April 28th Notes

Complex Litigation
April 28, 2010

NEWS
-pick up take-home midterm
-should only take 3 hours
-remember to apply the knowledge, not the amount of law
-----------------------------------------------------

Remedies
-Legal ($)
-Equitable

Interests
-Expectation: "Benefits of the Bargain"
-Reliance: Losses from changing position
-Restitution: Return of enrichment conferred

Limitations
-Reasonable Certainty
-Foreseeability
-Mitigation
-No "improvement" over performance

Liquid Damages
1. Reasonable amount and
2. Actual damages difficult to calculate

                     "Courtney"      "Leigh"         "Joan"
Paid                $20,000      $20,000      $20,000
Value              $10,000      $20,000      $20,000
Represented  $50,000    $25,000        $10,000 (but will increase)

Expectation:    $30,000    $5,000        $0
        r-p   
Reliance:    $10,000           $0                 $0
        p-v
Restitution:    $20,000    $20,000    $20,000
        p

-only can collect damages that are reasonable to occur
-must be foreseeable at the time of the breech
-Hadley v. Baxendale (1854)
    -mill broke, lost order that suddenly came in but fixer was not liable for it since it was not foreseeable

-mitigation: must take steps to minimize damages

Equitable Remedies
-Specific Performance
-Injunctions (CR65)
-Rescission
-Reformation (Scrivener's error)
-Restitution (see "Interests")


Freedom of Speech
Justice Hugo Black: 1937 appointed FDR
    -you can say anything free of constitutional interference
    -civil libertarian
    -took it literally
    -All other justices interpret that differently

-congress shall not make any law abridging the freedom of speech

Classic Exceptions of the Freedom of Speech
(1, 2, 3 tested on)

1. Clear and present danger
    -added "inciting immanent lawless action" (1969)

Schenck v. US (1919)
    -advocating young men should not register for the draft WWI
    -Holmes said the freedom of speech does not give the right to say "Fire" in a theater

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
    -what constitutes clear and present danger
    -addendum to definition

2. "Fighting Words"
    -by their very utterance inflict injury, different for everyone
    -broader than racial slurs, visceral response, not mere insults
    -must be personally directed to you, not the group you are in
    -most usually say it didn't reach that level

Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942)
    -called government official a fascist, upheld

Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)
    -curse to police officer, profanity does not equal "fighting words", upheld

Gooding v. Wilson (1972)
    -threat to kill a police officer, the threat itself is not "fighting words", upheld

Cohen v. California (1971)
    -Landmark Case
    -jacket said "fuck the draft", upheld
    -not fighting words  Holmes: "we are often captives outside the sanctity of the home"

3. Obscenity
    -defining it is difficult
    -words, pictures, themes
    -not all obscenity is pornography, not all pornography is obscene

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
    -Stewart "I can't define it but I know it when I see it"
        -absurd definition
   
Miller v. California (1973)
    -L.A.P.S. test 
    -literary, artistic, political, scientific value is obscene
    -needs some value in it
    -the reason why porn has warnings previous to viewing to avoid obscenity

New York v. Ferber (1982)
    -child pornography is obscene deemed by Supreme Court
   
4. False Advertising
Valentine v. Christensen (1942)
    -no right to disparage products

5. Defamation
NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)
    -higher standard in defamation in public figures

6. Compelling Governmental Interest
    -if they have a compelling reason, not just important to do so
    -judges can impose gag orders with this
    -anything that harms the 6th amendment (trial by jury)
        -speedy and public trial by impartial jury
    -6th amendment usurps usually


Key Concepts of how Freedom of Speech Cases are Judged
1. Void for vagueness
    -any law that violates speech with vagueness
    -Aggressive panhandling
    -law against offending passersby

2. Void for overbreadth
    -restrict more than necessary
   
3. Prior restraints
    -stop before it is uttered
    -censorship
    -are presumptively unconstitutional
   
NY Times v. US (1971)
    -were going to publish forms from Vietnam War but waited for the clear
   
Types of Prior Restraints:
    1. Injunction
        -on a book
    2. Permit Process
        -stopping speeches, parades
    3. Licensing
        -FCC limits TV, radio
    4. Censorship
        -Carlin's 7 dirty words

National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977)
    -Nazi's wants parade in Jewish community
    -denied permit for parade on grounds of potential riots
    -Supreme Court says, let them march 

4. Symbolic Speech
    -action, message through speech
    -burning bras, flags, hanging effigy

All three speeches protected
    -pure speech: the court is less likely to interfere
    -speech plus: coupled with an action the government is free to regulate
    -symbolic speech: no verbal component gets the most regulation


Stromberg v. California (1931)
    -raised a red flag everyday, did not lecture about socialism

Boston Tea Party
    -12/16/1773
    -all conduct, no speech

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
    -is burning the flag allowed
    -majority said it was protected
    -congress can pass a law against it but it's still unconstitutional

5. Traditional Forums
    -where the speech is uttered
    -areas where the site is known for free speech main square, streets, gathering places
    -these get higher protection

6. Police Powers
    -protection of the public
    -time, place, manner of speech

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
    -civil rights protest
    -singing the Star-Spangled Banner in a parade
    -brings in elements from all areas