Richard epstein approach
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 38

Richard Epstein Approach PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 73 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Richard Epstein Approach. Epstein would only allow gov’t acts to limit property rights without compensation in 2 situations: (1)nuisance controls -OR- (2) implicit compensation (reciprocity or similar benefit from regulatory scheme). Richard Epstein Approach.

Download Presentation

Richard Epstein Approach

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Richard epstein approach

Richard Epstein Approach

Epstein would only allow gov’t acts to limit property rights without compensation in 2 situations:

(1)nuisance controls -OR-

(2) implicit compensation (reciprocity or similar benefit from regulatory scheme)


Richard epstein approach1

Richard Epstein Approach

Epstein: No Taking in 2 situations:

(1)nuisance controls -OR-

(2) implicit compensation

Both arguably contract-based: Contracts we’d expect to be negotiated if no transaction costs

(1) collective buyout in nuisance case

(2) group negotiation in reciprocity case


Oxygen dq107

OXYGEN DQ107

Epstein: No Taking in 2 situations:

(1)nuisance controls -OR-

(2) implicit compensation

Application to Hadacheck?


Oxygen dq1071

OXYGEN DQ107

Epstein: No Taking in 2 situations:

(1)nuisance controls -OR-

(2) implicit compensation

Application to Mahon?


Oxygen dq1072

OXYGEN DQ107

Epstein: No Taking in 2 situations:

(1)nuisance controls -OR-

(2) implicit compensation

Application to Airspace Solution to Hammonds Problem?


Oxygen dq106

OXYGEN DQ106

Epstein: No Taking in 2 situations:

(1)nuisance controls -OR-

(2) implicit compensation

Strengths & Weaknesses of this Approach


Dq108 11 miller v schoene featuring chlorines

Stone, Scott

Chughtai-Harvey, Alexandra

Sullivan, Kelly

Cohen, Scott

Reed, Evan

Hethcoat, Tad

Collett, Andrea

Darville, Renée

Tomlinson, Trey

Moskal, Tommy

Pelleyá, Nico

DQ108-11: Miller v. SchoeneFEATURING CHLORINES


Dq108 miller v schoene

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

Gov’t Action?


Dq108 11 miller v schoene

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: Cedar Rust Act allows state entomologist to order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose?


Dq108 11 miller v schoene1

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: Cedar Rust Act allows state entomologist to order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose: save apple trees from spread of cedar rust disease; help big apple industry

Legitimate (Furthering Police Powers)?


Dq108 11 miller v schoene2

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: Cedar Rust Act allows state entomologist to order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose: save apple trees from spread of cedar rust disease; help big apple industry

Legitimate (Furthering Police Powers)? Yes. Helping state economy = WELFARE.

Action Rationally Related to Purpose? Yes.

MEETS MINIMAL RATIONAL BASIS SCRUTINY


Dq108 11 miller v schoene3

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: State entomologist can order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose: save apple trees from spread of cedar rust disease; help big apple industry

Limits on petitioners’ use of their property?


Dq108 11 miller v schoene4

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: State entomologist can order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose: save apple trees from spread of cedar rust disease; help big apple industry

Limits on petitioners’ use of their property?Cedar trees must be cut down

Remaining Uses?


Dq108 11 miller v schoene5

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: State entomologist can order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose: save apple trees from spread of cedar rust disease; help big apple industry

Limits on petitioners’ use of their property? Cedar trees must be cut down

Remaining Uses?Can do anything with land; anything with wood

Harm to the petitioners?


Dq108 11 miller v schoene6

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Govt Action: State entomologist can order diseased cedar trees cut down

Purpose: save apple trees from spread of cedar rust disease; help big apple industry

Limits on petitioners’ use of their property? Cedar trees must be cut down

Remaining Uses? Can do anything with land; anything with wood

Harm to the petitioners?

  • Some value of tree/wood may be lost

  • Aesthetic loss could mean loss in land value


Dq108 11 miller v schoene7

DQ108: Miller v. Schoene

DQ108-11: Miller v. Schoene

Procedural Posture:

  • Order from state official to cut trees

  • Appealed to state Circuit Court, which aff’d order;

  • Virginia SCt aff’d: no viol. of U.S. Const

  • Writ of Error to US SCt


Chlorine dq109 miller under prior authorities

CHLORINE DQ109: Miller under Prior Authorities

  • Sax?

    • Arbiter or Enterpriser?

    • Controlling Spillover Effects?


Chlorine dq109 miller under prior authorities1

CHLORINE DQ109: Miller under Prior Authorities

  • Sax? Paradigm Sax Arbiter Case

  • Epstein?

    • Preventing Public Nuisance?

    • Implicit Compensation?


Chlorine dq109 miller under prior authorities2

CHLORINE DQ109: Miller under Prior Authorities

Under Hadacheck & Mahon?


Chlorine dq110 eubank v richmond

CHLORINE DQ110: Eubank v. Richmond

  • Regulation: Land use decision required if requested by 2/3 of n-bors

  • S.Ct. in Eubank says unconstitutional

    • apparently problem having some property owners dictate rules for others

    • pretty clear possibility of unfair/arbitrary result

  • Why did pet’r argue it was relevant to Miller?


Uranium dq110 eubank v richmond

CHLORINE DQ110: Eubank v. Richmond

Uranium DQ110: Eubank v. Richmond

  • Regulation: Land use decision required if requested by 2/3 of n-bors

  • S.Ct. in Eubank says unconstitutional

  • Why did pet’r argue it was relevant to Miller?

    • Gov’t action triggered by request of neighbors

  • What was Court’s Response?


Uranium dq110 eubank v richmond1

CHLORINE DQ110: Eubank v. Richmond

Uranium DQ110: Eubank v. Richmond

  • Regulation: Land use decision required if requested by 2/3 of n-bors

  • S.Ct. in Eubank says unconstitutional

  • Why arguably relevant to Miller?

    • Gov’t action triggered by request of neighbors

  • SCt: Decision in Miller not by n-bors

    • Gov’t official decides

    • subject to judicial review

  • As in Hadacheck, arbitrariness claim made & rejected (not our issue)


Choosing your 1l elective

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE


Spring 2009

SECTION E

Contracts (Rosen)

Criminal Procedure (Bascuas)

U.S. Constitutional Law I (Casebeer)

LRW II

Elective

SECTION G

Contracts (Rosen)

Criminal Procedure (Stotzky)

U.S. Constitutional Law I (Hill)

LRW II

Elective

SPRING 2009


Choosing your 1l elective1

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE

The most important decision you will make …


Choosing your 1l elective2

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE

The most important decision you will make on Tuesday.


Choosing your 1l elective3

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE

The most important decision you will make on Tuesday. Maybe.


Choosing your 1l elective4

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE

You are picking one course out of the 20 or so electives you will take in law school.


Choosing your 1l elective5

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE

You are not picking a spouse.


Choosing your 1l elective6

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE


Choosing your 1l elective options

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE: OPTIONS

  • Analysis of Evidence (Anderson/Twining)

  • Environmental Law (Williamson)

  • European Union Law (Bradley)

  • Jurisprudence (Froomkin)

  • Substantive Criminal Law (Mourer)


Choosing your 1l elective considerations

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE: CONSIDERATIONS

  • Past Student Evaluations

  • Method of Evaluation

  • Size/Operation of Class

  • Prerequisite/Intro to Other Courses

  • Likely to Be Offered Later?

  • Upper Level Students in Room?

  • Furthering Career Goals


Analysis of evidence anderson twining

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE (ANDERSON/TWINING)

Inferences & Proof of Facts

  • Evaluation: Group Projects & Exam

  • Mostly Run as 2 Classes of 40-50

  • Can take Litigation Skills

  • Not Usually Offered as Upper Level

  • No Upper Level Students in Room

  • Especially helpful for litigation, but analytic skills help everywhere; some intro to evidence rules on bar exam (but most students take Evidence)


Environmental law williamson

Environmental Law (Williamson)

Complex Statute; Not Trees & Squirrels

  • Midterm & Final Exam

  • Likely in 50-75 range; Traditional Class

  • Prereq/Intro to Upper Level Environmental

  • Offered Every Year for Upper Level

  • Upper Level Students in Room

  • Good practice with modern statutes; can use directly for public interest, gov’t, or business advising


European union law bradley

EUROPEAN UNION LAW (BRADLEY)

Structure & Operation of European Union

  • Final Exam

  • Likely Large Class; Traditional

  • Intro to Public & Pvt. Int’l Law; Not Prereq

  • Rarely Offered as Upper Level Course

  • No Upper Level Students in Room

  • Interest in Int’l or Business Areas; Good Synergy with US Con Law I


Jurisprudence froomkin

JURISPRUDENCE (FROOMKIN)

Intro to Legal Philosophy

  • Take Home Exam; Lot of Participation

  • Likely Smallest; Lot of Discussion/Blogs

  • Helpful in General Way to Many Courses

  • Often Offeredto Upper Level Students

  • Upper Level Students in Room

  • Helps You Understand Whole Enterprise


Substantive criminal law mourer

SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW (MOURER)

Elements of Crimes & Defenses

  • Final Exam

  • Likely Largest Class/Traditional

  • Intro/Prereq to Upper Level Crim Electives

  • Offered Every Semester for Upper Level

  • No Upper Level Students in Room

  • Many Students Go Into Criminal Law, But Comes Up in Every Area of Practice; On All Bar Exams; Good Synergy with Crim. Pro.,


Choosing your 1l elective logistics

CHOOSING YOUR 1L ELECTIVE: LOGISTICS

  • Registration Time & Significance

  • Learn the Procedures

  • Wait Lists & Add/Drop


  • Login