse between psychiatrist and patient constitute malpractice? Answer: Yes.

Question 20

Clites v. Iowa (1982)

Answer 20

(TD)
Question: Can failure to obtain informed consent for antipsychotic medication
be grounds for malpractice?
Answer: Yes.

Question 21

Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California

Answer 21

Court determined that therapists have duty to warn (Tarasoff I); Therapist have duty to protect (Tarasoff II).

Question 22

Lipari v. Sears (1980)

Answer 22

Extends Tarasoff to foreseeable, but unidentified, third parties

Question 23

Vacco v. Quill (1997)

Answer 23

State ban of physician-assisted suicide does not violate equal protection clause

Question 24

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Answer 24

State ban of physician-assisted suicide does not violate due process

Question 25

In re Lifschutz (1970)

Answer 25

Privilege = right to bar testimony & evidence from judicial hearing = patient’s right

Question 26

Doe v. Roe (1977)

Answer 26

(Pseudonyms)
Therapist can be held liable for disclosing confidential information obtained in therapy, even if the information was released through a work of fiction.

Question 27

Jaffee v. Redmond (1996)

Answer 27

Court created a psychotherapist-patient privilege in the Federal Rules of Evidence (501)

Question 28

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson: 1986 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 28

U.S. Supreme Court stated a “hostile environment” is a form of sexual discrimination and a violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act. Court stated that conduct “must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” The test was defined as whether or not the conduct was “unwelcome” (and not voluntary or quid pro quo).

Question 29

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.: 1993 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 29

Q: Must the sexual harassment conduct seriously affect an employee’s psychological well-being to be considered as an “abusive work environment” that violates Title VII?
A: No
Court wants to take the “totality of circumstances” into consideration. Court reaffirmed the Meritor standard that the conduct must create an “objectively hostile” work environment and must also be “subjectively” perceived by the victim as abusive. Court adopted a test with both objective and subjective components.

Question 30

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.: 1998 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 30

Same sex sexual harassment

Question 31

Estelle v. Gamble (1976)

Answer 31

(Guy who hurt his back)
Medical negligence is NOT enough to prove a constitutional violation of a prisoner’s right to treatment (deliberate indifference)

Question 32

Farmer v. Brennan (1994)

Answer 32

(Transgender woman who was sexually assaulted in prison)
Supreme Court stated that prison officials are liable for deliberate indifference only if:
1) they are aware of “substantial risk of serious harm” AND
2) they “disregard that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.”
Established mens rea for deliberate indifference as “subjective recklessness”

Question 33

Brown v. Plata (2011)

Answer 33

A three-judge panel issued an order to reduce overcrowding in its prisons. The panel found overwhelming evidence that overcrowding was the primary cause of the State’s failure to provide constitutionally acceptable healthcare to California prisoners.

Question 34

Specht v. Patterson (1967)

Answer 34

Sentencing under Colorado’s Sex Offenders’ Act is a criminal punishment (b/c could result in extending the defendant’s sentence). Therefore, due process protections are required, including a full court hearing.

Question 35

Allen v. Illinois (1986)

Answer 35

U.S. Supreme Court stated that Sexually Dangerous Persons Act was not criminal but civil in nature (provide treatment rather than punishment). Civil matters do not violate privilege against self-incrimination.

Question 36

Kansas v. Hendricks (1997)

Answer 36

(Leroy)
SVP Act is a civil commitment/treatment and not a criminal punishment so it does not violate double jeopardy or ex post facto clauses (commitment was deemed to serve a legitimate and non-punitive state interest: public safety and the treatment of the individual)

Question 37

Kansas v. Crane (2002)

Answer 37

Standard for civil commitment under Kansas SVP Act:
1) Serious difficulty controlling behavior was adequate;
2) Total or complete lack of control was not necessary.
The ruling in Kansas v. Hendricks does NOT require the state to prove that a dangerous individual is completely unable to control his behavior.

Question 38

U.S. v. Comstock (2010)

Answer 38

U.S. Supreme Court stated that Congress has the power to enact civil commitment statute b/c it was “necessary and proper” and “rationally related” to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power

Question 39

Dillon v. Legg (1968)

Answer 39

Court maintained a standard of “reasonable foreseeability” and offered guidelines:
- plaintiff near the scene of accident, plaintiff’s shock a direct result of accident and plaintiff was closely related to the victim. Mother satisfied all 3 components.
* Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Question 40

Bragdon v. Abbott

Answer 40

(Woman with HIV goes to her dentist)
HIV infection is a disability under the ADA. It is a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity (reproduction).

Question 41

Olmstead v. Zimring: 1999 U.S. Supreme Court

Answer 41

Q: Does continued confinement of individuals with mental disabilities in hospitals constitute as discrimination under the ADA?
A: Yes
* failure to place mentally ill in community is discrimination

Question 42

U.S. v. Georgia (2006)

Answer 42

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title II of the ADA, which prohibits disability discrimination by all public entities, applies to state prisons.