Business Law Chapter 1 Homework Court Opinions Pages 2122 Majority Opinion

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND

LEGAL REASONING

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE

AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER

1A. Parties

The automobile manufacturers are the plaintiffs, and the state of California is the defendant.

2A. Remedy

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, an equitable remedy, to prevent the state of California from

enforcing its statute restricting carbon dioxide emissions.

3A. Source of law

This case involves a law passed by the California legislature and a federal statute; thus the primary

source of law is statutory law.

ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE AT THE END OF THE

CHAPTER

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are obligated to follow the precedents established in

their jurisdictions unless there is a compelling reason not to. Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to

this common law principle, given that our government now regulates so many areas by statute? Both

2 UNIT ONE: THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS

England and the U.S. legal systems were constructed on the common law system. The doctrine of stare

decisis has always been a major part of this system—courts should follow precedents when they are

clearly established, excepted under compelling reasons. Even though more common law is being turned

into statutory law, the doctrine of stare decisis is still valid. After all, even statutes have to be

interpreted by courts. What better basis for judges to render their decisions than by basing them on

precedents related to the subject at hand?

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS

AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER

1-1A. Sources of law

(Chapter 1—Pages 4–5, 7–8, 9 & 16)

Common law developed in the judicial system of England and its colonies before 1776. Statutory law

1-2A. QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Schools of jurisprudential thought

At the time of the Nuremberg trials, “crimes against humanity” were new international crimes. The laws

criminalized such acts as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts

committed against any civilian population. These international laws derived their legitimacy from

1-3A. Reading citations

(Chapter 1—Pages 16 & 18)

The court’s opinion in this case—Pinard v. Dandy Lions, LLC, 119 Conn.App. 368, 987 A.2d 406 (2010)—

can be found in volume 119 of Connecticut Appellate Reports on page 368 or in volume 987 of West’s

Atlantic Reporter, Second Series, on page 406. The Appellate Court of Connecticut issued this opinion in

2010.

1-4A. Sources of law

(Chapter 1—Pages 4–5)

(a) The U.S. Constitution—The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A law in

1-5A. Stare decisis

(Chapter 1—Pages 8–10)

Stare decisis is a Latin phrase meaning “to stand on decided cases.” In the King’s Courts of medieval

England, it became customary for judges to refer to past decisions (precedents) in deciding cases

involving similar issues. Over time, because of application of the doctrine of stare decisis to issues that

1-6A. Court opinions

(Chapter 1—Pages 21–22)

A majority opinion is a written opinion outlining the views of the majority of the judges or justices

1-7A. The common law tradition

(Chapter 1—Pages 7–13)

Because the common law has been adopted in most jurisdictions by state statutes, and because

legislatures have given common law the same force and effect as statutes, judges should, technically,

have no more authority to overrule common law than they have to overrule statutory law. Most courts

and legislatures, however, do not take such a view. Courts do not always treat common law with the

same deference as statutory law because common law is judge-made law, and therefore the courts feel

that it can be changed by judges.

1-8A. Schools of judicial thought

(Chapter 1—Pages 13–14)

In the American legal system, a court can depart from a precedent if it decides that the precedent

should no longer be followed. A court can overturn a statute that it believes is in violation of the

Constitution. If there is no precedent on which to base a decision, a court must establish the law on the

question at issue. In all of these instances, the court’s role is to “make the law.” In support of the

court’s role, it may be pointed out that technological or social changes can outdate a precedent or a

statute. In some cases, particularly when the foundation for a precedent was the Constitution,

1-9A. Remedies

(Chapter 1—Pages 7–8 & 21)

(a) In a suit by Arthur Rabe against Xavier Sanchez, Rabe is the plaintiff and Sanchez is the

1-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS: The common law tradition

(a) Your answer to these questions and the reasons for those answers will likely follow one of

the three schools of jurisprudential thought discussed in Chapter 1. In other words, your reasoning

would indicate how you personally view the nature of ethics and the law. If your sentiments are similar

to those of the positivist school, you would have little difficulty. Your answers would include that

regardless of the necessity, or even the ethicality, of the men’s actions, the criminal law of their nation

should be applied. In contrast, if you hold that there is a higher, “natural” law with legal and ethical

principles to which all human beings are subject, you might have concluded that, given their

circumstances, the men should be subject to that higher law, not any nation’s particular laws. If you

reached this conclusion, then you would have to further decide whether those principles would sanction

the killing of another human being for the sake of necessity—survival in these circumstances—or

absolutely prohibit the taking of another’s life under any circumstances. This is both a legal and an

ethical question that you would ultimately answer on the basis of your personal ethical, religious, or

philosophical leanings. Approaching the question from a legal realist’s perspective, you would probably

attempt to balance your personal, subjective view of the men’s actions against the views held by the

others—how do most people feel about the issue? How would they respond to whatever your decision

might be? As a judge, do you have an obligation to be responsive to society’s ethical standards? If so, to

what extent should this obligation be a determining factor in your decision, and how do you balance this

obligation against your duty to uphold the law?