Lochner v. New York p. 61
The student is specific and precise, but the student did not accurately introduce the case style. Notably, the style of the case should include court jurisdiction, which is not given in this case. I understand that the court jurisdiction should be the court that granted the decision on the case. However, the facts of the case, the court’s holding, and rational are well-explained. While the statement of the legal issue and the court’s holding is very clear, the student gave a very narrow explanation for the court’s holding. Some of the explanations are too brief to explain the court’s holding.
From this case, I learned some insights on administrative law, and how the case contributes to the understanding of the topic. First, administrative law bases its purpose on the rationale of activity, and the government activity must be protected. However, the dissenting opinion informs that the legal system should work by testing the rationality of administrative law.ork
Dolan v City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374
I would say the description of the case is perfect, and the statements are unequivocal. The student has clearly outlined the legal issue and organized them well. When it comes to giving the rationale for the court’s holding, the three identified legal issues are well-explained with adequate explanation. Quoting a precedent case informs on the application of common law and legal precedent. The case cites how a precedent legal decision of the case, “Nollan v. California Coastal Common, 483 U. S. 825, 837” is applied in moving the court’s argument and opinion. I have broadened my understanding of the use of legal precedent in the judicial system. The case makes good use of crucial administrative law concepts that may be useful in resolving similar cases. For example, the case informs on the roles of the various state agencies and commissions in establishing ties that could help resolve land issues.
Throughout the case, I have also learned some critical points about administrative law that contribute to the understanding of the legal concept. I have learned that there is a big clash between the private and public interest in the enforcement of administrative law. The doctrine of “proportionality check” is necessary guidance in deciding the actions of administrative agencies. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Steven gives an insightful idea of looking into proportionality check. The most important point to note is that there is a need for adequate evaluation and determination of the proportionality checks in similar cases within administrative law. Future judges may use this case as a guideline to deciding similar cases, especially in the assessment of proportionality check.