QUESTIONS: PLEASE EXPLAIN CHAP I: 1-2 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.

1-3Stare Decisis.In this chapter, we stated that the doctrine 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 develop-ment of our legal tradition? (See The Common Law Tradition.)

CHAP 2:

2-1Commerce Clause.A Georgiastate law requiresthe 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, inFlorida, straight mudguardsare explic-itly requiredby law. Thereis some evidencesuggesting that contouredmudguards might bea little saferthan straight mudguards. Discuss whether this Georgia statute violates any constitutionalprovisions. (See TheConstitutional Powers ofGovernment.)

2-5 Robert Brown appliedfor admission tothe University ofKansas School ofLaw. Brown answered"no" to questionson the applicationask-ing if hehad a criminalhistory and acknowledgedthat a falseanswer constituted "causefor ... dismissal."In fact, Brownhad criminal convictionsfor domestic batteryand 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 refusedto grant Browna hearing and then expelled him. Did the school's actions deny Brown due process? Discuss.[Brownv. University ofKansas, 599 Fed.Appx. 833 (10th Cir. 2015)] (See Due Process and Equal Protection.)

2-7Freedom ofSpeech. Wandering Dago,Inc. (WD), operatesa food truckin Albany, NewYork. WD brandsitself and thefood it sellswith language generallyviewed as ethnic slurs. Owners Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view thebranding as givinga "nod totheir Italian heritage"and "weakening thederogatory force of the slur."Twice, WD appliedto participate asa vendor ina summer lunchprogram in astate-owned plaza. Bothtimes, the NewYork State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the appli-cation because of WD's branding. WD filed a suit in a federal district courtagainst RoAnn Destito,the commissioner ofOGS, 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.

CHAP 3:

3-1BusinessEthics. Jason Trevorowns a commercialbakery in Blakely,Georgia, that producesa variety ofgoods sold ingrocery stores. Trevoris required by law toperform internal testson food producedat his plantto check forcontamination. On threeoccasions, the testsof food prod-uctscontaining peanut butterwere positive forsalmonella contamination. Trevorwas not requiredto report theresults to U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials, however, so hedid not. Instead,Trevor instructed hisemployees 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.

3-3BestBuy, a nationalelectronics retailer, offered a credit card that allowed users to earn "reward points" thatcould be redeemedfor discounts onBest Buy goods. After reading a newspaper advertisement for the card, Gary Davis applied for, and was given, a credit card. As part of the applicationprocess, he visiteda Web pagecontaining Frequently AskedQuestions as wellas terms andconditions for the card. He clicked on a button affirming that he under-stood the terms and conditions. When Davis received his card, itcame with sevenbrochures about thecard and thereward 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 Webpages he hadvisited and founda statement thatthe card "may" have an annual fee. Davis sued, claiming that the company did notadequately disclose thefee. Is itunethical for companiesto put termsand conditions, especiallyterms that maycost the consumermoney, in anelectronic docu-ment 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 fol-lowing the languageof the lawas opposed tofollowing the intentof the law.[Davis v. HSBCBank Nevada, N.A.,691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012)] (See Ethics and the Role of Business.

CHAP 4:

4-1 Jack and Maggie Turton bought a house in Jefferson County, Idaho, located directly across the street from agravel pit. Afew years later,the county convertedthe pit toa landfill. Thelandfill accepted manykinds of trashthat 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 andother pollution. Dothe Turtons havestanding to sue?Why or why not? (See Basic Judicial Requirements.

4-2Venue. BrandyAustin used powderedinfant for-mula manufacturedby Nestl USA,Inc., to feedher infant daughter. Austin claimed that a can of the formula was con-taminated with Enterobacter sakazakii bacteria, causing severe injury to the infant. The bacteria can cause infections of the bloodstream and central nervous systemin particular, men-ingitis(inflammation of thetissue surrounding thebrain or spinal cord). Austin filed an action against Nestl in Hennepin County District Courtin Minnesota. Nestlargued for achange of venuebecause the allegedharm had occurredin South Carolina. Austin is a South Carolina resident and had givenbirth to herdaughter in thatstate. Should the case betransferred to aSouth Carolina venue?Why or whynot? [Austin v.Nestl USA, Inc.,677 F.Supp.2d 1134(D.Minn. 2009)] (See Basic Judicial Requirements.)

CHAP 5:

5-3Motion fora New Trial.WashoeMedical Center, Inc., admitted Shirley Swisher for the treatment of a fractured pelvis. During her stay, Swisher suffered a fatal fall from her hospital bed. GeraldParodi, the administratorof 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 andpersonally endorsed anotherprospective juror's business. After the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Washoe. The plaintiffsmoved for anew trial, butthe 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.)

5-4Discovery.Advance Technology Consultants, Inc. (ATC),contracted with RoadTrac,LLC, to providesoft-ware and clientsoftware systems forthe products ofglobal positioning satellite(GPS) technology beingdeveloped by RoadTrac.RoadTrac agreed toprovide ATC withhardware with whichATC's software wouldinterface. Problems soonarose, however. ATCclaimed that RoadTrac'shardware 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 toldRoadTrac that itconsidered their contractterminated. RoadTrac fileda suit ina Georgia statecourt against ATCalleging breach ofcontract. During discovery, RoadTrac requested ATC's customer lists and marketing pro-cedures. ATC objected to providing this information because RoadTrac and ATC had becomecompetitors in theGPS industry. Shoulda party toa lawsuit haveto hand overits confidential businesssecrets as partof a discoveryrequest? Why orwhy not? Whatlimitations might acourt consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material? (See Pretrial Procedures.)