Updated throughout, the text exposes students to the language of criminal law without overwhelming them, while delivering comprehensive coverage of all the major components of substantive criminal law.
This edition also includes updated learning tools that help students of all backgrounds quickly master even complex legal topics. For more information, visit www. View More Purchase Options. Criminal Law 13th Edition. Thomas J. View as Instructor. Whether you need access offline or online, in print or on your mobile device, we have cost saving options. Tell me about Cengage eTextbooks. Best value! Access your book immediately! Tell me about Rentals. Free eTextbook while your book ships Contract starts on the date of product shipment, not on date of purchase.
Suppose that the state restricted packaged beer sales by bars but not breweries. Would this pass the rational basis test under the equal protection clause? Yes, a restriction on packaged beer sales by bars but not breweries would pass the rational basis test under the equal protection clause. Under that test, in matters of economic welfare, a restriction will be considered valid if there is any conceivable rational basis on which the restriction might relate to a legitimate government interest.
It is nearly impossible for a law to fail this test. In a challenge to a restriction on packaged beer sales by bars but not breweries, a court would likely uphold the law. The court might reason that bars conceivably pose a greater risk of fights, automobile accidents, and crime.
Because the state has a legitimate interest in reducing the incidence of these events, the provision would pass the rational basis test. Parties In this situation, the automobile manufacturers are the plaintiffs, and the state of California is the defendant. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, which is an equitable remedy, to prevent the state of California from enforcing its statute restricting carbon dioxide emissions.
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. You would look in both of these sources to find the relevant state and federal statutes. Should U. Both England and the U. 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? There is certainly less common law governing, say, environmental law than there was 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.
Under what circumstance might a judge rely on case law to determine the intent and purpose of a statute? For these reasons, a judge might rely on the common law as a guide to the intent and purpose of a statute. The First Amendment provides protection for the free exercise of religion.
A state legislature enacts a law that outlaws all religions that do not derive from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Is this law valid within that state? The U. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and applies to all jurisdictions. A law in violation of the Constitution in this question, the First Amendment to the Constitution will be declared unconstitutional.
The decision may be persuasive, however, depending on the nature of the case and the particular judge hearing it. A decision of the United States Supreme Court on an issue is binding, like the decision of any court, on all inferior courts.
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. A law in violation of the Constitution, no matter what its source, will be declared unconstitutional and will not be enforced. In this problem, the court determined that a Massachusetts state statute was in conflict with the U.
The Constitution takes priority, so the statute will not be enforced. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the trial court held that the statute violated the Constitution, and the U. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed this holding. Laurion, N. The Minnesota Supreme Court issued this opinion in Under this doctrine, judges are obligated to follow the precedents established within their jurisdiction. In this problem, the enforceability of a forum-selection clause is at issue.
If the court applies the doctrine of stare decisis, it will dismiss the suit. In the actual case on which this problem is based, the court determined that the clause is not enforceable under those precedents.
Courts developed the common law rules from the principles behind the decisions in actual legal controversies. Judges attempted to be consistent.
0コメント