Assignment:
Questions:
1) This case requires the Court to interpret several statutes. Which are they? The case also involves a procedural rule that differentiates the work of appellate courts from that of trials courts. What is that rule?
2) Which factual assertions about this dispute did the trial court accept as proved? Which factual assertions did it reject?
3) What are the social background facts at issue here? What choice did the appellate court have to make about social background facts in order to decide this case?
4) Why was the law ambiguous (doesn't provide a single "correct" answer) in this case?
5) Do you find that the majority or the dissenting opinion does a better job of legal reasoning? Why?
Readings:
Reason in Law
By Lief H. Carter and Thomas F. Burke