McBlogmick

OK. Here are the last two podcasts for harassment, and special issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Harassment.mp3, ADA.mp3

Thanks for a great semester!

Here is the podcast summary of retaliation. Let me know if you have questions. retaliation.mp3

One of the frustrations of law school that many students have is that the model of school (and to some extent the model of law practice) was built at a time in which the information available to make a decision was much less. The strategy that was taught was to research all of the information on a subject and only after researching everything exhaustively, to come to a conclusion. To some extent, this is still the way that law school works.We kind of pretend like that is still possible, and we tend to try to cover as much information as possible in school "just in case" students encounter these situations in the future.

But the underlying research and decision strategy for just in case processing is not quite as workable anymore. We have too much information, and students instead have learned (or we need to teach) how to manage the information out there so that they have enough high quality information easily available to process quickly to guide a decision at the time the decision needs to be made. Students tend to follow a "just enough" and "just in time" information management strategy.

To some extent we need to have a good balance between "just in case" learning and "just in time" learning. And I just read a really interesting explanation of the difference between the two and why just in case learning is especially important. So, keep in mind that what you're learning in class is mostly just in case learning, and that is what we are testing for at the end of the semester--can you see the possibilities and dangers of different factual scenarios, and can you explain those to someone not in your head.

That will make you better at the just in time learning that fine tunes a decision when you encounter it in the world.

And here is the disparate impact podcast. disparate impact.mp3

So finally, here is the audio podcast summary for disparate treatment theory. It's really a pretty general overview, but it contains any tests you should know, as well as some discussion of the underlying theory and some identification of types of facts to use to prove pieces of the test.

Let me know if you have questions or would like it if I addressed anything in more detail.

Disparate Treatment.mp3

The Fourth Circuit just issued this case that dealt with two important fed. courts issues: the removal rule when multiple defendants are served and served at different times; and when a state law cause of action will arise under federal law for purposes of federal question jurisdiction. This case would make a good exam question or a great moot court problem!

Why is it that now that I don't teach civil rights anymore I see all of these interesting civil rights cases? Here's one about malicious prosecution. In Parish v. City of Chicago, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed prior precedent that had held that malicious prosecution cases under § 1983 were to be analyzed as procedural due process cases. Essentially, this follows the reasoning that malicious prosecution essentially theorizes that the defendant's actions were random and unauthorized acts, rather than a law, governmental policy, or government procedure. And where an injury is caused by a random and unauthorized act, as long as there is a remedy available under state law, there is no cause of action under § 1983 for a violation of due process.

That is what the Supreme Court has said about actions explicitly premised as procedural due process claims, but I'm not sure that malicious prosecution is a procedural due process claim. Malicious prosecution is an intentional tort, and usually claims that a government actor took an action for a prohibited reason are substantive and not procedural due process claims. Only two Supreme Court Justices have advocated this approach, and they glossed over the procedural/substantive distinction.Still, it doesn't look like the Seventh Circuit will be revisiting that issue any time soon.

This has nothing to do with my usual subjects, although loosely it's related to civil rights and con. law, but this is an interesting opinion from the 10th Circuit. As you may know, John Grisham wrote a nonfiction book published in 2006 about a wrongful conviction. He painted the prosecutor, a police officer, and the state criminologis in a rather negative light, and they sued Grisham along with three other men who had written about the case for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light, and civil conspiracy. The alleged conspiracy was to abolish the death penalty, so you might guess where this is going. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court of appeals affirmed in large part because public officials don't get to sue people critical of them except in a few narrow circumstances. It's an interesting opinion.

Here is the summary of section 1983. 1983.mp3

Thanks for a great first semester! Happy Thanksgiving, happy break, and safe travels!

Here's the podcast for non-Article III Courts (also known as Article I courts, legislative courts, administrative agencies, etc.). ArticleIcourts.mp3

Here is the podcast summary on state immunity from suit. immunitypodcast.mp3

I still have to do one on legislative courts and on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I'll have the legislative courts one done tomorrow, but I will likely wait until Monday to post the podcast on section 1983.

Here's the updated podcast on Supreme Court review. scotusreview.mp3

Here is a pretty short podcast summary on diversity, supplemental, and removal jurisdiction. Otherjurisdiction.mp3

As I said in class, I'm in the process of updating all of the podcast summaries for this course. Here's the first installment on federal question jurisdiction. arisingunder.mp3

As usual, the script for this is in TWEN under "extra materials." I think that the file is in WordPerfect and not Word, but you can click on the title of the document to view it if you don't have WordPerfect.

Sorry for the delay, but I finally got a new microphone and the software to record. Here are podcasts for the first three chapters we've covered:

Introduction: FCintroduction.mp3

Justiciability: FCjusticiability.mp3

Jurisdiction Stripping: FCjurisdictionstripping.mp3

As always, feel free to email or post on TWEN questions, suggestions for other coverage, or other feedback.