Featured Case Briefs

The main takeaway from this case is that the National Industrial Recovery Act's delegation of legislative power to the President to approve 'codes of fair competition' was unconstitutional, as it violated the separation of powers doctrine and exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.

The main takeaway is that pre-enforcement judicial review of FDA regulations is allowed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, absent clear congressional intent to preclude such review.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Supreme Court upheld the convictions of the defendants under the Espionage Act for distributing leaflets that criticized U.S. involvement in World War I and called for workers to strike. The majority found that the leaflets presented a clear and present danger to the war effort, while the dissenting opinions argued for broader First Amendment protections.

The main takeaway is that the law of the state where an injury occurs governs liability, not the law of the state where an employment contract was made. The court ruled that Alabama's Employer's Liability Act did not apply to an injury that occurred in Mississippi, even though the employment contract was made in Alabama.

The main takeaway is that the court upheld the Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to list the Alabama sturgeon as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The court rejected challenges to the listing based on alleged procedural violations and Commerce Clause limitations.

The main takeaway from this case is that a promise to pay additional compensation for services already contracted for is not enforceable due to lack of consideration. The court held that when employees refuse to perform work they are already obligated to do under an existing contract, and the employer agrees to pay them more to continue working, this new agreement is not legally binding.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruled the National Labor Relations Board's factual finding that Allentown Mack Sales lacked a good-faith reasonable doubt about the union's majority support was not supported by substantial evidence.

The main takeaway is that Minnesota's application of its own law to allow 'stacking' of insurance policies in this case did not violate the Due Process Clause or Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, despite the accident occurring in Wisconsin and the policy being issued there.

The main takeaway is that the court denied AOL's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding there were disputed issues of material fact that needed to be resolved at trial, particularly regarding whether NHCD was liable for the actions of its contract e-mailers.

The main takeaway from this case is that U.S. antitrust laws do not apply to actions taken outside the United States, even if those actions have effects on U.S. commerce. The court established that the legality of an act must be determined by the laws of the country where the act occurred.

The Clean Air Act and EPA actions it authorizes displace any federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.

Religious displays on public property do not violate the Establishment Clause when they serve secular commemorative purposes, have deep historical roots in the community, and pose no real threat to religious liberty or church-state separation. Context, history, and community acceptance matter more than formulaic constitutional tests.

The main takeaway is that the court ruled EPA exceeded its statutory authority under RCRA by attempting to regulate in-process secondary materials as 'solid waste', finding that Congress intended 'solid waste' to be limited to materials that are truly discarded, disposed of, or abandoned.

The main takeaway is that the court upheld parts of EPA's Final Rule on defining hazardous waste recycling, but vacated and remanded other parts, including Factor 4 of the legitimacy test and parts of the Verified Recycler Exclusion.

The main takeaway is that OSHA is not required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis when setting workplace health standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Court upheld OSHA's Cotton Dust Standard as valid, ruling that the agency only needs to ensure standards are economically and technologically feasible.

The main takeaway is that the building design requirements in Issaquah Municipal Code 16.16.060 were found to be unconstitutionally vague, both on their face and as applied to the appellant Anderson.

Trial courts must apply the substantive burden of proof when ruling on summary judgment motions, meaning that in defamation cases involving public figures, judges must determine whether evidence could support a finding of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence, not merely by preponderance.

The main takeaway is that the search and seizure of a person's business records, and their subsequent introduction into evidence at trial, does not violate the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.

The main takeaway is that the Fish and Wildlife Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing Incidental Take Statements for several allotments where there was insufficient evidence that protected species existed or would be harmed by the proposed land use activities.

The main takeaway is that a trial judge's decision to declare a mistrial based on the prejudicial impact of improper arguments is entitled to great deference, and does not violate double jeopardy if supported by a 'manifest necessity,' even without an explicit finding using those words.

EPA has statutory authority under the Clean Water Act to require point sources to comply with downstream state water quality standards when issuing NPDES permits, even where such compliance is not explicitly mandated by statute. Courts must defer to reasonable EPA interpretations of water quality standards and cannot substitute their own policy judgments for agency expertise.

The main takeaway is that mere awareness that a product may enter a forum state through the stream of commerce is not sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. The exercise of personal jurisdiction must be reasonable and fair, considering factors like the burden on the defendant, the interests of the forum state, and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.

The main takeaway is that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict finding racial discrimination in housing and awarding both compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants. The appeals court affirmed the district court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial.

Government cannot criminalize virtual child pornography or sexually explicit speech that appears to depict minors when no actual children are harmed in production, as such broad prohibitions violate the First Amendment by suppressing substantial amounts of protected expression including artistic and literary works.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court held that Iqbal's complaint failed to state a claim against high-level government officials Ashcroft and Mueller for discriminatory detention policies after 9/11. The Court ruled that Iqbal's allegations were conclusory and not entitled to be assumed true, and did not plausibly establish that Ashcroft and Mueller purposefully adopted a discriminatory policy.

The main takeaway from this case is that economic duress can be a valid defense to a contract, even in a business context. The court found that Loral Corporation was the victim of economic duress when Austin Instrument, Inc. threatened to stop delivering essential parts unless Loral agreed to price increases, leaving Loral with no reasonable alternative but to comply.

States cannot impose income taxes exclusively on nonresidents while exempting their own residents from comparable taxation, as this violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause's requirement of substantial equality between residents and nonresidents.

The main takeaway is that the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized a claim for medical monitoring damages in toxic tort cases, but rejected claims for unquantified enhanced risk of future disease and emotional distress damages under the New Jersey Tort Claims Act.

The main takeaway from this case is that a person can be held criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter when they orchestrate a dangerous scenario using innocent agents (in this case, the police), even if they are not physically present at the scene of the death.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to state legislative apportionment schemes, overturning previous precedent that had treated such cases as non-justiciable political questions.

The main takeaway is that a Michigan court's injunction prohibiting a witness from testifying cannot prevent that witness from testifying in a Missouri court case involving different parties, as full faith and credit does not require enforcing such an injunction against non-parties in other states.

The main takeaway is that the use of a five-person jury in state criminal trials violates the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to trial by jury.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court established a new 'plausibility' standard for pleading in federal civil cases, particularly in antitrust lawsuits. The Court held that to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face, not just conceivable.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests incident to arrests for drunk driving, but not warrantless blood tests.

The main takeaway from this case is that the court decided to grant an injunction against the cement plant's nuisance, but conditioned it on the payment of permanent damages to the plaintiffs. This approach balances the economic interests of the cement plant with the property rights of the neighboring landowners.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruled that the Comptroller General's role in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers. The Court held that Congress cannot retain removal power over an officer performing executive functions.

The main takeaway from Brandenburg v. Ohio is that the First Amendment protects speech advocating the use of force or violation of law, except when that speech is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.

The main takeaway from this case is that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that 'separate but equal' educational facilities are inherently unequal and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The main takeaway is that a state can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant if the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state, such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The main takeaway is that a state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who is personally served with process while physically present in the state, even for a lawsuit unrelated to their activities in that state.

The main takeaway is that physicians have a duty to disclose material risks of proposed medical treatments to patients in order to obtain informed consent. The court rejected the professional standard for disclosure and instead adopted a patient-centered standard based on what a reasonable patient would want to know.

The main takeaway is that summary judgment can be granted against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of their case on which they would bear the burden of proof at trial.

The main takeaway from this case is that certain categories of speech, including 'fighting words,' are not protected by the First Amendment and can be constitutionally restricted by states. The Supreme Court upheld a New Hampshire law prohibiting the use of offensive, derisive, or annoying words in public places, finding it to be a narrowly drawn statute that does not violate free speech rights.

Laws targeting religious practices must satisfy strict scrutiny, requiring compelling governmental interests achieved through narrowly tailored means that do not selectively burden religious conduct while exempting analogous secular activities. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits both overt discrimination and subtle 'religious gerrymanders' that suppress particular religious practices.

The main takeaway from this case is that the court affirmed the conviction of the defendant for a common law misdemeanor, ruling that making obscene and harassing phone calls can be prosecuted as a crime even without a specific statute, based on the principle that acts injurious to public morality are punishable under common law.

The main takeaway is that the phrase 'full right of use' in an easement grant is clear and unambiguous, and cannot be interpreted to mean a restricted right of use. The court also clarified that the easement is appurtenant to the dominant estate and can be used by those who succeed to possession of the entire estate or its subdivided parts.

The main takeaway from this case is that multiple documents, including some that are unsigned, can be pieced together to form a valid memorandum that satisfies the statute of frauds, as long as they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction and there is evidence of the party's assent to the unsigned documents.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruled that Daimler AG, a German company, is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California courts for claims unrelated to its activities in that state, even though its subsidiary MBUSA has substantial contacts there. The Court held that a corporation is only subject to general jurisdiction where it is 'essentially at home', which is typically limited to its place of incorporation and principal place of business.

The main takeaway is that the California Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co. and held that a mother who witnesses the death of her child due to another's negligence can recover damages for emotional distress, even if she was not in the zone of physical danger herself.

The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial in serious criminal cases is fundamental to the American scheme of justice and applies to state prosecutions through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. States cannot deny jury trials for crimes punishable by more than six months imprisonment, as such penalties indicate serious rather than petty offenses.

The main takeaway from this case is that the court interpreted Viva Parker Lilliston's will as creating a life estate for her daughter Margaret L. Jones (formerly Edwards) in the farm property, with a remainder interest to Jones's six children in fee simple, rather than granting Jones a fee simple estate with conditions.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court overturned the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson, holding that federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity jurisdiction cases rather than federal common law.

The main takeaway from this case is that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be applied in cases involving exploding bottles of carbonated beverages, allowing an inference of negligence against the manufacturer even without specific proof of negligence.

The Supreme Court upheld California's three strikes law and affirmed Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs, finding that it did not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The main takeaway is that Maryland recognizes second degree felony murder based on child abuse as a cognizable offense. The court held that child abuse can serve as the underlying felony for second degree felony murder when committed in a manner inherently dangerous to life.

The main takeaway from this case is that property owners have no legal right to unobstructed light and air from adjoining properties, absent specific contractual or statutory obligations. The court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to use the maxim 'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas' (use your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another) to prevent the construction of a building that would cast shadows on their property.

Contract interpretation depends on objective manifestations of intent rather than subjective understanding, with ambiguous terms resolved through consideration of trade usage, context, and objective evidence of meaning. When a contractual term has multiple dictionary definitions, the party asserting the narrower meaning bears the burden of proving that interpretation was objectively reasonable and mutually understood.

The main takeaway is that Maryland's statutory rape law (Article 27, Section 463(a)(3)) is a strict liability offense that does not require the State to prove mens rea or allow for a mistake-of-age defense.

The main takeaway from this case is that for a battery to occur, the actor must have intended to cause harmful or offensive contact, or have known with substantial certainty that such contact would result from their actions. The court remanded the case for clarification on whether the child (Brian) knew with substantial certainty that the plaintiff would attempt to sit where he had moved the chair.

When Congress deliberately excludes certain conduct from criminal punishment in a specific statute, courts cannot circumvent that legislative immunity by applying general conspiracy laws to the same conduct. A woman's mere consent to Mann Act transportation, which Congress chose not to criminalize, cannot support conspiracy liability.

The main takeaway is that state laws prohibiting or restricting navigation of waters within the state by steamboats are unconstitutional if they conflict with federal laws regulating interstate commerce. The Court ruled that Congress has exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce, including navigation between states.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right that applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in Betts v. Brady and held that states must provide counsel to indigent defendants in all criminal cases, not just capital cases.

The main takeaway is that foreign subsidiaries of a U.S. parent corporation are not subject to general personal jurisdiction in a state based solely on the stream of commerce bringing some of their products into that state. The Court held that such limited connections are insufficient to establish the 'continuous and systematic' contacts necessary for general jurisdiction over claims unrelated to the subsidiaries' activities in the forum state.

The main takeaway from this case is that manufacturers can be held strictly liable in tort for injuries caused by defective products, even without a contractual relationship or express warranty between the manufacturer and the consumer.

The main takeaway is that the court upheld large punitive damages against Ford Motor Company for knowingly designing and selling the Pinto with a defective fuel system that posed a serious safety risk to consumers.

The main takeaway from this case is that a valid inter vivos gift of a chattel (in this case, a painting) can be made while reserving a life estate for the donor, even if the donee never takes physical possession of the gift before the donor's death.

The main takeaway from this case is that a promise to pay money in exchange for someone refraining from certain behaviors (in this case, drinking, smoking, swearing, and gambling) can create a legally binding contract, even if the promisee benefits from the abstinence. The court also established that such a promise, when acknowledged in writing after the conditions are met, can create a trust relationship rather than just a debtor-creditor relationship.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Supreme Court ruled the Child Labor Act of 1916 unconstitutional, holding that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in attempting to regulate child labor through its power over interstate commerce.

The main takeaway is that in diversity cases, federal courts should apply federal procedural rules (like Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) for service of process) rather than conflicting state procedural rules, even if applying the federal rule would lead to a different outcome than applying the state rule.

The main takeaway is that Florida lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonresident Delaware trustee and lacked in rem jurisdiction over the trust assets, so its judgment was invalid and not entitled to full faith and credit in Delaware.

Medical warranties create strict contractual liability measured by expectation damages - the difference between the value of the promised result and the actual outcome. Pain and suffering from the procedure itself cannot be recovered as damages since the patient accepted this as part of the consideration for the promised result.

The Supreme Court established that a corporation's 'principal place of business' for determining diversity jurisdiction is its 'nerve center' - the place where the corporation's high-level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation's activities, which is typically its headquarters.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Wisconsin Supreme Court officially recognized and adopted the doctrine of promissory estoppel as stated in Section 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, allowing it to be used as a basis for a cause of action to prevent injustice.

The main takeaway from this case is that adverse possession can be established through tacking of successive occupants' possession periods, even when the occupied land does not match the legal description in their deeds, as long as there is a reasonable connection between the successive occupants and the land was transferred and occupied continuously.

The main takeaway from this case is that public figures cannot recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on publications (such as parodies or caricatures) without proving that the publication contains a false statement of fact made with 'actual malice'. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects even outrageous speech about public figures, as long as it cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts.

The main takeaway is that the one-House legislative veto provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act is unconstitutional because it violates the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I of the Constitution.

The main takeaway is that a corporation can be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state where it has 'minimum contacts' such that maintaining the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice', even if the corporation is not physically present in the state.

A foreign manufacturer cannot be subjected to personal jurisdiction in a U.S. state court merely by placing products into the stream of commerce through a national distributor, without additional conduct purposefully directed at that specific forum state. Due process requires that defendants purposefully avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, and foreseeability of suit is insufficient to establish constitutional jurisdiction.

The main takeaway from this case is that in construction contracts, substantial performance can be sufficient for payment, even if there are minor deviations from the contract specifications. The court emphasizes that the law should consider the significance of the default in relation to the overall project, and that trivial and unintentional omissions may be remedied through compensation rather than forfeiture.

Housing providers must individually assess reasonable accommodation requests from disabled tenants and cannot categorically deny requests for disability-related animals based solely on no-pet policies. The reasonableness determination requires case-by-case, fact-intensive analysis balancing the tenant's disability-related needs against the burden on the housing provider.

The main takeaway is that Indian tribes do not have the right to sell or transfer land to private individuals without the approval of the federal government. The Supreme Court ruled that the United States government, not Indian tribes, has ultimate title to land.

The main takeaway is that property owners cannot use spring guns or similar devices to protect unoccupied property against intruders, as the law places a higher value on human safety than on property rights.

The main takeaway is that economic development can qualify as a 'public use' under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, allowing the government to use eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes if it provides just compensation.

Promises require consideration to be legally enforceable, and courts may disagree on whether particular acts constitute sufficient consideration versus mere gratuity. The relocation and associated inconvenience can constitute adequate consideration for a promise of housing and land, though judicial opinions may vary on this determination.

Racial classifications by government are subject to strict scrutiny and can only be justified by compelling necessity, never by racial prejudice, even during wartime emergencies. Military necessity claims do not automatically override constitutional protections and must be subject to judicial review.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court struck down Texas' sodomy law as unconstitutional, overruling Bowers v. Hardwick and establishing that consensual sexual conduct between adults is protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The main takeaway is that privately owned shopping centers do not have to allow individuals to exercise First Amendment rights on their property if the speech is unrelated to the shopping center's operations.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court struck down a New York law limiting bakers' working hours to 60 per week, ruling it unconstitutionally interfered with freedom of contract under the 14th Amendment.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Supreme Court determined that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because it did not properly arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States as required by the jurisdictional statute.

The main takeaway from this case is that laws prohibiting interracial marriage are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statutes violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The main takeaway from this case is that a contract can be legally binding even if one party claims it was made in jest, as long as the other party reasonably believed it was a serious agreement and acted accordingly.

The main takeaway is that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a regulation interpreting the Endangered Species Act as not applying to actions taken in foreign countries. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to show concrete injury and redressability.

The main takeaway is that the National Wildlife Federation lacked standing to challenge the Bureau of Land Management's 'land withdrawal review program' because it failed to show specific injury to its members from particular agency actions.

The main takeaway from this case is that the court extended the liability of manufacturers to include not just the immediate purchaser, but also subsequent users of a product, if the product is defective and causes injury. This decision expanded the scope of product liability law.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, asserting that the judicial branch has the power to review and potentially invalidate laws and executive actions that are deemed unconstitutional.

The main takeaway from this case is that the absence of a light on a vehicle at night is not automatically considered contributory negligence that would bar recovery. The court emphasized the importance of proximate cause and rejected the notion that failure to have a light was prima facie evidence of contributory negligence.

The main takeaway is that nonmarital partners can enter into enforceable agreements regarding property and financial matters, and courts can use various legal theories (express/implied contracts, equitable remedies) to protect the reasonable expectations of parties in nonmarital relationships.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The Court also held that Massachusetts had standing to challenge EPA's denial of a petition to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles.

The main takeaway is that due process does not require an evidentiary hearing prior to the termination of Social Security disability benefits. The Court held that the existing administrative procedures for terminating benefits are constitutionally adequate.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and held that the evidence presented by the respondents was insufficient to survive summary judgment on their antitrust claims against Japanese electronics manufacturers. The Court emphasized that to survive summary judgment in an antitrust conspiracy case, plaintiffs must present evidence that tends to exclude the possibility of independent action by the defendants.

The main takeaway is that Congress has the constitutional authority to establish a national bank, and states cannot tax or interfere with the operations of that bank.

The main takeaway from this case is that a mere verbal promise without consideration cannot be enforced by action, even if refusing to perform such a promise may be morally questionable. The court upheld that a moral obligation alone is not sufficient to create a legally binding contract without some form of pre-existing legal obligation or valuable consideration.

The main takeaway from Miranda v. Arizona is that the Supreme Court established new procedural safeguards to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during custodial interrogation. These safeguards, known as the Miranda warnings, require police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court struck down East Cleveland's housing ordinance that narrowly defined 'family' as unconstitutional, finding it violated due process by intruding too deeply into family living arrangements.

The main takeaway is that the court held that a patient does not have a property right in cells removed from their body, and therefore cannot sue for conversion of those cells, but may have a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty if a doctor fails to disclose research or economic interests in the patient's cells.

The main takeaway from this case is that individuals who voluntarily participate in inherently risky amusement park attractions assume the obvious and necessary risks associated with those activities. The court ruled that the plaintiff, who was injured on 'The Flopper' ride, could not recover damages because he willingly accepted the known risks of the attraction.

The main takeaway is that under the Uniform Commercial Code, a retail seller is entitled to recover lost profits and incidental damages when a buyer breaches a contract, even if the seller later resells the item for the same price to another buyer.

The main takeaway is that the First Amendment protects the press and individuals from libel suits by public officials unless actual malice can be proven.

The main takeaway is that Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer federal regulatory programs. The Court struck down the 'take title' provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act as unconstitutional, ruling that it exceeded Congress's powers and violated principles of federalism.

The main takeaway is that a professional license (in this case, a medical license) acquired during marriage constitutes marital property subject to equitable distribution upon divorce under New York law.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The main takeaway is that in a diversity jurisdiction case, a plaintiff cannot assert a claim against a third-party defendant if there is no independent basis for federal jurisdiction over that claim, even if it arises from the same facts as the original claim.

The main takeaway from this case is that negligence and liability are limited by the concept of proximate cause. The court ruled that a defendant is not liable for injuries that are not reasonably foreseeable consequences of their negligent actions.

The main takeaway is that an employee who is wrongfully discharged is not required to accept alternative employment that is substantially different or inferior in order to mitigate damages.

The main takeaway is that in cases of breach of contract for remedial work, where the cost of performance greatly exceeds the diminution in value of the property, damages may be limited to the diminution in value rather than the cost of performance.

The main takeaway is that New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law, as applied to Grand Central Terminal, does not constitute a 'taking' requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

The main takeaway is that a state court cannot render a valid personal judgment against a non-resident defendant who was not personally served with process within the state and did not appear in the case. Such a judgment violates due process and is void.

Self-defense requires both genuine belief in the necessity of force and objective reasonableness of that belief, preventing individuals from setting their own standards for permissible violence. The law maintains an objective 'reasonable person' standard while considering the defendant's specific circumstances, background, and knowledge.

Rape shield statutes protect victims from irrelevant inquiries into their sexual history while preserving defendants' constitutional rights through case-by-case analysis, and compliance with procedural notice requirements is essential for defendants seeking to introduce evidence of victims' prior sexual conduct.

Under the Pinkerton doctrine, conspiracy members are criminally liable for reasonably foreseeable substantive offenses committed by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, even without direct participation in those specific crimes. This establishes vicarious criminal liability based solely on conspiracy membership and continuing participation in the criminal agreement.

The main takeaway is that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should not be given substantial weight in forum non conveniens analysis. The Court held that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds may be appropriate even if it would lead to the application of less favorable law for the plaintiff.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central holding of Roe v. Wade that women have a constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability, while also adopting a new 'undue burden' standard for evaluating abortion regulations.

The main takeaway from this case is that state-mandated racial segregation in public accommodations, specifically on railroad cars, was deemed constitutional under the 'separate but equal' doctrine.

The main takeaway is that the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a chronic alcoholic for public intoxication, rejecting the argument that punishing an alcoholic for this offense violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The main takeaway from Roe v. Wade is that the Court established a constitutional right to abortion, holding that the right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause encompasses a woman's decision to have an abortion. The Court created a trimester framework to balance the state's interests with the woman's right to privacy.

The main takeaway from this case is that the California Supreme Court rejected the traditional common law classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee in determining a landowner's duty of care. Instead, the court held that the proper test for liability should be based on ordinary principles of negligence, focusing on whether the landowner acted reasonably in view of the probability of injury to others.

The main takeaway from this case is that the First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute and can be limited when speech presents a clear and present danger to national security, especially during wartime. The Court established that the government can restrict speech that is intended to interfere with the draft or military recruitment efforts during times of war.

The main takeaway is that the Court held that all assertions of state-court jurisdiction must be evaluated according to the minimum contacts standard set forth in International Shoe, rejecting the traditional basis for quasi in rem jurisdiction based solely on the presence of property in the state.

The Supreme Court struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which contained the coverage formula used to determine which states and local governments were subject to preclearance requirements under Section 5 of the Act. The Court held that the coverage formula was unconstitutional because it was based on outdated data and practices that no longer reflected current conditions.

The main takeaway from this case is that judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants in property deeds is unconstitutional, as it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The main takeaway is that the California Supreme Court established a new theory of liability called 'market share liability' for cases where plaintiffs cannot identify which specific manufacturer produced the drug that caused their injuries. This allows plaintiffs to sue manufacturers who produced a substantial share of the market for the drug, with liability apportioned based on each defendant's market share.

The main takeaway from this case is that while a nuisance can be enjoined to protect public interest, the party responsible for bringing people to the nuisance may be required to indemnify the enjoined party for reasonable costs of relocation or shutting down.

The main takeaway is that the court reversed the defendant's first degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial misconduct and improper jury instructions regarding premeditation.

The main takeaway is that the court rejected expanding self-defense law to allow a battered woman to claim self-defense for killing her abusive husband while he slept, as there was no imminent threat at the time of the killing.

Force in rape can be established through constructive means when a defendant's conduct is reasonably calculated to create genuine fear of imminent bodily harm sufficient to overcome the victim's will to resist, even without physical violence or explicit threats. The reasonableness of a victim's fear is ordinarily a question for the jury to determine based on all circumstances.

The main takeaway from this case is that property rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the rights and well-being of individuals, particularly vulnerable populations like migrant workers. The court ruled that farm owners cannot use trespass laws to prevent access to migrant workers by those seeking to provide them with essential services and information.

Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity where all parties with joint interests must individually satisfy federal court jurisdictional requirements. When parties share unified legal interests, each party must independently meet citizenship requirements rather than allowing diverse parties to carry non-diverse co-parties into federal court.

The main takeaway from this case is that when two or more defendants are negligent towards a plaintiff, and it's impossible to determine which defendant's actions caused the injury, both defendants can be held jointly liable for the entire damage. This shifts the burden of proof to the defendants to absolve themselves.

The main takeaway from this case is that an employment discrimination complaint need not include specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Instead, it must only contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief' as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2).

The main takeaway is that therapists have a duty to protect potential victims from violent patients, even if it means breaching patient confidentiality. The court ruled that when a therapist determines a patient poses a serious danger of violence to others, they have a duty to use reasonable care to protect the intended victim.

Seaworthiness standards evolve with technology and industry practice, requiring vessels to carry equipment that has become standard through common usage even without statutory mandate. A vessel owner's duty extends beyond minimum legal requirements to include equipment that prudent mariners commonly use for safety.

The Supreme Court ruled that a sitting President does not have absolute immunity from state criminal subpoenas, but can challenge subpoenas on specific grounds.

The main takeaway from this case is the establishment of the 'Hand Formula' for determining negligence, which balances the probability of harm, the gravity of potential injury, and the burden of taking precautions.

The necessity defense to criminal charges may function as a justification rather than an excuse, with significant implications for aiding and abetting liability. When a principal's act is justified by necessity, no criminal offense has occurred, meaning an alleged aider and abettor cannot be convicted. This distinguishes justification defenses (which render acts lawful) from excuse defenses (which merely relieve the actor of culpability while the act remains wrongful).

The main takeaway is that the President does not have an absolute, unqualified privilege of confidentiality for all communications, and must comply with a subpoena to produce evidence relevant to a criminal trial, subject to in camera review by the court.

The main takeaway from this case is that the court affirmed Peterson's conviction for manslaughter, rejecting his claims of error regarding jury selection, self-defense instructions, and sufficiency of evidence. The court upheld that Peterson's aggressive actions and failure to retreat could negate his self-defense claim.

The main takeaway from this case is that the defendants failed to establish title by adverse possession to the plaintiffs' land. The court reversed the lower court judgments and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the required elements of adverse possession.

The main takeaway from this case is that the Supreme Court upheld a zoning ordinance that restricted land use to one-family dwellings and defined 'family' in a way that limited the number of unrelated individuals who could live together. The Court found this ordinance to be a valid exercise of the village's police power and not in violation of any constitutional rights.

The main takeaway from this case is that in an action for assault and battery, the defendant can be held liable even without intending harm if the act itself was unlawful. The court also emphasized the importance of proper hypothetical questions to expert witnesses.

Courts may enforce promises based on moral obligations when the promisor received material and substantial benefits, distinguishing between mere ethical courtesy and obligations arising from concrete benefits received. The state and its subdivisions possess authority to recognize and pay moral obligations even when not legally enforceable.

States possess constitutional authority under their police power to enact minimum wage laws for women when such regulations serve legitimate public interests in protecting health, safety, and welfare. The Due Process Clause does not create an absolute liberty of contract that prevents reasonable economic regulations designed to address inequality of bargaining power and prevent exploitation of vulnerable workers.

The main takeaway from this case is that Congress has broad power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, even if those activities are local in nature and not intended for commerce.

The main takeaway from this case is that courts have the power to refuse enforcement of contracts that are deemed unconscionable, even if there is no explicit statutory authority to do so. The court established that unconscionability can be a valid defense against contract enforcement in the common law of the District of Columbia.

Contracts may contain implied promises derived from circumstances and context even without express promissory language, particularly in exclusive dealing arrangements where business efficacy requires mutual obligations. Modern contract law examines the totality of the parties' relationship rather than requiring rigid formalistic expressions to find enforceable duties.

The main takeaway is that a state court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant unless the defendant has sufficient 'minimum contacts' with the forum state such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

The main takeaway is that the President does not have the inherent constitutional power to seize private property (steel mills) without congressional authorization, even in a national emergency.