Highlights
of this
Answers Manual
This Answers Manual contains the answers to
Critical Thinking Questions in the In-Chapter
Features
Dimension Questions in the In-Chapter Cases
Legal Reasoning Questions at the ends of extended,
excerpted Cases in each Chapter
“What If the Facts Were Different?” Questions
at the ends of selected Cases in nearly every Chapter
Questions in the Reviewing Feature at the end of
each Chapter
Questions in the “Debate This” Feature at the end
of each Chapter
Issue Spotters in the “ExamPrep” Feature at the
end of each Chapter
, Business Scenarios and Business Case
Problems, including Questions of Ethics, at the end
of each Chapter
Special Case Analysis Questions at the end of
selected Chapters
Legal Reasoning Group Activities at the end of
each Chapter
The Answers in this Answers Manual include—
Points of Law—The points of law, in boldface, to which the problems
relate
Page References—The page numbers in the textbook where the
points of law are discussed
Answers—Specific answers to the questions, with further references
when appropriate
CHAPTER 1
, LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
Answers to Questions in the Reviewing Feature
at the End of the Chapter
1A. Parties
The automobile manufacturers are the plaintiffs, and the state of California is the
defendant.
2A. Remedy
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, an equitable remedy, to prevent the state of
California from enforcing its statute restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
3A. Source of law
This case involves a law passed by the California legislature and a federal statute; thus
the primary source of law is statutory law.
4A. Finding the law
Federal statutes are found in the United States Code, and California statutes are pub-
lished in the California Code. You would look in these sources to find the relevant state
and federal statutes.
Answer to Debate This Question in the Reviewing Feature
at the End of the Chapter
, Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are obligated to follow the
precedents established in their jurisdictions unless there is a compelling reason
not to. Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to this common law principle, given
that our government now regulates so many areas by statute? Both England and
the U.S. legal systems were constructed on the common law system. The doctrine of
stare decisis has always been a major part of this system—courts should follow
precedents when they are clearly established, excepted under compelling reasons.
Even though more common law is being turned into statutory law, the doctrine of stare
decisis is still valid. After all, even statutes have to be interpreted by courts. What better
basis for judges to render their decisions than by basing them on precedents related to
the subject at hand?
In contrast, some students may argue that the doctrine of stare decisis is passé.
There is certainly less common law governing, say, environmental law than there was
100 years ago. Given that federal and state governments increasingly are regulating
more aspects of commercial transactions between merchants and consumers, perhaps
the courts should simply stick to statutory language when disputes arise.
Answers to Issue Spotters in the ExamPrep Feature
at the End of the Chapter
1A. Under what circumstances might a judge rely on case law to determine the
intent and purpose of a statute? Case law includes courts’ interpretations of statutes,
as well as constitutional provisions and administrative rules. Statutes often codify
common law rules. For these reasons, a judge might rely on the common law as a guide
to the intent and purpose of a statute.
2A. After World War II, several Nazis were convicted of “crimes against
humanity” by an international court. Assuming that these convicted war criminals
had not disobeyed any law of their country and had merely been following their
government’s orders, what law had they violated? Explain. At the time of the
Nuremberg trials, “crimes against humanity” were new international crimes. The laws
criminalized such acts as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population. These international laws
of this
Answers Manual
This Answers Manual contains the answers to
Critical Thinking Questions in the In-Chapter
Features
Dimension Questions in the In-Chapter Cases
Legal Reasoning Questions at the ends of extended,
excerpted Cases in each Chapter
“What If the Facts Were Different?” Questions
at the ends of selected Cases in nearly every Chapter
Questions in the Reviewing Feature at the end of
each Chapter
Questions in the “Debate This” Feature at the end
of each Chapter
Issue Spotters in the “ExamPrep” Feature at the
end of each Chapter
, Business Scenarios and Business Case
Problems, including Questions of Ethics, at the end
of each Chapter
Special Case Analysis Questions at the end of
selected Chapters
Legal Reasoning Group Activities at the end of
each Chapter
The Answers in this Answers Manual include—
Points of Law—The points of law, in boldface, to which the problems
relate
Page References—The page numbers in the textbook where the
points of law are discussed
Answers—Specific answers to the questions, with further references
when appropriate
CHAPTER 1
, LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
Answers to Questions in the Reviewing Feature
at the End of the Chapter
1A. Parties
The automobile manufacturers are the plaintiffs, and the state of California is the
defendant.
2A. Remedy
The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, an equitable remedy, to prevent the state of
California from enforcing its statute restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
3A. Source of law
This case involves a law passed by the California legislature and a federal statute; thus
the primary source of law is statutory law.
4A. Finding the law
Federal statutes are found in the United States Code, and California statutes are pub-
lished in the California Code. You would look in these sources to find the relevant state
and federal statutes.
Answer to Debate This Question in the Reviewing Feature
at the End of the Chapter
, Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts are obligated to follow the
precedents established in their jurisdictions unless there is a compelling reason
not to. Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to this common law principle, given
that our government now regulates so many areas by statute? Both England and
the U.S. legal systems were constructed on the common law system. The doctrine of
stare decisis has always been a major part of this system—courts should follow
precedents when they are clearly established, excepted under compelling reasons.
Even though more common law is being turned into statutory law, the doctrine of stare
decisis is still valid. After all, even statutes have to be interpreted by courts. What better
basis for judges to render their decisions than by basing them on precedents related to
the subject at hand?
In contrast, some students may argue that the doctrine of stare decisis is passé.
There is certainly less common law governing, say, environmental law than there was
100 years ago. Given that federal and state governments increasingly are regulating
more aspects of commercial transactions between merchants and consumers, perhaps
the courts should simply stick to statutory language when disputes arise.
Answers to Issue Spotters in the ExamPrep Feature
at the End of the Chapter
1A. Under what circumstances might a judge rely on case law to determine the
intent and purpose of a statute? Case law includes courts’ interpretations of statutes,
as well as constitutional provisions and administrative rules. Statutes often codify
common law rules. For these reasons, a judge might rely on the common law as a guide
to the intent and purpose of a statute.
2A. After World War II, several Nazis were convicted of “crimes against
humanity” by an international court. Assuming that these convicted war criminals
had not disobeyed any law of their country and had merely been following their
government’s orders, what law had they violated? Explain. At the time of the
Nuremberg trials, “crimes against humanity” were new international crimes. The laws
criminalized such acts as murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other
inhumane acts committed against any civilian population. These international laws
