Legal Problem Solving

1
Legal Problem Solving

• Identify the Issue
• Common Law Analysis
• Statutory Analysis
• Conclusion

2
Legal Problem Solving

• Identify the Issues
• Problem Facts Rules
• Issue when the parties dispute whether the rule
  applies
• Common Law Analysis
• Compare the facts
• My clients facts vs. facts of precedent cases
• Examine the holdings policies
• Should the holding or policies apply in my
  clients case?

3
Exercise 7E

• No. 1 Identify the relevant rules
• Statutory Rules/Elements that are at Issue
• Plus Facts of the Problem
• Leads to Identifying Issues

4
Problem Facts

• Francine Odegaard was recently elected governor.
  She received 50.2 of the vote, and her opponent
  received 49.8. A state legislative committee
  set up to monitor the effects oft eh Election
  Campaign Finance Act investigated the funding
  sources of the 2 candidates and learned that
  Odegaards campagin committee received 41,995
  fromher grandfather after the election. This
  amount was precisely the debt with which her
  campaign committee ended the general election.
  Odegaards natural parents died when she was very
  young. She was raised by her grandfather, Rolf
  Odegaard, although he never formerly adopted her.

5
Problem Facts

• Her grandfather made no other contribtuions to
  her campaign. The committee has drafted a report
  recommending that he be prosecuted for violating
  section 31 of the Act. The committee has hired
  you to review its recommendation.

6
Statutory Analysis

• Statutory analysis differs from common law
  analysis because it focuses on interpreting
  legislative rules.
• Statutory Source Legislature
• Judicial Role Limited to Interpretation
• Court must start with the language of the
  statute,
• Court limited to interpreting or defining terms
• Students past examples of case resolution
  through defining elements of a rule?

7
Examples Compare Case Law Definitions

• Marijuana Case
• Whether marijuana was under drivers control?
• Answer defines the scope of the term control.
• Burglary Case
• Whether using a tool satisfies physical presence
  element for burglary?
• Answer extends the scope of the term.
• Rule Applies / Rule Does Not Apply
• Applying a rule to certain facts, or not, defines
  the scope of elements of a rule

8
Statutes

• Statutes are rules which apply to categories of
  future situations.
• Similarities with Precedent rule is based on a
  policy.
• Advantage policy may be stated in statute
  itself.
• Example Open Meetings Act, Section 1.
• Differences no specific facts to help
  understand the rule, unless prior cases exist
  interpreting the statute.

9
Election Campaign Finance Act

• Sec. 2 This Act is intended to regulate
  political activity, to regulate campaign
  financing, and to restrict campaign contributions
  and expenditures without jeopardizing the ability
  of candidates for state public office to conduct
  effective campaigns

10
Election Campaign Finance Act

• Sec. 31 (a) Except as provided in subsection (b),
  a person other than a campaign committee member
  shall not make contributions on behalf of the
  winner of a primary election for the office of
  governor in excess of 600 for any purpose after
  the date of such primary election.
• (b) A contribution from a member of a candidates
  immediate family to the campaign committee for
  that candidate is exempt from the limitation of
  subsection (a).

11
Election Campaign Finance Act

• Sec. 31(c) As used in subsection (b), immediate
  family means a spouse, parent, brother, sister,
  son or daughter.
• Sec. 44. A person who violates the provisions of
  this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be
  fined not more than 1,000.

12
Statutory Analysis Question One

• Does the statute apply?
• To whom does it apply?
• Which individuals or groups
• Are either or both of the parties in at least one
  group
• To what activities does it apply?
• Open Meetings Act - example

13
Statutory Analysis Question Two

• What effect will application of the statute have?
• What activity is commanded or prohibited?
• Did clients activity comply with the statute or
  not?
• What are the consequences for non-compliance?

14
Element Chart Issues
15
Element Chart Issues

• A person (exception)
• Shall not make contributions
• For winner of primary election for governor
• In excess of 600
• For any purpose
• After date of primary election

• Grandfather exception?
• Winner of primary general election
• Campaign Debt
• after general election?

16
Element Chart Issues Sec 31(b)

• Contribution
• From candidates immediate family
• To campaign committee
• For the candidate
• Is exempt from 31(a)

• Immediate family needs definition

17
Element Chart Issues Sec 31(c)

• Immediate Family
• Means
• Spouse
• Parent
• Brother
• Sister
• Daughter

• Is a grandfather a parent?

18
Element Chart Issues Sec 31(c)

• Immediate Family
• Means
• Spouse
• Parent
• Brother
• Sister
• Daughter

• Is a grandfather who never legally adopted a
  child but who raised the child from a young age a
  parent for the purposes of this Act?
• Invoke legislative intent.

19
Steps of Statutory Analysis I

• How does the statute support your clients case?
• Look at language of the statute
• Look at facts of cases interpreting the statute
• How does the statute support the opponents case?
• Look at language of the statute
• Look at facts of cases interpreting the statute

20
Alberts v. Election Commission

• Sec. 31(a) of the Act prohibits any person from
  making contributions on behalf of the winner of
  a primary election for the office of governor in
  excess of 600 for any purposes after the date of
  such primary election. The appellant challenges
  the validity of a trial court determination that
  he violated this section by contributing 1,500
  to the unsuccessful candidate for governor in the
  1976 general election. He argues that he made
  the contribution to help retire the candidates
  debt from the primary election. We affirm.

21
Alberts v. Election Commission

• Sec 31(a) of the Act was designed to reduce, if
  not eliminate, the improper influence a
  contributor gains from a large contribution near
  the end of a campaign. More generally, the Act
  was designed to help improve the integrity and
  the appearance of integrity of the election
  process. These policy considerations make it
  particularly important that the phrase for any
  purpose be read for its full meaning. We hold
  that the phrase includes payments for the purpose
  of reducing primary debts. Affirmed.

22
Alberts v. Election Commission

• Facts
• Rule
• Issue
• Holding
• Policy

23
Alberts v. Election Commission

• Facts
• Rule Sec. 31(a) With certain exceptions, a
  person cannot contribute to a governor primary
  election winner more than 600 for any purpose
  after the primary election.
• Issue
• Holding
• Policy

24
Alberts v. Election Commission

• Facts
• Rule Sec. 31(a) for any purpose
• Issue Whether the restriction on contributions
  for any purpose includes a contribution to retire
  a candidates primary election campaign debt?
• Holding Yes, for any purpose includes payments
  for retiring primary election campaign debt.
• Policy To protect the integrity, and appearance
  of integrity, of the election process, for any
  purpose must be given a broad scope of
  application.

25
Toland v Election Commission

• Clyde Swanson lost the general election for
  governor after winning his partys primary
  election. His son Raymond handled the finances
  for Clydes general election campaign. As
  treasurer, Raymond received funds from various
  sources, deposited them in his personal checking
  account and then wrote checks from that account
  to pay for campaign expenses. Clydes largest
  contribution, a 15,000 check from Alphonse
  Toland, was processed in this manner. Toland was
  convicted of a misdemeanor for violating 31 of
  the Act. We Affirm

26
Toland v Election Commission

• Sec. 31 limits contributions to candidates for
  governor in a general election to 600 per
  person, unless the contributor is a member of the
  candidates immediate family. The immediate
  family exception is premised on a legislative
  desire to protect freedom of expression by
  candidates donating money is a recognized way of
  expressing a preference. In addition, the Acts
  purpose of reducing the corrupting influence of
  outside financial sources has much less force
  when the contributor is from the candidates
  immediate family

27
Toland v Election Commission

• Although Swansons son is a member of his
  immediate family under sec. 31(b), the son was
  a conduit, rather than a source, of the funds.
  The important purposes of the Act should not be
  undermined by such transparent schemes.

28
Toland v Election Commission

• Facts
• Rule
• Issue
• Holding
• Policy

29
Toland v Election Commission

• Facts
• Rule Sec 31(b) An immediate family contribution
  is exempted
• Issue Whether a sons transfer of funds received
  from another source constitutes an immediate
  family contribution?
• Holding
• Policy

30
Toland v Election Commission

• Issue Whether a sons transfer of funds received
  from another source constitutes an immediate
  family contribution?
• Holding No, an I/F contribution means that the
  I/F is the source of the funds. A contribution
  means the donor is the true source of the funds
• Policy To reduce corrupting influence of outside
  donations by preserving legitimate use only of
  I/F exception.

31
Steps of Statutory Analysis I

• How does the statute support your clients case?
• Look at language of the statute
• Look at facts of cases interpreting the statute
• How does the statute support the opponents case?
• Look at language of the statute
• Look at facts of cases interpreting the statute

32
Rules of Statutory Construction

• Plain meaning rule
• Courts must presume that the words and phrases
  were used to convey their most common meaning.
• Example Open Meetings Act
• when the 4 conservatives meet as individuals it
  cannot be considered a public body because it
  is only a sub-set of the counsel and not a quorum.

33
Steps of Statutory Analysis II

• How do the policies support your clients case?
• Look at the statutes purpose
• Look at the holdings policies of cases
  interpreting it
• How do the policies support the opponents case?
• Look at the statutes purpose
• Look at the holdings policies of cases
  interpreting it

34
Rules of Statutory Construction

• Legislative Intent
• Courts must interpret the statute in a way that
  carries out the legislatures intended purpose.
• Presumption When the language is clear, the
  legislature intended to state what it said.
• If language is unclear, then Court must interpret
  language so that statutory purpose is fulfilled.
• Sources
• Statutes Introduction Open Meeting Act, Sec. 1
• Legislative History

35
Exercise 7E Issues

• Whether under sec. 31(b) the exception for an
  immediate relative applies to a grandfather who
  raised an orphaned child from a very young age
  despite the fact that no formal adoption was ever
  concluded?
• Whether as per the definition of immediate
  relative under sec. 31(c) such a grandfather can
  be included under the term parent?

36
Exercise 7E Issues

• Whether under sec. 31(b) the exception for an
  immediate relative applies to a grandfather who
  raised an orphaned child from a very young age
  despite the fact that no formal adoption was ever
  concluded?
• Whether as per the definition of immediate
  relative under sec. 31(c) such a grandfather can
  be included under the term parent?
• Whether under Alberts giving full meaning to the
  word parent would include such a grandfather?
• Considering application of the plain meaning
  rule?
• Considering application of legislative intent?

37
Exercise 7E Issues

• Whether
• Whether as per the definition of immediate
  relative under sec. 31(c) such a grandfather can
  be included under the term parent?
• Whether under Alberts giving full meaning to the
  word parent would include such a grandfather?
• Considering application of the plain meaning
  rule?
• Considering application of legislative intent?
• Whether under Toland

38
Toland v Election Commission

• Did the court in Toland apply
• A. The plain meaning rule?
• B. Legislative intent?

39
Toland v Election Commission

• Issue Whether a sons transfer of funds received
  from another source constitutes an immediate
  family contribution?
• Holding No, an I/F contribution means that the
  I/F is the source of the funds. A contribution
  means the donor is the true source of the funds
• Policy To reduce corrupting influence of outside
  donations by preserving legitimate use only of
  I/F exception.

40
Toland v Election Commission

• Issue Whether a contribution includes funds
  donated by a son upon their receipt from an
  outside donor?
• Holding No, a contribution only refers to funds
  whose donor is the source.
• Policy To reduce corrupting influence of outside
  donations by preserving only the legitimate use
  of the immediate family exception. Legislative
  intent.

41
Exercise 7E Issues

• Whether
• Whether as per the definition of immediate
  relative under sec. 31(c) such a grandfather can
  be included under the term parent?
• Whether under Alberts giving full meaning to the
  word parent would include such a grandfather?
• Considering application of the plain meaning
  rule?
• Considering application of legislative intent?
• Whether under Toland the word parent, as per the
  definition of immediate relative in sec. 31(c),
  includes a grandfather who raised an orphaned
  grandchild from a young age despite no legal
  adoption?

42
Exercise 7E Objective Conclusions

• A position is stronger to the extent that it
  involves little or no extension of existing
  precedent or statute.
• A position is stronger to the extent that it
  furthers the policies or purposes of the statute
  or precedent.
• A position is stronger to the extent that it
  produces a fair or just result.

43
Exercise 7E Conclusions

• Within Scope of Law no extension
• Alberts? (1977)
• Toland? (1976)
• Problem Facts? Which decision is within scope?
• Furthers Policy
• Alberts?
• Toland?
• Problem Facts which decision would further
  policy?

44
Exercise 7E Conclusions

• Within Scope of Law no extension
• Alberts? (1977) / Toland? (1976)
• Problem Facts? Which decision is within scope?
• Furthers Policy
• Alberts? / Toland?
• Problem Facts which decision would further
  policy?
• Promotes Fairness
• Alberts? / Toland?
• Which decision about problem facts promotes
  fairness?