Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
US v. Florida East Coast Railway |
F: Chronic freight car shortage. Congress enlarged scope of ICC authority to charge per diem rate charges. The commission had allowed railroads 60 days to file statements, and if an oral hearing was requested they needed to specify. Several rr's filed for oral hearing, but commission held no hearings and overruled the request. They brought suit on substantive and procedural grounds I: was the Commission's overruling of the oral hearing requests in violation of the interstate commerce act? H: No. R: court interpreted the hearing requirement under the ICC loosely, and said that the requirements had in fact been met. Since there was no effort to single out a particular railroad, the court found the agency's action was of a basically legislative type judgement as opposed to an adjudication, which would have required due process hearing rights |
|
|
Overton Park v. Volpe |
F: Federal Highway Act forbids the authorization of federal funds to finance the construction of highways if a feasible and prudent alternative exists. If no such route available, statutes allow him to approve construction through parks if everything possible was done to mitigate harm. Volpe accepts local officials decisions and doesn't supply anything to justify his decision I: Is Volpe's decision reviewable? H: Yes. He must explain his decision R: before the decision could be precluded from judicial review, there must be clear and convincing evidence in the statute that this is the desire of the legislature or it needs to be an exception recognized by the courts. Here, there are standards and so by definition it is not discretionary |
|
|
Sierra Club v. Morton |
F: Mineral King Valley in CA is undeveloped and used primarily for rec purposes. The US Forest Service decided to allow the area to undergo rec development as a ski resort. Disney won the bid and proposed a complex, with a proposed 14,000 visitors a day. The Sierra Club brought suit to stop the development I: Is the Sierra Club's special interest in the problem sufficient to show a sufficient stake in the case, establishing standing? H: No R: To exhibit a sufficient stake in the case requires a showing that they were aggrieved and injured. Merely showing an interest does not rise to the level of showing injury supporting standing. It is speculative to say what injury the Sierra Club is suffering - they could have established standing if they had identified one or more members who lived in the area. Easier for the court to see how a harm has taken place |
|
|
Kirk v. City of Shawnee |
F: Kathryn and Roland Morse. Married and divorced. Kathryn feared violence and requested a protection from abuse order (PFA). The PFA allowed him to access the home to remove possessions. Kathryn requested police presence in the home but was told that they could only make a brief stop. She was advised to hire security or have a friend. Roland came in with a shotgun, forced her friend out and then killed Kathryn and himself. I: Did the existence of a PFA create a special duty owed to Kathryn that set aside the public duty doctrine, making the city of Shawnee or the police liable for her death? H: No. R: A duty to all translates as a duty to no one. Duty to the public at large but not individuals unless a special duty can be shown. Where no special duty exists there can be no successful tort claims against the govt entity. |
|
|
Richardson v. Perales |
F: In 1966 Pedro Perales, a Texas truck driver, filed a disability claim. Doctor who examined him didn't think claim was justified. They used a written report admitted as evidence at the hearing. Perales objects to the report being admissible in court. I: Does a physician's written report of medical examinations constitute substantial evidence supportive of a finding of a non disability? H: The written report by a licensed physician may be received as evidence despite its hearsay character. It is substantial. R: SS is a huge system. Agency must operate as an adjudicator and not as an advocate or adversary. The report rested on accepted medical practices and procedures. |
|
|
FTC v. American Tobacco |
F: The FTC, under a broad statutory subpoena power, undertook an investigation of charges that two tobacco companies were colluding. It ordered the companies to produce all letters and telegrams. Companies refused to produce information on constitutional grounds. The district court upheld the position of companies, and SCOTUS affirmed I: Is the agency request for info reasonable? Is it fishing? R: The agencies cannot conduct fishing expeditions for information by issuing subpoenas. |
|
|
Camera v. Municipal Court |
F: 1963 Housing inspector in San Fran entered an apartment building because of a suspected violation. (illegally using first floor of the building as an apartment). Inspector confronted appellant and was refused entry because no warrant. The inspector tried again two days later and again was refused. The appellant was then sent a summons, and he did not appear. This was all repeated. I: Whether admin inspection programs violate Fourth Amendment rights as those rights are enforced against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment H: Yes. R: admin searches are significant intrusions upon the interest protected by the Fourth Amendment. Inspections are necessary but if entry is refused, a warrant needs to be obtained. |
|
|
Vernonia Schools v. Acton |
F: An official investigation led to the discovery that HS athletes participated in illicit drug use, and school officials were concerned that drug use increases risk of injury. They adopted a drug policy that authorized random piss tests. James Acton was denied participation in football when he and his parents refused to consent to testing. I: Does random drug testing of HS athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? H: No. R: Reasonableness is judged by balancing the intrusion on the individuals 4th Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests. The governmental concern over the safety of minors overrides the minimal if any intrusion in student athlete's privacy rights. |
|
|
NARA v. Favish |
F: Vincent Foster, deputy counsel to Clinton, was found dead in a park in D.C. and his death ruled a suicide by multiple investigations. Favish requested release of crime scene photos under FOIA. Favish argues that the family has no privacy interest covered in FOIA exemption. Family claims emotional damage I: Could disclosure of death scene photos be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA exemption? H: FOIA recognizes surviving family members right to privacy with respect to death scene images. The exemption requires a reason for disclosure R: Cultural tradition and common law extend privacy to family. Doesn't mean they get the same right to privacy as the individual would, but the right is still there. MUST SHOW: 1. public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one and 2) the information being sought would advance that interest |
