381.61K

Категории:

Английский язык

Право

Похожие презентации:

Finish discussion of Riggs v. Palmer. Introduction to H.L. A. Hart

Dworkin on legal principles

The Constitutional Court

English courts

Review of Lon Fuller’s "Eight Conditions of Law". Ronald Dworkin. Short writing

Magistrates' court (England and Wales)

Military courts

Lawyers and people who work in courts

Tribunal (Court)

Lon Fuller, continued; Ronald Dworkin

Riggs v. Palmer (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)

1.

PLAN FOR TODAY’S LESSON:
Riggs v. Palmer (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)
[1] Thursday’s in-class writing
(Hand back papers)
[2] Introduction to Riggs v. Palmer
[4] Group exercise:
• Understand the judges’
arguments
• “Legal English” for the case
• Background on the US legal system
[5] General class discussion:
• The judges’ arguments
• Why the case is important
[3] Group exercise:
• Discuss the facts of the case
• Report: how would you have
decided the case and why?
[6] Short writing:
• How would you have decided
the case and why?

2.

Thursday’s in-class writing
The paraphrase exercise was not easy…

3.

Thursday’s in-class writing
I was glad to see that everyone made a good effort.
There was good thinking in the responses,
and interesting interpretations.

4.

Thursday’s in-class writing
What I learned from the exercise:

5.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
Ali Rahmonov asked if he could use the same words as the quote.
I encouraged him to use different words.

6.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
But I forgot that in my paraphrase,
I used many of the same words!
(Or different forms of the same words.)
It’s hard not to use some of the same words.

7.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
To have an effective, and respected, legal system
in a constitutional democracy,
the people have to understand, support, and participate in it.
Lawyers have a role to play in educating people
to understand and support the legal system,
and to help them participate in it.

8.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
I realized that the goal of this paraphrase exercise was not:
to avoid using the same words;
or, to substitute some words for others.

9.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
The goal was:
to understand and re-state (=paraphrase):
the author’s point.

10.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
The author’s point=
What the author is saying; or
what the author is telling you; or
the statement the author is making.
(Schopenhauer)

11.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
The point
is also known as
the main idea.

12.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
The point of the sentence
I asked you to paraphrase, was:

13.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
“A lawyer should further
the public’s understanding of
and confidence in
the rule of law and the justice
system…”

14.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
The rest of the quote was
the SUPPORT
for that point-the REASON WHY
“a lawyer should further…” etc.

15.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
“…BECAUSE legal institutions
in a constitutional democracy
depend on
popular participation and support
to maintain their authority.”

16.

Thursday’s in-class writing: What I learned
My paraphrase was not the only correct answer.
There are many ways to paraphrase the quote.

17.

Thursday’s in-class writing
Now let’s go on to our case for today…

18.

Introduction to the case:
Some “legal English,” and background about the US legal system
• “Riggs v. Palmer (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)”
• “Riggs v. Palmer” is how the name of a US court case is
printed (usually in italic script)
• “v.” is pronounced “vee”; it is short for “versus,” meaning,
“against”
• The names are the names of the parties to the case.

19.

• “Riggs v. Palmer (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)”
• The case was decided by the New York Court of
Appeals, the highest court of the US state of New York.
• 1889 is the year the case was decided.

20.

Some “legal English,” and background about the US legal
system, to understand Riggs v. Palmer
“Riggs v. Palmer (New York Court of Appeals, 1889)”
• What does it mean that this case was decided by the “New
York Court of Appeals”?
• You know that New York is a famous US city.
• New York is also the name of one of the 50 US states. It is the
state in which city of New York is located.
• (Like the city of Tashkent, and Tashkent Region.)

21.

Two court systems in the US
• Each of the 50 US states has its own state court system.
• There is a separate “federal” court system for the US as a
whole.
• There are federal courts in each of the 50 states.

22.

Two court systems in the US
• The relations between the federal and state court systems
are complicated.
• For now, it is enough for you to know that the two
systems exist.

23.

Historical reasons why we have two court systems in the US
• We have two court systems in the US, for historical
reasons.
• The United States was formed under the US Constitution
in 1789, as a union of 13 former British colonies.
• Before the formation of the United States, the colonies
saw themselves as independent states.

24.

Historical reasons why we have two court systems in the US
• When the United States was formed, the states gave
some of their powers to the new federal government.
• But the states kept some of the powers they originally
had, for themselves.
• This division of power is the US constitutional principle
of “federalism.”

25.

Constitutional principle of “federalism”
• One aspect of federalism--one power the states of
the US kept for themselves--was having their own
court systems.

26.

“Legal English” for the case of Riggs v. Palmer
• “Will”
• A legal document signed by a person,
saying who should get the property of that person
after the person dies.
• “Testator” (pronounced “TES-tay-ter)”
• A person who makes a will
(=the person whose property will be distributed)

27.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Heir” (pronounced “AIR”)
• A person who has a legal right to property of a
person who has died.
• “Statute”
• A law (= закон) made by a legislature.

28.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Plaintiff”
• The person who begins a lawsuit; that is, who sues
someone in court
• “Defendant”
• The person against whom a lawsuit is brought; that
is, who is sued in court

29.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Appeal”
• After a lower court decides a case, a request to a higher
court to reverse or overturn the decision of the lower
court
• “On appeal”
• A case that is “on appeal,” is a case that has been
appealed to a higher court but has not yet been decided

30.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Appellant” (pronounced “aPELLant”)
• The person who lost a lawsuit in a lower court, and who is
asking a higher court to reverse (=change) that decision
• “Appellee” pronounced “apellEE”)
• The person who won a lawsuit in a lower court, and who
is defending that decision on appeal. Sometimes called
the “respondent” (because responding to the appeal).

31.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Majority opinion”
• Appealed cases are typically decided by at least 3 judges
• After the judges vote on how to decide the case, a judge in the
majority writes an opinion explaining the majority’s reasoning.
• “Dissenting opinion”
• An opinion written by a judge who disagrees with the majority
decision, explaining why he or she disagrees.

32.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Letter of the law”
• To decide a case according to the “letter of the law,” is—
• To decide according to the literal meaning of the law—
that is, exactly according to the way the law is written.
• (Even if the decision seems unjust, unfair, or even
irrational.)

33.

“Legal English,” continued
• “Spirit of the law”
• To decide a case according to the “spirit of the law,” is–
• To decide in a way that seems just, fair, and rational.
• (Even if the decision conflicts with the the literal
meaning of the law.)

34.

“Legal English,” continued
Any thoughts, comments, or questions
on this Legal English, or
background on the US legal system?

35.

Exercise 2:1: Discuss facts of Riggs v. Palmer
Question:
How would you have decided the case and why?
Form groups of 3-5.
Distribute the handouts.
Read the instructions.
Take ten minutes.

36.

Exercise 2:1: Class discussion
How would you have decided the case and why?
(Reports from all groups)
(Record votes and arguments on the board.)

37.

Exercise 2:1: Class discussion
Any other thoughts, comments, or questions about–
The facts?
Your decision?
Your reasons?

38.

Before we go to the decision of the judges and their reasons…
Why are we discussing this case now?
• Four reasons
• I am just going to state these now.
• Keep them in mind as you discuss the judges’ reasoning.
• They will make more sense when we come back to them after you
discuss the judges’ arguments in the case.

39.

Before we go to the decision of the judges and their reasons…
Why are we discussing this case now? First reason (of four reasons):
The case is relevant to the question:
“What is law?,”
the subject of Unit 1 of the module.

40.

Why are we discussing this case now?
Second reason:
The case is relevant to the question:
In a case involving the application of a statute,
what is proper legal reasoning?

41.

Why are we discussing this case now? Second reason
Or: What is a good (=acceptable, legitimate) reason
for the decision of a court?
This is the subject of Unit 2 of the module.

42.

Why are we discussing this case now?
The two questions,
What is law?
and
What is a good legal reason?
are related.

43.

Why are we discussing this case now?
To be a good legal reason,
a reason has to be related
(somehow)
to the law.

44.

Why are we discussing this case now?
Judges should have good legal reasons for their decisions.
This brings us to the third reason
we are discussing this case now…

45.

Why are we discussing this case now? Third reason
The case is relevant to the question:
What is the proper role of the judge
in the legal system?

46.

Why are we discussing this case now? Third reason
What is thought proper
for a judge to do
is not the same
in every legal system.

47.

Why are we discussing this case now? Third reason
What is usually thought proper for a judge to do
in your Romano-Germanic civil law system,
is different from
what is thought proper for a judge to do
in my Anglo-American common law system.
(You will see what the common law judges in this case
say about what is proper in their system.)

48.

Why are we discussing this case now? Fourth reason:
Discussing this case is an exercise
in thinking a question through, and
giving reasons for how you would have decided the case.
(So, an exercise in critical reading and thinking.)

49.

DECISION OF THE JUDGES:
Let’s go on to the decision of the judges…

50.

DECISION OF THE JUDGES:
In favor of the daughters,
and against Elmer.
Elmer would not get Francis’s property.

51.

DECISION OF THE JUDGES:
There were seven judges on the Court of Appeals.
There were two opinions-one approved by the majority of 5 judges, and
the other, the dissenting opinion, by a minority of 2 judges.

52.

DECISION OF THE JUDGES (continued)
The judge who wrote the majority opinion explained
why Elmer should not get the property.
The judge who wrote the dissenting opinion explained
why Elmer should get the property.

53.

Exercise 2:2:
Read and understand the judges’ arguments
Same groups.
Distribute the handouts.
The layout, or arrangement, of the handout will help you see
the disagreement between the judges
as a dialogue or conversation.
Take 15 minutes.
Work on understanding the arguments.
Try to persuade each other which judges are right.

54.

CIVIL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
From Article 1119
Elimination of unworthy [=undeserving, unsuitable] heirs
from inheritance
Persons who have deliberately [ = intentionally]
taken the life of the testator or any of the possible heirs,
or who have made an attempt on their life,
have no right to inherit…

55.

CIVIL CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF UZBEKISTAN
• Статья 1119. Устранение от наследства недостойных наследников
• Лица, умышленно лишившие жизни наследодателя или кого-либо из
возможных наследников или совершившие покушение на их жизнь, не
имеют права наследовать ни по завещанию, ни по закону. Исключение
составляют лица, в отношении которых завещатель составил
завещание уже после совершения покушения на его жизнь…
• Обстоятельства, служащие основанием для устранения от
наследования недостойных наследников, устанавливаются судом, по
иску лица, для которого такое отстранение порождает связанные с
наследованием имущественные последствия.