1- Sources of Law. This chapter discussed a number of sources of American law. Which source of law takes priority in the following situations, and why? (See Sources of American Law.)

(a)A federal statute conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

(b)A federal statute conflicts with a state constitutional provision.

(c)A state statute conflicts with the common law of that state.

(d)A state constitutional amendment conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.

2- Stare Decisis. In this chapter, we stated that the doc-trine of stare decisis "became a cornerstone of the English and American judicial systems."

What does stare decisis mean, and why has this doctrine been so fundamental to the development of our legal tradition? (See The Common Law Tradition.)

3- Commerce Clause. A Georgia state law requires the use of contoured rear-fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within Georgia state lines. The statute further makes it illegal for trucks and trailers to use straight mudguards. In approximately thirty-five other states, straight mudguards are legal. Moreover, in Florida, straight mudguards are explicitly required by law. There is some evidence suggesting that contoured mudguards might be a little safer than straight mudguards. Discuss whether this Georgia statute violates any constitutional provisions. (See The Constitutional Powers of Government.)

4- Procedural Due Process. Robert Brown applied for admission to the University of Kansas School of Law. Brown answered "no" to questions on the application ask-ing if he had a criminal history and acknowledged that a false answer constituted "cause for ... dismissal." In fact, Brown had criminal convictions for domestic battery and driving under the influence. He was accepted for admission to the school. When school officials discovered his history, however, he was notified of their intent to dismiss him and given an opportunity to respond in writing. He demanded a hearing. The officials refused to grant Brown a hearing and then expelled him. Did the school's actions deny Brown due process? Discuss. [Brownv. University of Kansas, 599 Fed. Appx. 833 (10th Cir. 2015)] (See Due Process and Equal Protection.)

5- Freedom of Speech. Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a "nod to their Italian heritage" and "weakening the derogatory force of the slur." Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the application because of WD's branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD's right to free speech. What principles apply to the government's regula-tion of the content of speech? How do those principles apply in WD's case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)] (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)

6- Business Ethics. Jason Trevor owns a commercial bakery in Blakely, Georgia, that produces a variety of goods sold in grocery stores. Trevor is required by law to perform internal tests on food produced at his plant to check for contamination. On three occasions, the tests of food products containing peanut butter were positive for salmonella contamination. Trevor was not required to report the results to U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials, however, so he did not. Instead, Trevor instructed his employees to sim-ply repeat the tests until the results were negative. Meanwhile, the products that had originally tested positive for salmonella were eventually shipped out to retailers.Five people who ate Trevor's baked goods that year became seriously ill, and one person died from a salmonella infection. Even though Trevor's conduct was legal, was it unethical for him to sell goods that had once tested positive for salmonella? Why or why not? (See Ethics and the Role of Business.)

7- Consumer Rights. Best Buy, a national electronics retailer, offered a credit card that allowed users to earn "reward points" that could be redeemed for discounts on Best Buy goods. After reading a newspaper advertisement for the card, Gary Davis applied for, and was given, a credit card. As part of the application process, he visited a Web page containing Frequently Asked Questions as well as terms and conditions for the card. He clicked on a button affirming that he under-stood the terms and conditions. When Davis received his card, it came with seven brochures about the card and the reward point program. As he read the brochures, he discovered that a $59 annual fee would be charged for the card. Davis went back to the Web pages he had visited and found a statement that the card "may" have an annual fee. Davis sued, claiming that the company did not adequately disclose the fee. Is it unethical for companies to put terms and conditions, especially terms that may cost the consumer money, in an electronic document that is too long to read on one screen? Why or why not? Assuming that the Best Buy credit-card materials were legally sufficient, discuss the ethical aspects of businesses strictly following the language of the law as opposed to following the intent of the law. [Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012)] (See Ethics and the Role of Business.

8- Standing. Jack and Maggie Turton bought a house in Jefferson County, Idaho, located directly across the street from a gravel pit. A few years later, the county converted the pit to a landfill. The landfill accepted many kinds of trash that cause harm to the environment, including major appliances, animal carcasses, containers with hazardous content warnings, leaking car batteries, and waste oil. The Turtons complained to the county, but the county did nothing. The Turtons then filed a lawsuit against the county alleging violations of federal environmental laws pertaining to groundwater contamination and other pollution. Do the Turtons have standing to sue? Why or why not? (See Basic Judicial Requirements.)

9- Venue. Brandy Austin used powdered infant formula manufactured by Nestl USA, Inc., to feed her infant daughter. Austin claimed that a can of the formula was contaminated with Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria, causing severe injury to the infant. The bacteria can cause infections of the bloodstream and central nervous systemin particular, meningitis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the brain or spinal cord). Austin filed an action against Nestl in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota. Nestl argued for a change of venue because the alleged harm had occurred in South Carolina. Austin is a South Carolina resident and had given birth to her daughter in that state. Should the case be transferred to a South Carolina venue? Why or why not? [Austin v. Nestl USA, Inc., 677 F.Supp.2d 1134 (D.Minn. 2009)] (See Basic Judicial Requirements.)

10- Motion for a New Trial.Washoe Medical Center, Inc., admitted Shirley Swisher for the treatment of a fractured pelvis. During her stay, Swisher suffered a fatal fall from her hospital bed. Gerald Parodi, the administrator of her estate, and others filed an action against Washoe seeking damages for the alleged lack of care in treating Swisher. During voir dire, when the plaintiffs' attorney returned a few minutes late from a break, the trial judge led the prospective jurors in a standing ovation. The judge joked with one of the prospective jurors, whom he had known in college, about his fitness to serve as a judge and personally endorsed another prospective juror's business. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Washoe. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, but the judge denied the motion. The plaintiffs then appealed, arguing that the tone set by the judge during voir dire prejudiced their right to a fair trial. Should the appellate court agree? Why or why not? (See Posttrial Motions.)

11- Discovery.Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC), contracted with RoadTrac, LLC, to provide soft-ware and client software systems for the products of global positioning satellite (GPS) technology being developed by RoadTrac. RoadTrac agreed to provide ATC with hardware with which ATC's software would interface. Problems soon arose, however. ATC claimed that RoadTrac's hardware was defective, making it difficult to develop the software. RoadTrac contended that its hardware was fully functional and that ATC had simply failed to provide supporting software.ATC told RoadTrac that it considered their contract terminated. RoadTrac filed a suit in a Georgia state court against ATC alleging breach of contract. During discovery, RoadTrac requested ATC's customer lists and marketing pro-cedures. ATC objected to providing this information because RoadTrac and ATC had become competitors in the GPS industry. Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its confidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why or why not? What limitations might a court consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material? (See Pretrial Procedures.)

You do not need to write the questions. However, you should write your answers in complete sentences. Please be very thorough and detailed. This is your chance to "show off" what you learned this week.