Law Assignment
Please answer all parts of the following questions. Be sure to support your answer to each question based on the law applied to the facts, not personal feelings or opinions. For an example, look at Issue Spotter 1 in Chapter 2 on page 46, then look at the model answer in Appendix D on page A-149 of your text. Finally, write in complete sentences. Avoid the first (I) and second (you) person if possible. Finally, grammar, spelling and organization will count.
Problems:
1. Minimum Contacts. Seal Polymer Industries soldtwo freight containers of latex gloves to Med-Express, Inc., acompany based in North Carolina. When Med-Express failedto pay the $104,000 owed for the gloves, Seal Polymer suedin an Illinois court and obtained a judgment against MedExpress. Med-Express argued that it did not have minimumcontacts with Illinois because it was incorporated under NorthCarolina law and had its principal place of business in NorthCarolina. ‑erefore, the Illinois judgment based on personaljurisdiction was invalid. Was this argument alone sucientto prevent the Illinois judgment from being collected againstMed-Express in North Carolina? Why or why not? [Seal Polymer Industries v. Med-Express, Inc., 725 S.E.2d 5 (N.C.App.2012)] (See Basic Judicial Requirements.)
2. Arbitration. Horton Automatics and the IndustrialDivision of the Communications Workers of America, theunion that represented Horton’s workers, negotiated a collective bargaining agreement. If an employee’s discharge fora workplace-rule violation was submitted to arbitration, theagreement limited the arbitrator to determining whether therule was reasonable and whether the employee had violatedit. When Horton discharged employee Ruben de la Garza,the union appealed to arbitration. ‑e arbitrator found thatde la Garza had violated a reasonable safety rule, but “wasnot totally convinced” that Horton should have treated the
3. Discovery. Advance Technology Consultants, Inc.(ATC), contracted with RoadTrac, LLC, to provide software and client software systems for the products of globalpositioning satellite (GPS) technology being developed byRoadTrac. RoadTrac agreed to provide ATC with hardwarewith which ATC’s software would interface. Problems soonarose, however. ATC claimed that RoadTrac’s hardware wasdefective, making it difficult to develop the software. RoadTrac contended that its hardware was fully functional and thatATC had simply failed to provide supporting software.ATC told RoadTrac that it considered their contract terminated. RoadTrac filed a suit in a Georgia state court againstATC alleging breach of contract. During discovery, RoadTracrequested ATC’s customer lists and marketing procedures.ATC objected to providing this information because RoadTrac and ATC had become competitors in the GPS industry.Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its confidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why orwhy not? What limitations might a court consider imposingbefore requiring ATC to produce this material? (See PretrialProcedures.)
4. Commerce Clause. A Georgia state law requires theuse of contoured rear-fender mudguards on trucks and trailers operating within Georgia state lines. The statute furthermakes it illegal for trucks and trailers to use straight mudguards. In approximately thirty-five other states, straight mudguards are legal. Moreover, in Florida, straight mudguards areexplicitly required by law. There is some evidence suggestingthat contoured mudguards might be a little safer than straightmudguards. Discuss whether this Georgia statute violates anyconstitutional provisions. (See The Constitutional Powers ofGovernment.)
5. Business Case Problem with Sample Answer—Agency Powers. A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a signicant increase inthe concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many scientists believe that the two trendsare related, because when carbon dioxide isreleased into the atmosphere, it produces a greenhouse eect,trapping solar heat. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate“any” air pollutants “emitted into… the ambient air” that inits “judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution.”A group of private organizations asked the EPA to regulatecarbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” emissions fromnew motor vehicles. The EPA refused, stating, among otherthings, that Congress last amended the CAA in 1990 without authorizing new, binding auto emissions limits. Nineteen states, including Massachusetts, asked a district court toreview the EPA’s denial. Did the EPA have the authority toregulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles?If so, was its stated reason for refusing to do so consistentwith that authority? Discuss. [Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S.Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d248 (2007)] (See Agency Creation and Powers.)
6. A Question of Ethics—Rulemaking. To ensurehighway safety and protect driver health, Congresscharged federal agencies with regulating the hours ofservice of commercial motor vehicle operators.Between 1940 and 2003, the regulations thatapplied to long-haul truck drivers were mostly unchanged. (Longhaul drivers are those who operate beyond a 150-mile radius oftheir base.) In 2003, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) revised the regulations signi‑cantly, increasingthe number of daily and weekly hours that drivers could work.e agency had not considered the impact of the changes on thehealth of the drivers, however, and the revisions wereoverturned.The FMCSA then issued a notice that it would reconsider therevisions and opened them up for public comment. The agencyanalyzed the costs to the industry and the crash risks due to driverfatigue under different options. It concluded that the safety benefits of not increasing the hours were less than the economic costs.In 2005, the agency issued a rule that was nearly identical tothe 2003 version. Public Citizen, Inc., and others, includingthe Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, asked theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit toreview the 2005 rule as it applied to long-haul drivers. [OwnerOperator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. v. FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration, 494 F.3d 188 (D.C.Cir.2007)] (See The Administrative Process.)(a) The FMCSA’s cost-benefit analysis included new methods that were not disclosed to the public in time forcomments. Was this unethical? Should the agency havedisclosed the new methodology sooner? Why or why not?(b) The FMCSA created a graph to show the risk of a crashas a function of the time a driver spent on the job. Thegraph plotted the first twelve hours of a day individually,but the rest of the time was depicted with an aggregatefigure at the seventeenth hour. This made the risk at thosehours appear to be lower. Is it unethical for an agency tomanipulate data? Explain.
