1. 1-25-19 National Florida Day
PROPERTY B SLIDES
National Florida Day

2. More Music to Accompany Shack: Rolling Stones, Sticky Fingers (1971)
Lunch Logistics:
Meet on Bricks after 11:00 class
Bring lunch or purchase after checking in with me
Notify other student attending or my assistant Tina if going to miss or be late
We’ll end up in Law Room in Shalala Center
Check online schedule to add or change your date
Lunch Today
Meet on 12:25
Bailkin * Blekht * Crawford
Rothstein * Shayne

3. LOGISTICS: DFs & Attendance Sheets
Dean’s Fellow Sessions
MWF Starting Monday
Mon = Brendan (After Class Here)
Wed = Lauren (After Class TBA)
Fri = Alternating (After Class TBA)
Three Problems Every Two Weeks: Details Posted on Course Page
Attendance Sheets:
If you arrive after attendance sheet passes, check in with me at break to ensure you get marked “Late” rather than “Out”

4. LOGISTICS: Monday: Panels Begin
Panels = National Parks
Listed on Course Page
Despite Gov’t Shutdown
I expect continued high level of preparation
Transition: Alphabetical Division Today & Monday
Slides: Alerts () & Headers (Be Ready to Go!!)
EVERGLADES:
EGRET IN
MANGROVE SWAMP

5. SHACK: What the Case Says
Theory of the Case (DQ )
“Rules” (DQ1.10)
Protecting Owners cont’d (DQ1.11 & 1.13)
Shack & Jacque (DQ1.12)

6. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Got Some Ideas Wednesday)
O can exclude solicitors/peddlers if …
doesn’t deprive MWs of practical access to things they need.
purpose is not to gain a commercial advantage
Os can reasonably require visitors to identify selves and state purpose
Visitors cannot …
interfere w farming activities
engage in behavior hurtful to others

7. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Three Standard Approaches)
Identify key interests and discuss whether rules adequately address. E.g.,
Security
Privacy
Smooth Operation of Business

8. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Three Standard Approaches)
Identify key interests; do rules address?
Identify alternative/additional rules that might better protect O’s interests E.g.,
Limit times of access
Limit # of people allowed on land at one time
Limit frequency of visits
NOTE: These all probably are OK under Shack if reasonable

9. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
Are Limits on Shack’s Right of Access Sufficient to Protect O’s Interests? (Three Standard Approaches)
Identify key interests; do rules address?
Identify alternative/additional rules
Discuss whether relevant interests are balanced properly:
Workers’ minimal interest in possible benefits from media oversight is less significant than the owners’ interest in the smooth operation of their businesses because …

10. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
Nice Points from 2017/19 re Lack of Specificity:
Hoover: Os Would Like More Specific Authorizations. E.g.,
Time Limits
# of Visitors at at One Time
Recognition of O’s Interests in Privacy, Security, Business Operation Allows Court to Permit Appropriate Restrictions
Further Examples of O’s Concerns
Liability Concerns  Look at Insurance
Trade Secrets  Limits on Location

11. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
You represent the NJ Apple-Growers Assn. Members approach you to express their unhappiness with Shack.
Assume No Useful Litigation in Short Term
No way to challenge NJ SCt decision in state court.
Federal Constitutional challenge based on property rights unlikely to succeed now.
Because tied to invitation of MWs on land
Even less likely in 1971
What Other Steps Can You Take?

12. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
1.13. Possible Steps for Trade Association Include …
Lobby state or fed’l legislators to pass statute to change or eliminate Shack
Treat Result in Shack as Given; Advise Clients re Responses. E.g.,
Help draft standard rules for owners to employ (& litigate them)
Help reorganize industry (no housing onsite = one actual response)
Explore leaving state (OK if factories; hard for apple-growers).

13. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.11 & 1.13: Protections of O’s Interests
Recurring Issue: Dispute re Roles of State Supreme Courts v. State Legislatures
Cutting-edge common law court decisions like Shack not dangerous; state legislature can always overrule.
-OR-
Resolution of complex balancing of interests is best left to the legislature.

14. SHACK: What the Case Says
Theory of the Case (DQ )
“Rules” (DQ1.10)
Protecting Owners (DQ1.11 & 1.13)
Shack & Jacque (DQ1.12)

15. SHACK: WHAT THE CASE DOES DQ1.12: Shack & Jacque
Is Shack inconsistent with Jacque?
Articulate two different characterizations of the cases:
One highlighting their inconsistency
One suggesting they really are consistent.
Examples of Each?

16. Application of Shack Fact Comparisons
Generally (last class)
E.g., DQ1.14: The Press (Last Names M-P)
Application to New Situations Generally (Intro to XQII)
DQ1.15: Extension to New Situations
Review Problems

17. APPLYING SHACK TO NEW SITUATIONS DQ1.14: Comparing Facts (The Press)
Compare press & other groups to whom the NJSCt gives access (Last Names M-P)
Identify Similarities
Identify Differences
What Do Lists Suggest About Best Result?

18. I’ll Add Slide with Lists
DQ1.14: Comparing Facts (The Press) (Last Names M-P) What Do Lists Suggest re How to Treat Press?
I’ll Add Slide with Lists

19. DQ1.14: Comparing Facts (The Press) (Last Names M-P) What Do Lists Suggest re How to Treat Press?
Similarities Include …
Differences Include …
Not helping specific people
Not necessarily helping when present
Less need for face-to-face
Might not only focus on MWs
Strong commercial interests
Scope of trespass harder to determine/likely to want more intrusion
O interests arguably stronger w press
v. Medical: No interest in unhealthy MWs;
v. Legal: State won't acknowledge O interest in uninformed MWs
Could help MWs (maybe much more than Shack Ds
Can provide info (indirectly: press report in one place  info to others)
Serving public interest (w specific textual mandate (1st Amdt))
Specialized training (v. stopping by to see if you need anything)
See Harvest of Shame (CBS 1960) (Images on Intro slide from 1/23)

20. Application of Shack Application to New Situations
Fact Comparisons
Application to New Situations
Generally/Intro to XQII
Review Problem 1G
DQ1.15: Extension to New Situations
Review Problems

21. Applying Shack: DQ1.15(a)/(b) & Rev. Problems 1A/1B
Could do each of these at length, going through:
Application of Key Language
Factual Comparisons to Shack Ds & Press
Relevance of Key Policies Like Protecting O’s Interests
[Possible Alternatives to Allowing Entry]
Overall Best Result
In class & DF, we’ll do selected Qs to highlight particular techniques
I’ll give you more extensive write-ups of each in Info Memo for Chapter 1

22. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 2 SHORT ANSWERS (Choose 3 of 4)
E.g., Review Problems 1A-1J
Tightly Focused Problems (Generally One Subject)
Time Allotment for Each:
~5 Minutes to Read/Outline
~20 Minutes to Write

23. FINAL EXAM QUESTION 2 SHORT ANSWERS (Choose 3 of 4)
Relevant Skills
Reading Carefully/Following Directions (Isolation)
Strong Understanding of Relevant Authority
Identifying Best Arguments for Each Party (Won’t Be Clear Winner)
Recognizing Significance of Facts Provided in Problem (& Possible Missing Facts)

24. APPLYING SHACK: Rev Probs 1A & 1B
Review Problem 1A (S8) Monday
Last Names C-E:   (Arguments for Landowner)
Last Names F-K:  (Arguments for MWs/LON)
Review Problem 1B (S8) Wednesday
BADLANDS: (Arguments for Landowner)
EVERGLADES:   (Arguments for MWs/Pizza)
Prepare in Light of Today’s Discussions

25. Overall Guide: Do the Challenge (My Question)
APPLYING SHACK A few points to think about (from Rev Prob 1G = 2015 Problem IID):
Overall Guide: Do the Challenge (My Question)
Stay within Scope of Shack & Know the Case (NJSCt Didn’t Require Necessity or Fundamental Right)
Common Sense in Reading (Point of Problem = Very Good Dog)
Don’t Look for Easy Ways Out (E.g., Allergies)
Choose Language that One Side Might Actually Rely On (Not “Dominion Over Destiny” or “Privacy” or Gov’t Workers)
Address Ways Problem is Different Than What You’ve Seen (Animal!!)
Be Careful of Strong Gut Reactions (Your Beloved Dog v. Junk Yard Dogs)