This lesson deals with the "committed to agency discretion" exception to judicial review. Under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, courts tend to assume that administrative action is subject to review. However, there are several situations when courts will decline to exercise their review authority. One of those situations is the subject of this lesson: when administrative action has been committed to agency discretion by law.
2L-3L Upper Level Lesson Topics
This set of Topics covers subjects typically taught during the second and third years of law school.
Read More
This lesson focuses on the presidential power to appoint executive branch officials. It focuses on the scope of the presidential power, congressionally imposed limits on that power, and potential infringements of the power by Congress and the judiciary. This lesson is intended for students who have studied these issues in class, and who wish to further refine their knowledge.
This lesson helps students distinguish between the two major rules that protect client confidentiality: the ethical duty of confidentiality and the evidentiary attorney-client communications privilege. The lesson examines the scope of each and the relationship between the two.
This lesson examines the "stop and frisk" exception to the warrant requirement.
This lesson examines the so-called "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement. Even though the Fourth Amendment contains a warrant requirement, the United States Supreme Court has recognized numerous exceptions to that requirement, including the plain view exception. This lesson is intended for students who have studied this issue in class and wish to refine their knowledge.
This lesson reviews some of the concepts needed to understand the patent law doctrine of "nonobviousness" (Section 103 of the Patent Act). Before completing this lesson students should be familiar with the doctrine of novelty under Section 102 of the Act.
This lesson explores issues relating to the United States Supreme Court's landmark decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
This lesson focuses on one of the factual inquiries underlying the legal determination of nonobviousness: the scope and content of the prior art. It assumes that you are familiar with the patentability requirement of novelty under the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 and with the basic framework of the obviousness analysis. If you would like a review of the basic framework for determining obviousness, you may want to do the lesson on "Basic Concepts of Nonobviousness" before you complete this lesson. After completing this lesson you should have a better understanding of how to determine the scope and content of the prior art so as to assess obviousness.
This lesson covers the kinds of inventions that can be patented. The first section discusses how the Constitution and the federal Patent Act (specifically Section 101) define and limit those categories of innovations, including the open issues in that on-going debate. The second section offers a variety of problems ranging from the straight-forward to the more complex, permitting confirmation of understanding and practice in application.
This tutorial will provide an overview of the regulation of commercial dog breeders pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act. This lesson is a beginner level tutorial.
This lesson covers researching medical information. It emphasizes resources that are publicly available free of charge.
This lesson examines the public policy objectives driving and defining United States patent law. The first section explores the nature and logic of the regime's generally accepted core purpose - providing optimum incentives to invest in useful arts innovation. The next section discusses how that goal generates the basic doctrinal requirements for patentability (novelty, nonobviousness, utility, enablement/disclosure - patentable subject matter is covered separately in lessons on Patentable Subject Matter and Non-Obviousness). The lesson's final section concludes with a brief look at how other normative views of property entitlements affect patent public policy debate as well as client expectations.
The action for restitution allows recovery in a variety of contexts when the defendant would be "unjustly enriched" if he/she were not required to pay restitution. One of those contexts is the situation in which one person acts on behalf of another in the case of an emergency situation requiring immediate action. In this lesson, we explore the parameters of an individual's right to recover restitution for providing aid to another in an emergency situation. Of course, as an inevitable incident of this discussion, we will explore situations when recovery should be denied. This lesson is intended for students who have studied these issues in class and wish to further refine their knowledge.
When defendant has been unjustly enriched at plaintiff's expense, plaintiff is entitled to seek restitution. Among the rules and principles that qualify a plaintiff's right to seek restitution is the notion that a "volunteer" is not entitled to seek restitution.
When a preliminary or temporary injunction has been entered against a defendant, and the defendant believes that injunction is wrongfully issued, he has three choices in resisting the injunction: disobey and risk contempt; move to modify or terminate; or appeal.
In this lesson, we explore issues relating to judicial review of an agency's issuance of a "legislative" rule -- a rule issued as a result of the federal Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking procedures.
This lesson deals with issues related to an employer's damage remedies for breach of an employment contract. As we shall see, employers might be able to claim various types of remedies depending on the circumstances and context. This lesson is intended for students who have studied these issues in class and wish to expand and refine their knowledge.
When an employer breaches an employment contract, the employee might seek any of several different types of remedies. In general, it will be difficult (if not impossible) for the employee to obtain injunctive relief against the employer. As a result, most of the litigation focuses on damages and the level of recovery that an employee might obtain against a breaching employer. This lesson focuses on the employee damage remedy, and is intended for students who have studied these issues in class and wish to refine their knowledge.