Business Law
Without the Supremacy Clause, there would always be overlapping and conflicting federal and state law. The Supremacy Clause ensures that federal law always preempts state law if there is a conflict. In the absence of a Supremacy Clause, there would be a floodgate of litigation regarding choice of law questions and which law applies to a particular case.
In this case, Wyeth did act ethically because if a large drug-manufacturing company immediately admitted to liability every time a plaintiff sued, alleging negligence, the company would surely go bankrupt. In the face of a civil suit, the company is entitled to proffer the best possible defense it can mount and to deny any and all legal liability. There is nothing unethical about denying liability, even if the nature of your product could cause potential harm.
The upsides of the enactment of the NCVIA are that it effectively acts to screen out lots of lawsuits that may otherwise be brought against pharmaceutical vaccine companies. For the most part, vaccines provide a public health benefit and good, and additional research into better vaccines that can cure further ailments should be a policy goal. The NCVIA encourages companies to devote money, time, and effort into developing new vaccines without fear of adverse legal consequences. The downside to he NCVIA is that it forecloses the possibility of a lawsuit for many injured plaintiffs, leaving these plaintiffs with no adequate remedy.
In Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the plaintiff experienced adverse side effects after receiving a vaccine manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff filed suit in federal court, alleging strict liability and negligence claims against the company. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the NCVIA, which is federal law. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court affirmed. For the plaintiff, I would argue that the claim was not preempted by the NCVIA. For the defense, I would argue that since Congress has expressly spoken on the issue with the NCVIA, any state law claims are preempted by federal law.
Briefing Paper 2
In this case, state DMVS required drivers and owners of vehicles to provide personal information as a condition to obtaining a valid driver’s license. With knowledge that many states sell this personal information to businesses and individuals for profit, Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) to limit states’ ability to divulge personal information about drivers. South Carolina brought suit, alleging that the DPPA exceeded Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court held that the DPPA was within Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause and that driver’s personal information was part of interstate commerce, and therefore, Congress could properly regulate such subject.
The best argument for the South Carolina is that personal information of drivers is not interstate commerce and therefore, outside the purview of Congressional power. Such information is not interstate commerce because information is not a tangible, movable good that can cross state lines and borders. The United States should argue that driver’s personal information is interstate commerce and therefore, can be regulated by Congress. Such information falls under the category of interstate commerce because it is sold to parties who will ultimately use the information in interstate commerce.
Briefing Paper 3
The case Rowe v. New Hampshire, a Maine statute imposed requirements on air and motor carriers that transported tobacco products. Two of the provisions at issue required retailers to only use carriers that verified the age of the tobacco purchasers and required that carriers ensure tobacco products were not shipped to unlicensed retailers. The statute was challenged on grounds that the Maine law was preempted by federal law. The Supreme Court held that the federal law preempted the Maine law, and because the federal law was clear, the state law did not prevail. This decision affects businesses because it implies that states are not free to regulate aspects of certain industries if there is federal law regulating the subject matter.
In James v. Meow Media, a student shot several fellow students, killing three and wounding numerous others. Parents of the deceased students brought claims of negligence, product liability, and RICO claims against the video game, movie, and internet companies that created the content that allegedly desensitized the student and led to his violent actions. The Appellate Court held that under state law, the named defendants did not owe the deceased students any duty of care. Furthermore, movies, video games, and websites were not products within the scope of strict product liability. This case has significant business implications because it means that makers and producers of violent media products will not be held liable if a third party who uses such products goes out and commits a violent crime.
United States v. Garcia concerned the question of whether a GPS tracking device placed on a personal vehicle absent a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment. Police placed a GPS tracking device on the suspect’s vehicle, without a warrant, and learned information about where the suspect was manufacturing drugs from the GPS. The Court of Appeals held the placing of the GPS on the vehicle did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure. This case is significant for business because it means that police can place a GPS tracing device on a person’s personal vehicle without notice and without a warrant. The Court likened the GPS to a visual surveillance, which is permissible without a warrant. Businesses, owners, and persons should be aware that the placing of GPS tracking devices on a vehicle and using the information from the GPS device does not violate a person’s Fourth Amendment rights.
In Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, former President Gerald Ford had written a memoir, including his decision to pardon Nixon. Ford licensed the rights to his memoir to Harper & Row, which had contracted with Time to publish its contents. The Nation magazine, without Ford, Harper & Row, or Time’s permission, then published verbatim quotes from the memoir. Harper & Row then brought suit against The Nation, alleging copyright infringement. The Supreme Court held that there was no public figure exception to the right of first publication and that fair use was not a defense. This case is significant for businesses because even if a written work relates to a public figure, a party is not free to publish such material if it has not properly acquired the rights.
Metromedia v. City of San Diego concerned a city ordinance which banned outdoor advertising displays. The ordinance only permitted “onsite” billboards with messages relating to property. Petitioners argued that the ordinance was an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment right of businesses to advertise. The Supreme Court held that allowing “onsite” advertising discriminated against noncommercial speech and was unconstitutional. The decision is significant because cities and towns, even if they wish to improve aesthetics, must not discriminate against noncommercial or commercial speech in their ordinances.
Briefing Paper 4
In Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, the Raiders wanted to move from Oakland to Los Angeles. The City of Oakland wanted to keep the raiders in Oakland and sought eminent domain over the franchise. The owners argued eminent domain did not apply because the franchise was not real property, but rather intangible property. The trial court granted summary judgment to the owners, but the Supreme Court of California reversed, holding that eminent domain included all types of property.
Eminent domain is the taking of private property for public use. If such private property is taken, the Fifth Amendment ensures that the government must provide just compensation to the owners. It is socially responsible for a professional sports team to move from one city to another because due to various reasons, it may be necessary for a sports team to move. The economic consequences of moving is that the previous city will lose a great deal of revenue from ticket sales, concessions, transportation, and hospitality. There are also consequences for the new city, including various zoning and local laws and ordinances, increased traffic, and potential disturbance of surrounding businesses, residents, and other establishments. The Oakland Raiders themselves could not take the property y eminent domain because they are not a government entity. However, if the state, municipality, or town agreed to sell the land after it acquired it by eminent domain to the Oakland Raiders, then the Oakland Raiders could obtain the land.
Reference
Cheeseman, H.R. (2013). The legal environment of business and online commerce: Business ethics, e-commerce, regulatory and international issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle river, NJ: Prentice Hall.
