Unformatted Attachment Preview
BUSINESS LAW HOMEWORK NUMBER 2
HOW THE CONSTITUTION REGULATES BUSINESS
2-1 English in the Workplace
In 1988, as a result of a general election, Arizona added Article XXVIII to its constitution,
Article XXVIII provided that English was to be the official language of the state and required all
state officials and employees to use only the English language during the performance of
government business. Maria-Kelly, an employee of the Arizona Department of Administration,
frequently spoke in Spanish to Spanish-speaking persons with whom she dealt in the course of
her work. Maria claimed that Article XXVIII violated constitutionally protected free speech
rights and brought an action in federal court against the state governor, Rose Mofford, and other
state officials.
Does Article XXVIII violate the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution? Why or why not?
2-2 Importing Fishing Bait
Thomas owned a bait business in Maine and arranged to have live baitfish imported into the
state. The importation of the baitfish violated a Maine statute. Thomas was charged with
violating a federal statute that makes it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in
violation of state law. Thomas moved to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Maine statute
unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. Maine intervened to defend the validity of its
statute, arguing that the law legitimately protected the state’s fisheries from parasites and
nonnative species that might be included in shipments of live baitfish.
Were Maine’s interests in protecting its fisheries from parasites and nonnative species sufficient
to justify the burden placed on interstate commerce by the Maine statute? Discuss.
1
2-3 Adult Entertainment
With the objectives of preventing crime, maintaining property values, and preserving the quality
of urban life, New York City enacted an ordinance to regulate the locations of commercial
establishments that featured adult entertainment. The ordinance expressly applied to female, but
not male, topless entertainment. Adele owned the Cozy Cabin, a New York City cabaret that
featured female topless dancers. Adele and an anonymous dancer filed a suit in a federal district
court against the city, asking the court to block the enforcement of the ordinance. The plaintiffs
argued in part that the ordinance violated the equal protection clause.
Under the equal protection clause, what standard applies to the court’s consideration of this
ordinance? Under this test, how should the court rule? Why?
2-4 Pray Before Meeting
Isaiah was the director of the information services department for Polk County, Iowa. During
department meetings in his office, he allowed occasional prayers and, in addressing one meeting,
referred to Bible passages related to sloth and “work ethics.” There was no apparent disruption of
the work routine, but the county administrator reprimanded Isaiah. Later, the administrator
ordered him to remove from his office all items with a religious connotation. Isaiah sued the
county, alleging that the reprimand and the order violated, among other things, the free exercise
clause of the First Amendment.
Is the county liable for violating Isaiah’s constitutional rights?
2
TATOO PARLOR AND FREE SPEECH
Background
This case involved the intersection of municipal zoning regulations and the right of tattoo artists
to ply their trade. After the City denied Plaintiffs a permit to operate a tattoo parlor, Plaintiffs
filed this action alleging violations of their rights to free speech, due process, and equal
protection. The superior court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
City requires some businesses, including pawn shops, tattoo parlors, and body piercing salons, to
obtain a Council Use Permit ("Permit") before operating in a commercially zoned area within the
City.
In July 2008, the Plaintiffs initiated the preliminary review process for obtaining a Permit and
formally applied for the Permit the following January. The Board's staff reviewed the
application, found the Plaintiffs in compliance with Permit requirements imposed by the City
Code, and recommended issuance of a Permit with conditions. The Board reviewed the Plaintiffs'
application and staff recommendations at a February 2009 meeting and ultimately voted 3-2 to
urge denial of the application, voicing concerns that a tattoo parlor was not "appropriate" for the
neighborhood.
The Plaintiffs sued the City in March 2010, alleging violations of their civil rights guaranteed
under the state and federal constitutions and seeking declaratory and mandamus relief as well as
monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they are
entitled to relief because the City violated their state and federal constitutional rights to engage in
free speech, receive equal protection under the law, and be afforded substantive due process.
Discussion
To determine whether the Plaintiffs state a sufficient claim against the City for violating their
free-speech rights, we initially must decide whether engaging in the act and business of applying
tattoos is such a right guaranteed by the state or federal constitutions.
Assignment
Please identify the arguments the City would have to support its claim that denial of the permit
does not violate Plaintiffs’ free speech rights.
3
Business Law Homework No. 3
Crimes
3-1. Car Chase
Victoria lived in a house with roommates Ben and Carl. One night, Albert entered the house
through an unlocked, closed door and entered Victoria’s bedroom. Albert removed a partially
full bottle of whiskey and a knife from his pocket and threatened to harm Victoria if she
screamed. Ben and Carl discovered Albert in Victoria’s room. Catching sight of Ben and Carl,
Albert took off running. Ben said to Carl, “Let’s get him!” Ben and Carl chased Albert out of the
house. Albert got into a car and drove away. Ben and Carl jumped into a neighbor’s car, which
had its keys in the ignition, and sped after Albert.
Ben and Carl caught up with Albert in a shopping center. Ben drove into the passenger side of
Albert’s vehicle and pushed it until its driver’s side came to rest against the wall of a building,
trapping Albert inside. No one was injured. The police arrived and arrested all three parties.
1. What crimes, if any, might Albert reasonably be charged with, and what defenses, if any,
might he reasonably assert?
2. What crimes, if any, might Ben and Carl reasonably be charged with, and what defenses, if
any, might they reasonably assert?
3-2. Tired and Careless Doctor
After dinner, Alvin felt ill. Although he thought he might have indigestion, he was short of
breath and was experiencing chest pains, well-known symptoms of a heart attack. He drove
himself to the emergency room at a local hospital.
At the emergency room, Alvin described his symptoms to Nick, an experienced screening nurse.
Donna was the physician on duty. She had already worked a fourteen-hour shift and was eager to
go home. Without examining Alvin, Donna concluded that he had indigestion, relying on Nick’s
statement of his symptoms. She sent him home, recommending that he take some bicarbonate of
soda.
On the drive home, Alvin collapsed behind the wheel of his car. He veered into oncoming traffic,
struck a truck, and died instantly. If Alvin had been examined by Donna, he would not have
collapsed behind the wheel of his car.
With what crimes, if any, can Donna reasonably be charged?
3-3. Burglary and Cyanide
In a series of night burglaries, a burglar broke into houses when the owners were away and stole
items. The burglar ate cookies found at each house and became known as the “cookie bandit.”
Wanting to protect his property and prevent a burglary while he was out of town for the
weekend, Dan planned to lace some cookies with cyanide and leave them on his kitchen counter.
He believed his plan was lawful because he had been told by a police officer that he could use
deadly force to prevent a burglary. He asked his friend Ann to help him obtain cyanide. She tried
to talk him out of his plan, but he assured her that it was lawful. Ann then got some cyanide. Dan
laced some cookies with it, left them on the kitchen counter, and went left for the weekend.
During Dan’s absence, his neighbor Jane entered his house, together with her five-year-old son,
Victor. Each weekend, Jane cleaned Dan’s house. While Jane was cleaning, Victor found the
cookies, ate one, and died.
1. With what crimes, if any, can Dan reasonably be charged, and what defenses, if any, can he
reasonably raise?
2. With what crimes, if any, can Ann reasonably be charged, and what defenses, if any, can she
reasonably raise?
3-4. Assassination Gone Wrong
Will asked Steve, a professional assassin, to kill Adam, a business rival, and Steve accepted.
Before Steve was scheduled to kill Adam, Will heard that Adam’s business was failing. Will told
Steve that he had changed his mind and no longer wanted him to kill Adam, but Steve responded
that he was going to kill Adam anyway.
Steve assaulted Adam late at night on a dark, deserted street. Adam resisted so vigorously that
Steve’s life was at risk. Steve finally overcame Adam’s resistance and succeeded in killing him.
1. What charges can reasonably be brought against Steve?
2. What charges can reasonably be brought against Will?
BLAW 320 Homework 6 - Contracts
6-1. The Haunted House
Stambovsky, to his horror, discovered that the house he recently purchased was commonly
known to be possessed by poltergeists. Ackley, the seller of the house, had widely publicized
their presence in local media and on a walking tour of the Village of Nyak, New York, where the
house was located. Ackley did not disclose this characteristic of the property in the sale.
Stambovsky believed that the potential “haunting” should have been disclosed and he sought to
rescind the sale. Ackley refused and a law suit resulted.
Did the seller have a duty to disclose to the buyer the fact the house was haunted?
How should the court decide? What factors should be considered?
6-2.
How To Start A Family (Don’t try this at home)
Carolyn wanted to have a child, but did not want to get married. Joseph (a friend) agreed to have
intercourse with her, but only if she signed an agreement stating that she would not seek child
support and hold Joseph harmless for emotional and financial support of a child that might result.
They prepared and signed the agreement.
Eleven months later, Carolyn gave birth to a baby. After three years of raising the baby without
support from Joseph, Carolyn filed a suit seeking to cancel the agreement and for a declaration of
paternity and child support from Joseph.
Will the court enforce their agreement?
6-3.
Was there an enforceable contract?
Lisa Serrato appeals an order denying her claim against the Estate of Donald L. Lovekamp.
Appellant's claim was for $60,000.00.
Lisa and Donald (the decedent) were previously married, but had been divorced for eighteen
years. The divorce decree awarded all real property to the decedent as his sole and separate
property. Several months after the divorce, Lisa and Donald began residing together again. She
alleged that they entered into an oral agreement that he would pay her $60,000.00. There was no
mention in the decree of any agreement to give Lisa $60,000.00. In a deposition she clarified
that the agreement was not entered into at the time of the divorce in 1975, but rather in July,
1981. They did not own any property jointly at the time of the “agreement”. One evening
decedent had been feeling ill and, according to Appellant, talked about selling his house and 80
acre ranch. He said he would sell for $120,000.00. Donald then gave Lisa a check for
$60,000.00 and told her it was for coming back and staying with him after they divorced.
Donald told Lisa that she could cash the check if he sold the property or if something happened
to him. The check was dated July 29, 1981. When decedent died in September, 1999, the check,
of course, was too old to cash. Lisa asserted this claim against Donald’s estate for payment of
the money.
Is the ex-wife entitled to the money from the ex-husband’s estate? Why? Why not?
6-4. The Painting Contract
Mary, a frail but mentally sound 87-year old woman, is in the front garden of her old
weatherboard home. Duncan, a big man who was tattooed and wearing leathers, parks his
motorcycle outside her garden and strikes up a conversation with Mary. He told Mary that: “I am
a licensed painter and I could paint the exterior of your house for a good price – $8000”. Mary
obviously felt intimidated by Duncan and hastily agreed. The next day Duncan arrived and over
the next two days painted her house. During this time Mary discovered from her daughter’s
inquiries that had Mary received competitive quotes for the painting work, the going rate for
painting her house was about $4000. Her daughter also discovered that Duncan’s registration as
a licensed painter had lapsed two weeks ago because he had forgotten to pay the renewal fee.
The job is now complete and Duncan has asked Mary for $8000.
Is Mary contractually obligated to pay Duncan the $8000?