1 / 22

“ RIGHTS ” v. “ INTERESTS ”

“ RIGHTS ” v. “ INTERESTS ”. We’ll use “ rights ” to refer to what the legal system allows parties to do. Need to point to specific authority for right asserted. E.g.: Migrant workers on land have right to access to certain outsiders. Shack.

sade-mack
Download Presentation

“ RIGHTS ” v. “ INTERESTS ”

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • We’ll use “rights” to refer to what the legal system allows parties to do. • Need to point to specific authority for right asserted. E.g.: • Migrant workers on land have right to access to certain outsiders. Shack. • Tedesco had no right to exclude Ds. Shack.

  2. “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows. • Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. • E.g., Why do you think Shack is wrongly decided? • Owners have the right to exclude all.

  3. “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows. • Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. • E.g., Why do you think Shack is wrongly decided? • Owners have the right to exclude all. • Owners should have the right to exclude all.

  4. “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows. • Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. • E.g., Why do you think Shack is wrongly decided? • Owners should have the right to exclude all because …

  5. “RIGHTS” v. “INTERESTS” • “Rights” = what legal system allows. • Can’t use “right” to argue what legal result ought to be. • “Interests” = needs & desires of parties.

  6. Protecting Owners’ Interests • O can exclude solicitors/peddlers if • doesn’t deprive MWs of practical access to things they need. • purpose is not to gain a commercial advantage • Os can reasonably require visitors to identify selves and state purpose • Visitors cannot • interfere w farming activities • engage in behavior hurtful to others

  7. Protecting Owners’ Interests DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches)

  8. Protecting Owners’ Interests DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches) • Identify key interests & discuss whether rules succeed or fail to address • Security • Smooth operation of business • Privacy

  9. Protecting Owners’ Interests DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches) • Identify key interests; do rules address? • Identify alternative or additional rules that might work better • Limit times of access • Limit # of people allowed on land • Limit frequency of visits

  10. Protecting Owners’ Interests DQ5: Are Shack limits sufficient to protect the owners’ interests? (3 Approaches) • Identify key interests; do rules address? • Identify alternative/additional rules • Discuss whether relevant interests are balanced properly: • Workers’ minimal interest in possible benefits from media oversight is less significant than the owners’ interest in the smooth operation of their businesses because …

  11. Protecting Owners’ Interests DQ6: Suppose you represent the NJ Apple-Growers Ass’n. Members of the association approach you to express their unhappiness with Shack. What steps can you take?

  12. Protecting Owners’ Interests DQ6: Suppose you represent the NJ Apple-Growers Ass’n. Members of the ass’n approach you to express unhappiness with Shack. What steps can you take? • Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses • Try to get Result in Shack Changed

  13. Protecting Owners’ Interests • Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses • Help draft standard rules for owners to employ (& litigate them) • Help reorganize industry (no housing onsite) • Explore leaving jurisd. (hard for apple-growers) • Try to get Result in Shack Changed

  14. Protecting Owners’ Interests • Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses • Try to get Result in Shack Changed • Appeal to US Supreme Ct: Taking of Property Rights w/o Just Compensation • Lobby state or fed’l legislators to pass statute to change or eliminate Shack

  15. Roles of State Legislatures v. State Supreme Courts • Cutting-edge common law court decisions like Shack not dangerous; state legislature can always overrule.

  16. Roles of State Legislatures v. State Supreme Courts • Cutting-edge common law court decisions like Shack not dangerous; state legislature can always overrule.-OR- • Resolution of complex balancing of interests is best left to the legislature.

  17. Context of Shack: 1971 • Album of Year: Tapestry • Best Picture: The French Connection • Introduced to American Public: • Soft Contact Lenses & Amtrak • All Things Considered & Masterpiece Theatre • All in the Family & Jesus Christ Superstar • The Electric Company & Columbo

  18. Context of Shack: 1971 • Apollo 14: 4th Successful Moon Landing • USSCt upholds busing of schoolchildren to achieve racial balance • Nixon Administration • Gets Clean Air & Water Acts Enacted • Freezes Wages & Prices to Fight Inflation • Amicus Brief in Shack Favoring Workers on Anti-Federalist Theory

  19. Context of Shack: 1971 Near the end of long post-Depression period of great faith in Govt • E.g., Deaths of Ex-Presidents • Shack: Example ofstrong confidence by courts & legislatures that they can determine what is in best interests of public • Might get same result now, but often much less sure of selves • Likely to be much more concern w Os P Rts

  20. Context of Shack: 1971 Seeds of Change: • Vietnam War: • Troops reduced by about 200,000 but still 184,000 troops in SE Asia YE1971 • US Voting Age lowered to 18 from 21 (old enough to die …) • Perceived fiasco in Vietnam lowers conf in Govt

  21. Context of Shack: 1971 Seeds of Change: • Vietnam War • Concerns about war made Nixon’s reelection seem problematic • 1971: White House staffers assemble people to deal w election: CREEP • Yields Watergate break-in following spring • Scandal undermines authority of govt

  22. Context of Shack: 1971 Seeds of Change: • Vietnam War • Road to Watergate • Pres. Nixon appoints William Rehnquist to US Supreme Court

More Related