Alaska Employment Law

Property law in Victorian literature: Ilya Somin’s post on fee tails in Austen novels brought up great comments on similar issues in works by Trollope, Hardy, etc. Apropos of absolutely nothing except the connection with English novels, I recommend Anthony Powell’s A Dance to the Music of Time, a 12-volume roman fleuve. If there’s a single lawyer or legal issue in it, I’ve blocked it.

9th Circuit on sexual “accidents” and homeowners coverage: If Thom “negligently” has sex with Donna, and Donna reasonably but mistakenly believes that Thom is her boyfriend John, does Thom’s homeowner’s policy cover Donna’s claim? The 9th Circuit answers, Yes:

What caused the harm in this case was not that [Thom] engaged in intercourse, but that he engaged in nonconsensual intercourse, which he could not have reasonably foreseen. A reasonable person in his position would not be aware of or foresee that harmful consequences of intercourse with the consenting [Donna] because he would not be aware of or foresee that her consent was ineffective and based on her mistaken belief that she was with her boyfriend. [Donna’] mistake as to [Thom’s] identity constituted an ‘additional unexpected, independent and unforeseen happening.’

Fischer v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 2008 WL ______ (9th Cir. Mar. 28, 2008)(unpub.)

9th Cir. on leftist university propaganda: A San Jose State college student alleged that

various university defendants violated his due process, free speech, and equal protection rights by requiring him to take a course on “multiculturalism” where he was forced to adopt “predetermined radical leftist or otherwise socially controversial viewpoints” that are counter to his conservative positions.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the student’s Section 1983 claim.

Although we must accept all allegations in Head’s complaint as true and construe them in a light most favorable to him, see Stoner v. Santa Clara County, 502 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir. 2007), we agree with the district court that Head does not state a cause of action against any defendant. Rather, his complaint merely recounts that he was sometimes not allowed to discuss issues in class to the full extent he sought and that he was once criticized by the instructor for his political views. Whatever constitutional rights are to be afforded to students, see Flint v. Dennison, 488 F.3d 816, 829 n.9 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting uncertainty of the standard to apply to university students), there was clearly no violation here. As the district court noted, a “student must learn the premises of the course and how to apply them. Learning the course material in no way compromises one’s personal right to believe as he wishes.”

Head v. Board of Trustees, 2008 WL _______ (9th Cir. Apr. 2, 2008)(unpub.)