"Little Pink House" to Become a Movie

When I read Jeff Benedict's, Little Pink House, I did not get what I was expecting.  I got something much more enjoyable and satisfying.  I was expecting to gain some insight into the US Supreme Court's landmark eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London.  Instead, I was treated to the opportunity to meet Susette Kelo and the other residents of the Fort Trumbull section of New London, Connecticut and the government officials who were responsibile for the decisions that affect people's lives. For students, there will be no great insight into the judicial decision-making process. But there will be the unmistakable lesson that beyond the words on the paper and the legal principles, all these judicial decision affect the lives of real people in real ways. Too often students are willing to accept judicial decisions as foregone conclusions.  I hear students react to cases  droning complacently, "The court had no choice, because that is the law."  This book will help students realize that judicial determinations are the product of choices - choices made by government officials at all levels, by business leaders, by corporate managers, by regualr people and, even by judges. And those choices have consequences.

Little Pink House is apparently being made into a Lifetime TV movie starring Brooke Shields as Susette Kelo.  I hope the movie does justice to the story.

Those of you who are not situated here in New England may not be aware of the ironic sequel to the story.  The massive governmental land grab that was approved by the court was to allow for a development to complement a nearby research campus built by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The preferred developer for the parcel never got funded and never built anything and Pfizer ultimately abandoned the research campus that started the whole ball rolling.

A related post is here.

The Legislative Process

I have always thought it odd that few BLAW texts devote any significant space to the legislative process. Every text devotes a chapter (or more) to courts and the dispute resolution process.  There is coverage of juries, judicial selection, civil procedure, criminal procedure, stare decisis, judicial review, legislative interpretation by courts and many other topics that comprise the judicial process.  Why do we, as an academy, choose to largely ignore the legislative law-making process in the curriculum of a law class?

I use the old Schoolhouse Rock standby, Just a Bill on Capitol Hill, as an example of the "civics class" view of lawmaking (much in the way that high school students are informed that "law" is insulated from the effects of politics).


The "real" legislative process, of course, is imbued with interest group politics. Through lobbying, campaign contributions, astroturf organizing and other various methods, the best organized and well funded interest groups have a significant effect on what policies are enacted into law.

An article that appeared in the Hartford Advocate and the Fairfield County Weekly chronicled efforts of the Connecticut legislature to require disclosure labels for genetically engineered food. The article advises, "Colin O'Neil, a policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. . . . says bills similar to Connecticut's genetically modified (or GM) food labeling measure have been repeatedly introduced in other state legislatures and in Congress, and have been blown away by the combined lobbying power of the food, agricultural and biotechnology industries."

Of course, it follows, unsuprisingly, that interest groups also heavily influence the administrative process. The US Supreme Court is likewise not immune from interest group influence. Perhaps this following parody of the Bill on Capitol Hill song is more appropriate.

Judicial Interpretation Illustrated

I favor using popular music to illustrate legal principles.

Prof. David Skover of Seattle University Law School has been quoted as saying that "all law is interpretation."  I am in complete agreement.  The following exercise illustrates this principle.

Folk music is an apt analogy for Common Law principles. Consider the legal principle such as, "a person who is negligent is liable for the damages that proximately result." Like a folk song, this principle is well known and accepted, but its precise origin may not easily be determined. Also like a folk song, the principle has been repeated and passed down through the oral tradition. And, also like a folk song, each "performance" of the legal principle (judicial decision) is the result of the performer's own particular interpretation of the song. The ultimate performance of a folk song depends on a number of factors including the versions of the song with which the performer is familar, the performer's own talents and abilities, and the effect that the performer wishes to create for the audience.  I would argue that a judicial decision is like a folk song performance. It  is a product of, among other considerations, the judge's understanding of the legal principle, the judge's talents in seeing the implications of the ruling for society, the judge's ideology regarding the proper role of judges and the impact that the judge intends the ruling to have on society (the audience).

Consider the three following performances of the old Irish folksong, Whiskey in the Jar.  They all come from a common melody and common lyrics - constituting "the law" of the song, if you will. But the performances are significantly different in tone, feeling and impact on the audience. So it is also with the law.

When I use these videos in class, I play about a minute of each for comparison purposes.








This one is extra just for fun. Who can resist Ireland's self-professed #1 Elvis impersonator?

Law Music Video - Put The Law on You

This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is Put the Law on You by Natalie Merchant. Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.

The Flip Side of Employment-At-Will

Here is an iteration of the law of employment-at-will doctrine:

All may dismiss their employees at will, be they many or few, for good cause, for no cause or even for cause morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of legal wrong.

                - Payne v. Western & Atlantic Railroad Co., 81 Tenn. 507, 519-520, 1884 WL 469 at 6 (Sep. term 1884).

The flip side, of course, is that employees may quit without reason or notice. Hence, the policy of maintaining freedom of ingress and egress in the labor market is protected.

From the movie Waiting, "I quit." (Click on picture to go to video)


Longer Version: (Click on picture to go to video)



Take This Job and Shove It:

RIAA - Campus Downloading Video

This video from the RIAA dealing with "peeer to peer file sharing" may trend a bit toward propaganda, but the facts seem to be correct and it is an important issue for students to understand. See a related post here.

Law Lessong - Substantial Performance

The next installment in the “Law Lessong” series is Substantial Performance. This simple video and song from a Power Point presentation helps set up a hypothetical of the construction of a new college dormitory for students to consider when substantial performance applies and has been achieved. Learn more about Law Lessongs from the post found here. More videos may be found at my youtube channel. Please feel free to use them in the classroom or as assignments or in any way that they work for you as an educational resource.