Putting the word "law" into words...
.
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties. (Google's definition of law)
The reason I am spitting out all of the facts to you is that throughout my research I have come to the realization that the one thing that makes studying law difficult it the amount of information. There is SO much to the law. Legal history is very important. Throughout the multiple interviews that I have watched from current law students, they always go back to the term legal history. Legal history is the first lesson that is taught in law school becuase you have to study the origin of all laws, lawyers , and why/ how they came about before you learn about today's law. The definition is scratching the surface.
Legal History
Legal history or the history of law is the study of how law has evolved and why it changed. Legal history is closely connected to the development of civilizations and is set in the wider context of social history. (Kimper)
Facts of the case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.
Legal History
Legal history or the history of law is the study of how law has evolved and why it changed. Legal history is closely connected to the development of civilizations and is set in the wider context of social history. (Kimper)
- Social history, often called the new social history, is a broad branch of history that studies the experiences of ordinary people in the past. (Kimper)
Modern Law
With all of that being said and all the facts about history you can read the next step down the "important things to know ladder" is modern law. For example, what is the most recent and popular trial going on. Who is running it? If the case has been closed how did the defendant or executive win?
Here is what a lesson would look like in a classroom when studying legal history...
COURT CASE
Fisher vs. University of Texas:
Facts of the case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.
Question
Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Facts of the case
Current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (Amgen) and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (AML) participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans (the Plans). The Plans included holdings in the Amgen Common Stock Fund which held only Amgen common stock. The plaintiffs were a group of employees who filed a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Amgen, AML, Amgen’s board of directors, and the Fiduciary Committees of the Plans when the value of the Amgen common stock fell. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing the participants to purchase and hold Amgen stock while knowing its price was artificially inflated. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded on the grounds that the district court did not properly apply the “presumption of prudence” as illustrated in Quan v. Computer Science Corp. The presumption of prudence explains that the fiduciary who invests assets in the employer’s stock is entitled to a presumption that they acted consistently with ERISA. The court found that even if the presumption of prudence did apply, the plaintiffs had sufficiently argued a violation of the defendant’s fiduciary duty. On remand, the district court again dismissed the action and the Court of Appeals again reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated and remanded the case in light of its decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that ERISA fiduciaries who administer employee stock ownership plans are not entitled to a presumption of prudence but are “subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that they need not diversify the fund’s assets.” The appellate court again reversed the dismissal of the complaint on the same grounds.
Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
This is what would be given before/after the case is closed and not only would a law student have to dig up every single law that relates to any terms of this case situation, but also related it to legal history; which in this case question it gives you a head start by telling you it is somewhere in the lines of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If you would like some practice here are some already solved cases that you can research and pick out the laws and legal history of or visit the last link I have given you down below under sources.
Enjoy!!!!!!
Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
Facts of the case
The plaintiffs, food distributors including Conagra Foods Inc. and Kraft Foodservice, sued Americold Logistics LLC and Americold Realty Trust (Americold) in state court for a breach of contract stemming from a dispute regarding liability for a warehouse fire. Americold sought to remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction because of the diversity of the trust’s board. No party challenged the propriety of the removal, and the district court addressed the case solely on its merits. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court found in favor of the defendant.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit raised the issue of potentially improper removal and asked the parties to submit briefs addressing the issue. The appellate court held that Americold did not meet its burden to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction was appropriate because the inquiry must extend to the trust’s beneficiaries, not just the trustees.
Question
Is the citizenship of a trust for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction based on the diversity of the trust’s beneficiaries as well as the trustees?
The plaintiffs, food distributors including Conagra Foods Inc. and Kraft Foodservice, sued Americold Logistics LLC and Americold Realty Trust (Americold) in state court for a breach of contract stemming from a dispute regarding liability for a warehouse fire. Americold sought to remove the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction because of the diversity of the trust’s board. No party challenged the propriety of the removal, and the district court addressed the case solely on its merits. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district court found in favor of the defendant.
On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Tenth Circuit raised the issue of potentially improper removal and asked the parties to submit briefs addressing the issue. The appellate court held that Americold did not meet its burden to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction was appropriate because the inquiry must extend to the trust’s beneficiaries, not just the trustees.
Question
Is the citizenship of a trust for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction based on the diversity of the trust’s beneficiaries as well as the trustees?
Amgen, Inc. v. Harris
Facts of the case
Current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (Amgen) and Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (AML) participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans (the Plans). The Plans included holdings in the Amgen Common Stock Fund which held only Amgen common stock. The plaintiffs were a group of employees who filed a class action suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Amgen, AML, Amgen’s board of directors, and the Fiduciary Committees of the Plans when the value of the Amgen common stock fell. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing the participants to purchase and hold Amgen stock while knowing its price was artificially inflated. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded on the grounds that the district court did not properly apply the “presumption of prudence” as illustrated in Quan v. Computer Science Corp. The presumption of prudence explains that the fiduciary who invests assets in the employer’s stock is entitled to a presumption that they acted consistently with ERISA. The court found that even if the presumption of prudence did apply, the plaintiffs had sufficiently argued a violation of the defendant’s fiduciary duty. On remand, the district court again dismissed the action and the Court of Appeals again reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated and remanded the case in light of its decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which held that ERISA fiduciaries who administer employee stock ownership plans are not entitled to a presumption of prudence but are “subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that they need not diversify the fund’s assets.” The appellate court again reversed the dismissal of the complaint on the same grounds.
Question
Did the plaintiffs in this case “plausibly allege” a breach of the duty of prudence?
DIRECTTV, Inc. v. Imburgia
Facts of the case
On September 7, 2008, Amy Imburgia filed a class action lawsuit against DIRECTV, Inc. (DIRECTV), and argued that DIRECTV had improperly charged early termination fees to its customers. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted California precedent that had previously held that, in certain circumstances, arbitration clauses in customer agreements were unenforceable. Less than one month after that decision, DIRECTV moved to stay or dismiss the plaintiffs’ case and compel arbitration, which DIRECTV argued it had not done previously because it thought the arbitration clause in its customer agreement was void under California precedent. The trial court denied the motion and the California Court of Appeal for the Second District affirmed by holding that the language of the customer agreement subjected the arbitration clause to state law.
Question
Did the California Court of Appeal err in holding that a reference to state law in an arbitration clause required the application of that state law despite its preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act?
Be sure to write your own conclusions on each case, lawyers can have opinion too.
S O U R C E S
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015
"Fisher v. University of Texas." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 14, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981>
"Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods, Inc., et al.." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 14, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-1382>
"Amgen, Inc. v. Harris." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 14, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-278>
"DIRECTV, Inc. v. Imburgia." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Apr 14, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-462>
Wow, Makela, you really brought it this week! I think one reason why the law is such a challenging (and well-paying) job, is because of all the information a layer needs to have at her disposal to win or sway a case. You are getting a glimpse of this in this project.
ReplyDeleteGreat blog!
ReplyDelete