Assignment IV - Miami



Review Problem 2C

E-Submission Due: Friday 10/2 @ 2:00 p.m.

Cases interpreting statutes often rely on general principles of statutory construction, sometimes referred to as “canons of construction.” This assignment will help you identify some of these principles and to recognize that a case can be authority for these general principles as well as for arguments specific to the statute it is interpreting.

You will be working with City of Edmonds and Bostock. For each, you will make a numbered list of 8 principles used by the case, at least three of which come from the majority opinions and at least three of which come from the dissents. If one principle appears in both cases, you may include it separately in each list.

Your work product should consist of your name and, for each case, a heading with the name of the case followed by your list of 8 principles from that case in the order they appear in the case. You do not have to indicate when you are quoting directly. Provide a citation for each principle that simply says “Majority [or Dissent] at” and then give the page number in the course materials. For Bostock, you should not indicate which dissent you are citing; the page number will provide that information. If your principle is in a footnote, include the footnote number in the citation. Even where our cases provide a citation to outside authority for a principle, you should not include that information.

You can transmit your work product as a word document attached to your e-mail or simply in the body of the e-mail itself. You must include your name at the top, but don’t include the date or the name or number of the course or any of your i.d. numbers. It should look like the list on the next page.

In compiling your lists, look for statements in the opinions that appear to be sufficiently general to be usable in cases interpreting statutes besides the FHA or Title VII, as opposed to statements about the meaning of those two statutes. If necessary, rephrase the court’s language so each entry on your list is in the form of a general rule (as opposed to a description of what the court did). However, where you alter the court’s language, be careful to retain the meaning of the original. Considee the following passage from City of Edmonds on page 99:

Accordingly, we regard this case as an instance in which an exception to “a general statement of policy” is sensibly read “narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the [policy].” Commissioner v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989).

It should appear on your Cit of Edmonds list as:

1. An exception to a general statement of policy is read narrowly to preserve the primary operation of the policy. Majority at 99.

as opposed to any of the following:

1. The court read an exception narrowly “to preserve the primary operation of the [policy].” [phrased as a description, not a principle; includes quotes]

1. The court regarded the case as one in which it should … [phrased as a description, not a principle]

1. A statute with a general statement of policy is read narrowly to preserve the primary operation of the policy. [The court’s version of the principle only applied to exceptions from broad statements of policy.]

MODEL FOR SUBMSSIONS:

Fred Flintstone

City of Edmonds

1. [Principle.] Majority at 99.

2. [Principle.] Majoritt at 100 footnote 6.

3. [Principle.] Majority at 101. …

4. [Principle.] Majority at xx

5. [Principle.] Majority at xx

6. [Principle.] Dissent at 103 footnote 2. …

7. [Principle.] Dissent at xx

8. [Principle.] Dissent at xx

Bostock

1. [Principle.] Majority at 110.

Etc.

.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download