Chapter 01 – The Nature of Law
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES:
1. No. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Minnesota held that the state’s dog bite statute applies
to municipal owners of dogs. In deciding that the word “owner” in the dog bite statute could
apply to municipal owners of dogs and not merely to private owners, the court applied the
plain meaning technique. The statute defined “owner” as “any person harboring or keeping a
2. No. For an explanation of the Court’s rationale, see this outline’s earlier discussion of United
3. No. In upholding the district court’s issuance of an injunction against Lynch and Moscinski,
4. The court should determine whether the common-law “discovery rule” for tolling of the
statute of limitations applies when the relevant statute of limitations does not appear to allow
5. No. Relying on the legislative purpose and legislative history techniques of statutory
interpretation, the Supreme Court focused on what the ADEA was designed to do (deal with
6. The court should apply the techniques of statutory interpretation to determine the meaning of
“personal privacy.” In this particular case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “personal
privacy” exception in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) does not furnish corporations
protection against disclosure of requested documents in government files based on the plain
1-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 01 – The Nature of Law
7. An extreme legal positivist would say that the laws are valid positive law and they should be
enforced and obeyed. Natural law thinkers, on the other hand, would generally say that
As usual, legal realists would be quick to note how the non-enforcement of these laws
vindicates their distinction between the law in action and the law in the books. Adherents to
8. No. The Supreme Court of Arizona refused to abolish the common law family-purpose
doctrine. The Court concluded that the family purpose doctrine served important social policy
9. No. The U.S. Supreme Court held that one who makes an oral complaint to his employer
about a supposed violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is protected by the “filed
any complaint” language in the FLSA’s antiretaliation provision and, therefore, cannot be
10. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that § 230 of the Communications
Decency Act protected Roommate against Fair Housing Act liability for certain content
posted on its website by users thereof, but, importantly, did not immunize Roommate against
1-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 01 – The Nature of Law
Roommate provided users regarding information they needed to submit effectively made
Roommate a co-maker of many of the statements posted by the users. It may be useful to ask
students a slightly reformulated version of the question posed in the Cyberlaw in Action box
earlier in the chapter: whether Craigslist (a decision discussed in the Cyberlaw box) and Fair
1-3
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.