PROPERTY B SLIDES

1. PROPERTY B SLIDES CHEESE ISN’T EVERYTHING!! 2-15-19 NATIONAL GUMDROP DAY NATIONAL WISCONSIN DAY

2. Music to Accompany Sorenson: BozScaggs, Silk Degrees (1976) Next Few DF Sessions: • Current: Rev Prob 2B (Brendan) • Today@ 12:30 Here • Next Monday @ 9:40 Here • Then: Rev Prob 2E (Lauren) • Next Wednesday @ 9:40 Here • Next Friday @ 9:40 Here Lunch Today Meet on Bricks @ 12:25 Baker * Burke * Chuback Della Catena * Fernandez Rubin * Zawislinski

3. Review Problem 1P(i): RecapPart of an Issue-Spotter Schmid-Like Speech Access Q • Asked to consider complete denial of access and/or possible restrictions • Can compare to Princeton or big malls re Nature of Physical Space/Nature of Invitation • Can compare FF to typical mall protestors

4. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIAPart of an Issue-Spotter (Recap) Nature of Physical Space/Invitation: Relevant Facts/Significance? • Enclosed Courtyard Accessible thru Public Walkways • Restaurants & Clinic Open onto Courtyard • Hospital/Classrooms in Surrounding Bldgs • Benches/Tables in Courtyard for Publlic Use • Speakers & Musicians Allowed in • Signs Reserving Right to Exclude

5. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIAPart of an Issue-Spotter Special Concerns w FF as Speaker Relevant Facts/Significance?

6. Acadia: Review Problem 1P(i) (cont’d) Acadia Sunrise

7. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIAPart of an Issue-Spotter FF as Speaker: Relevant Facts/Significance? • Charismatic/Controversial Religious Figure • Anti-Technology [Might Conflict with Hospital/Medical Activities, Perhaps Justifying Exclusion] Matter if MMS run by a Mainstream Protestant Denomination? Other Concerns?  Possible Problems/Regulations?

8. Review Problem 1P(i): ACADIAPart of an Issue-Spotter FF=Speaker: Relevant Facts/Significance?  Possible Regs? • Charismatic/Controversial Religious Figure • Too Many People (+ Press) in Courtyard • Noise • Conflict • Smashes Device • Enclosed Space  More Potential Harm (So can forbid?) • Presumably his own device & not audience member’s QUESTIONS?

9. Chapter 2. Leased But Not Last: Selected Issues in Landlord/Tenant Law • The Importance of Context: • The Ldld’sRight to Exclude (& Legitimate Interests of Tnts) • Eviction Under the Florida Statutes • Statutory Anti-Discrimination Law & The Right to Transfer • Introduction to Fed’l Fair Housing Statutes • Sorenson & Proof of Discriminatory Intent • Funk & “Reasonable” Refusals to Allow Transfer • Review Problems • Habitability & Related Issues

10. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes • Most Testable Issue re Anti-Discrimination Statutes • Why Ldld Made Decision to Exclude Applicant or Transferee • Generally, My Problem will Suggest At Least One Each of • Discriminatory Reasons (Made on Basis of Protected Characteristic) • Non-Discriminatory or “Legitimate” Reasons (Anything Else)

11. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes • In Short Problem or Issue-Spotter, I’ll Give Detailed Info • You’ll Need to Lay Out & Explain • Evidence Supporting Discriminatory Reason(s) • Evidence Supporting Non-Discriminatory Reason(s) • Then Discuss Significance of All Evidence Together • We will use test from Sorenson that statute is violated if discriminatory reason is “one significant factor” in Ldld’s decision (although actual current rules more complex) • E.g., Review Problems 2D & 2L(part b)

12. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes • In Lawyering Q, I’ll Give Some Info That Suggests Serious Discrimination Issue • You’ll Need to Do Factual Investigation to Find • Evidence Supporting Possible Discriminatory Reason(s) • Evidence Supporting Possible Non-Discriminatory Reason(s) • Useful Also to to Identify Possible Helpful Legal Research on Provisions of Relevant State & Local Statutes (Based on Info in Write-Up of DQs2.01-2.06) • E.g., Review Problem 2K (part c)

13. Proof of Discriminatory Intent Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes To Help identify Evidence That Might Be Relevant: • Discussion of Sorenson • Note on Evidence on S40-42: Self-ExplanatoryExcept … • S40: Desire of management to seeapplicants (not just rely on employees to do face-to-face contact) • S40: Treatment of Testers. • S41: Reputation of landlord/housing provider among tenants/in community (re willingness to do business with particular group) • S41-42: “Consistency”/”Corroboration” = Work Both Ways Questions?

14. EVERGLADES: Sorenson & DQ2.07-2.09 EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP

15. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades) • Ps’ Claim: D evicted Ps b/c of race of visitors • D’s Claim: D evicted Ps b/c of history of problems + preparing for party + sight of disfavored ex-tenant What evidence supported Ps’ Claim?

16. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades) Evidence supporting Ps’ Claim (Decision b/c of Race): • Timing: Eviction right after D saw Afr-Am women in apt. • D saying “Yes” when asked if race was reason for eviction • N.4: D told “anxious” neighborhe didn’t intend to rent to 2 “black girls” • D admitted he preferred no Afr-Ams as tenants • No Afr-Am residents in D’s Complex What evidence supported D’s claim?

17. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades) Evidence supporting D’s Claim (Legitimate Reasons): • Ps’ Prior issues (parties, noise, complaints, harm to apt) • Timing: D testifies fury re party & seeing former tenant • D says “Yes” not true but intended to annoy P • Explanation of D statement re no intent to rent: Hadn’t applied • Explanation of no Afr-Am residents: No Afr-Ams had applied • Participant in Civic Race Relations Project Whose Story Seems More Convincing?

18. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades) “Neither we nor our district courts sit to pass upon the taste of litigants or the attractiveness of their positions. Our commitment is to truth and process, with emphasis on the former below and the latter here. A careful inquiry into the process observed in the district court has not convinced us that the truth was not served.” (Last Para. S40) Assuming [this means that the] court found the D’s story unconvincing…, why didn’t it reverse the decision? • Have to Defer to Jury Decision on Facts, Particularly Credibility of Witnesses Why Should Appellate Court Defer to Jury’s [implicit] Findings of Fact if Appellate Judges Disagree?

19. Sorenson & DQ2.07 (Everglades) Why Should Appellate Court Defer to [implicit] Findings of Fact by Jury if Court Disagrees? • Visual Observation of Witnesses and of Physical Evidence • Hearing Testimony Sheaskedmetotakehertothedance.

20. Sorenson & DQ2.08 (Everglades) P’s Primary Claim: Court must find for P as a matter of law b/c D admitted to P that he discriminated. • Test really is “no reasonable jury could find [for D]…” • P relies on Pelzer and Mintzes. • Pelzer: Giving different terms to applicants based on race violates FHA w/o other evidence of bad intent • Mintzes: Blockbusting (3604(e) case): Statements referencing race to induce moving violate statute even if no racial animus

21. Sorenson & DQ2.08 (Everglades) P’s Primary Claim: Court must find for P as a matter of law b/c D admitted to P that he discriminated. • P relies on Pelzer and Mintzes, but court distinguishes: • In those cases, statements in Q themselves violated FHA • Here, alleged violation is eviction (with bad intent) • Statement here is evidence of intent, not violation itself • D entitled to bring in evidence to rebut • Jury can decide who they believe Questions on This Point?

22. Sorenson & DQ2.09 (Everglades) • D Atty Asked Q re Marijuana Use (Violating Order) • Why might this harm P’s chances for fair trial (in ~1976)? • [POT-OMAC STORY] • Purpose of Footnote 14 (“lame explanations”) • D Atty Used Peremptory Challenges to Remove Afr-Ams from Jury • Why might this harm P’s chances for fair trial? • Batson v. Kentucky & the Power of Change Questions?

23. Monday: REVIEW PROBLEM 2DEVERYONE IS ON-CALL; I’LL ASSIGN 3-4 PEOPLE TO EACH SIDE & TAKE ADDITIONAL IDEAS FROM VOLUNTEERS • Possible Discriminatory Reasons for Rejection • Religion (Not Jewish Enough) • Inter-Racial or Inter-Faith Relationship • Israeli • Possible Non-Discriminatory Reasons? • Significance of SpecificFacts? • Other Evidence Supporting Discriminatory Reasons? • Other Evidence Supporting Non-Discriminatory Reasons? • Stronger Position Overall?Because?