In this episode, we review the essentials of Criminal Law — from core principles to major defenses — to help you ace your final.

Part 1 – Foundations of Criminal Law

• Felonies vs. Misdemeanors: Based on possible sentence length.
• Sources: Common law, statutes, and the MPC.
• Limits:
  • Rule of Lenity – ambiguity favors defendant.
  • Ex Post Facto – no retroactive punishment.
• Purposes of Punishment: Deterrence, Retribution, Rehabilitation, Incapacitation.

Part 2 – Core Elements of Crime

• Actus Reus: Voluntary act or omission with legal duty.
• Mens Rea: Guilty mind — purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently.
• Strict Liability: No intent required (e.g., statutory rape).
• Mistakes:
  • Fact = may negate intent.
  • Law = generally no defense.
     📍 TN follows MPC intent standards.

Part 3 – Major Crimes

• Homicide:
  • CL – malice aforethought.
  • MPC – by intent level.
  • 📍 TN – 1st (premeditated), 2nd (knowing), Manslaughter (heat of passion).
• Rape: Non-consensual penetration; aggravated with weapon or injury.
• Theft/Robbery/Burglary: Unlawful taking → with force → with entry + intent.
• Assault: Attempted battery or reasonable fear; aggravated with weapon or serious injury.

Part 4 – Inchoate Offenses

• Solicitation: Urging another to commit crime.
• Conspiracy: Agreement + overt act.
• Attempt: Intent + substantial step.
  🧠 MPC merges inchoate crimes; CL often does not.

Part 5 – Defenses

• Duress: Coerced by imminent threat (not for murder).
• Necessity: Prevents greater harm.
• Self-Defense: Reasonable belief of imminent unlawful force.
• Insanity: M’Naghten Rule — didn’t know act was wrong.
  📍 TN uses M’Naghten standard.

🎯 Takeaway:
Criminal Law = Act + Intent + Causation − Defense.
Spot the elements, apply the right intent, and test each defense.

🎧 Listen to The American Law Café for more exam-ready recaps.

#CriminalLaw #LawSchool #BarPrep #MensRea #ActusReus #AmericanLawCafe #TennesseeLaw #1L #FinalReview

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

🎙️ Civil Procedure Spotlight: Jurisdiction, Venue & Removal Explained – How Courts Decide Who Can Hear the Case (and Where It Belongs)

In this episode, we break down how courts get authority over a case — and how defendants can move one from state to federal court.

Part 1 – Subject Matter Jurisdiction (SMJ)

SMJ = a court’s power over the type of case.
Federal courts can only hear cases they have statutory power to hear.

• Federal Question (§1331): Case arises under the Constitution, federal law, or treaties.
• Diversity (§1332): Parties from different states + amount in controversy > $75,000.
• Complete Diversity: No plaintiff can share citizenship with any defendant.
• Non-waivable: Can be raised anytime—if missing, the case is void.

Part 2 – Personal Jurisdiction (PJ)

PJ = the court’s power over the defendant. Rooted in due process fairness.

• Rule (International Shoe): Defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum so jurisdiction doesn’t offend “fair play and substantial justice.”
• Specific PJ: Contacts relate to the lawsuit (e.g., contracts, targeted actions, sales).
• General PJ: Defendant is “at home” — usually the state of incorporation or main office.
• Consent & Tag: Defendants can consent by contract or service while present.
  📍 Tennessee Note: NV Sumatra (no PJ over foreign manufacturer); Crouch Consulting (PJ upheld for TN-targeted contract).

Part 3 – Venue

Venue = which district is the right place for trial.

• Proper where any defendant resides (if all in same state) or where key events occurred (§1391).
• Transfer (§1404): To another proper district for convenience.
• Improper Venue (§1406): Court can dismiss or transfer.
• Forum Non Conveniens: Dismiss if another country’s court is clearly better.
  📍 TN Rule: Real property cases filed where the land lies; transitory actions where the cause arose or defendant resides.

Part 4 – Removal (28 U.S.C. §§ 1441–1446)

Removal = a defendant’s tool to shift a case from state to federal court.

• Only defendants can remove.
• Federal court must have original jurisdiction (SMJ).
• Forum Defendant Rule: No removal if any defendant is from the forum state.
  🧠 Mnemonic: “Home field, no removal.”
• Unanimity Rule: All served defendants must consent.
• Timing: 30 days after service; later-served defendants get their own 30 days.
• 1-Year Limit: Diversity removals barred after 1 year unless plaintiff acted in bad faith.

🧾 Remand: Plaintiffs can move to send the case back if removal was improper.

• 30 days for procedural defects; anytime for lack of SMJ.

🎯 Takeaway

Civil Procedure is about power and place:

• SMJ = court’s authority over the case
• PJ = court’s reach over the defendant
• Venue = proper location
• Removal = defendant’s path to federal court

Get any piece wrong — and the case heads right back to state court.

🎧 For more clear, law-school-friendly breakdowns, search and subscribe to The American Law Café on YouTube.

#CivPro #Jurisdiction #Venue #Removal #LawSchool #BarPrep #AmericanLawCafe #FederalCourt

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

🎙️ Property Law Spotlight: Mine, Yours, or Ours? Understanding Concurrent Ownership

In this episode of American Law Café, we unpack concurrent ownership—the ways two or more people can own the same property at the same time. From roommates to married couples, the type of ownership determines what happens when someone dies, sells, or faces creditors.

Part 1 – What Is Concurrent Ownership?

• When multiple people hold rights to the same property simultaneously.
• The law recognizes three main forms: Tenancy in Common, Joint Tenancy, and Tenancy by the Entirety.

Part 2 – Tenancy in Common (TIC):

• No right of survivorship → if one co-owner dies, their heirs inherit the share.
• Shares can be unequal (e.g., 70/30).
• Each tenant has the right to possess the whole property.
• Default type of ownership if the deed doesn’t specify.
• Partition is the escape hatch if co-tenants can’t agree.
• Case examples:
  • Spiller v. Mackereth → a co-tenant in sole possession doesn’t owe rent to others unless there’s an ouster.
  • Esteves v. Esteves → a co-tenant seeking contribution for carrying costs must also account for rental value if they had exclusive use.
  • Ark Land Co. v. Harper → courts prefer partition in kind (physical division) over sale, especially when family and sentimental attachments matter as much as money.

Part 3 – Joint Tenancy (JT):

• Special feature: right of survivorship—when one dies, the survivor takes all.
• Must satisfy the four unities (TTIP: Time, Title, Interest, Possession).
• Equal shares required.
• Can be severed if one tenant transfers their interest, converting to TIC.
• Case example:
  • Harms v. Sprague → in lien-theory states, a mortgage by one joint tenant does not sever the joint tenancy, so survivorship still operates.

Part 4 – Tenancy by the Entirety (TE):

• Joint tenancy + marriage → available only to married couples (recognized in Tennessee).
• Spouses treated as one legal unit.
• Neither can transfer their interest alone.
• Hard to break: only ends by death, divorce (converts to TIC), mutual agreement, or joint creditor foreclosure.
• Case example:
  • Sawada v. Endo → TBE property is generally immune from the creditors of just one spouse, protecting the marital estate. Different states follow different rules, but Tennessee follows the “strong immunity” approach.

Part 5 – Practical Lessons and Cases:

• Survivorship is the key dividing line: TIC = ❌, JT = ✅, TE = ✅ (with strong spousal protections).
• TIC can get messy with possession and expenses → Spiller and Esteves set the rules.
• JT is fragile and easily severed → Harms v. Sprague shows that even mortgages raise survivorship questions.
• TE is powerful protection against creditors → Sawada v. Endo highlights why many couples choose it.
• Courts value more than just money → Ark Land Co. shows that history and family ties can matter in partition disputes.

#PropertyLaw #ConcurrentOwnership #TenancyInCommon #JointTenancy #TenancyByTheEntirety #BarPrep #AmericanLawCafe

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

🎙️ Civil Procedure Spotlight: The Long Arm of the Law – How Courts Reach Out to Out-of-State Defendants

In this episode of American Law Café, we unpack long-arm statutes—the state laws that allow courts to “reach out” and assert personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, and the constitutional limits that stop them from going too far.

Here’s what we cover:

• Part 1 – What Are Long-Arm Statutes?
  State laws that let courts pull in defendants beyond their borders—but they can never extend further than the Constitution allows.
• Part 2 – Broad vs. Narrow Statutes:
  • In Tennessee and over half the states, the long-arm statute reaches to the full limits of due process—so the only question is whether jurisdiction is constitutional.
  • In other states, courts apply a two-step test: (1) does the statute authorize jurisdiction, and (2) does due process allow it?
• Part 3 – The Constitutional Limit (International Shoe):
  • Due process requires minimum contacts with the forum.
  • Contacts must be such that jurisdiction does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
  • Later cases refine this: World-Wide Volkswagen (foreseeability isn’t enough), Burger King (purposeful availment matters), Asahi (fairness can still defeat jurisdiction).
• Part 4 – Practical Lessons:
  • Long-arm statutes don’t apply if jurisdiction rests on presence (“tag”), consent, waiver, or general jurisdiction (“at home”).
  • Stream of commerce alone isn’t enough—courts require “something more” to show forum targeting.
  • Contracts can create strong jurisdictional ties when performance, communications, or payments occur in the forum.
  • Always analyze Purpose, Quantity, Nature, and Relatedness of contacts.

👉 Takeaway: Long-arm statutes are the gateway, but due process is the outer fence. In Tennessee, the two merge—if it’s constitutional under International Shoe, it’s good under the long-arm.

If you like this podcast, check out the American Law Café on YouTube for more law school–friendly breakdowns.

 #CivPro #LongArm #PersonalJurisdiction #CivilProcedure #LawSchool #BarPrep #AmericanLawCafe 

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

 🎙️ Civil Procedure Spotlight: Removal and Remand Explained - How Defendants Get From State to Federal Court

In this episode, we focus on the rules for removing a case from state to federal court—how defendants can transfer a lawsuit, and when they can’t.

Part 1 – What is Removal?

• Removal = a defendant’s power to shift a case from state court into federal court, if it could have been filed there originally.
• Plaintiffs pick the forum first, but defendants get a “second bite at the apple.”
• If removal is improper, plaintiffs can challenge it with a motion to remand.

Part 2 – Eligibility Rules (28 U.S.C. §1441)

• Only defendants can remove (never plaintiffs or third-party defendants).
• Federal court must have original jurisdiction:
  – Diversity example: TX plaintiff v. MD defendant, $1M at stake → removable.
  – Federal question example: A Title VII claim filed in state court → removable.
• Forum Defendant Rule: no removal on diversity grounds if any defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Mnemonic: “Home field, no removal.”
• Fraudulent Joinder: Courts may ignore sham defendants added just to block removal.
• Some cases (like FELA or workers’ comp) are non-removable by statute.

Part 3 – Removal Procedure (§1446)

• Must file a notice of removal (not a motion).
• Unanimity rule: all properly joined and served defendants must consent in writing.
• Timing:
  – 30 days after service to file.
  – Each later-served defendant gets their own 30 days.
  – Diversity removals barred after 1 year, unless plaintiff acted in bad faith.

Part 4 – Case Studies

• Avitts v. Amoco: vague references to “federal law” aren’t enough—case was remanded.
• Lincoln Property v. Roche: diversity jurisdiction looks only at named parties, not hypothetical affiliates.

Wrap-Up Takeaway
👉 Removal is a defendant’s tool, but it’s filled with technical traps. Timing, unanimity, and jurisdiction must all line up—or the case goes back to state court.

If you like this Podcast, check out the American Law Café on YouTube for more law school–friendly breakdowns.

#CivPro #Removal #CivilProcedure #LawSchool #BarPrep #AmericanLawCafe #Jurisdiction

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

🎙️ Podcast Summary – Presumptions in Evidence

In this episode of American Law Café, we unpack how the Federal Rules of Evidence deal with presumptions, focusing on the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) 301 and 302.

• FRE 301 – Presumptions in Civil Cases
  Presumptions shift the burden of producing evidence, but not the burden of persuasion. For example, if the law presumes a mailed letter was received, the other party must show it wasn’t—but the ultimate burden of persuasion stays with the original side. Think of it like a bursting bubble: once rebutted, the presumption disappears.
• FRE 302 – State Law Presumptions
  When a federal court applies state law to decide a civil case, it must also apply that state’s presumptions. This keeps outcomes consistent between state and federal courts, especially in diversity cases.
• Civil vs. Criminal Distinction
  Civil cases use many presumptions—like ownership, legitimacy of a child, or receipt of mail. Criminal cases, by contrast, are tightly limited because of due process. The presumption of innocence is the only true presumption. Other so-called presumptions are really just permissive inferences, giving jurors discretion rather than requiring conviction.
• Case Applications
  • Seavers v. Methodist Medical Center – Expanded res ipsa loquitur in medical malpractice, allowing expert testimony to help establish negligence.
  • State v. Sensing – Clarified that DUI breath test results create a permissive inference, not a mandatory presumption.
  • State v. Brown – Highlighted how Rules 103–106 work to preserve fairness, context, and appellate review in evidentiary disputes

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

🎙️ Podcast Post: Negligence and the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur

This episode unpacks the foundations of negligence law and explores the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur—a powerful but limited tool that lets juries infer negligence when accidents speak for themselves. We’ll walk through the burden of proof, special rules in Tennessee, and four landmark cases that show where the doctrine applies—and where it doesn’t.

Key Topics Covered:

• Negligence and Burden of Proof:
  • Preponderance of the evidence: tipping the scales ever so slightly.
  • Worker’s Comp: no need to prove negligence, but damages are capped.
  • Punitive damages: higher “clear and convincing” standard.
  • Presumptions in Tennessee: medical bills, repair bills, and the “rule of sevens” for children’s capacity.
  • Customs and industry standards: persuasive but not conclusive.
• Res Ipsa Loquitur Basics:
  • When the thing speaks for itself—no direct evidence required.
  • Three requirements: unusual event, exclusive control, and no fault by the plaintiff.
  • Always a permissible inference, never an automatic presumption.

Case Highlights:

• Boyatt v. Yancey (1987): No exclusive control—refueling accident barred res ipsa.
• Sullivan v. Crabtree (1953): Truck accident showed possible negligence, but the jury wasn’t required to infer it.
• Underwood v. HCA (1994): Injury from an ice machine cover was too speculative—no res ipsa.
• Seavers v. Methodist Med. Ctr. (1999): Expanded res ipsa in medical malpractice—expert testimony can substitute for common knowledge when patients are under exclusive medical care.

Main Takeaway:
Res ipsa loquitur is a narrow but vital doctrine that helps plaintiffs where negligence is the only reasonable explanation. It hinges on exclusive control and probability—not speculation—and always leaves the final call to the jury.

🎧 Tune in to learn how Tennessee courts apply this doctrine and what it means for negligence cases and exam prep alike!

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

🎙️ American Law Café

In this episode of American Law Café, we unpack three core justiciability doctrines—ripeness, mootness, and the political question doctrine. These doctrines don’t decide who wins or loses; instead, they determine whether courts can even hear the case. Rooted in Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement, they keep federal courts focused on real disputes at the right time, and steer them away from abstract disagreements or matters better left to the political branches.

🔑 Key Topics Covered:

Why Justiciability Matters

• Ensures courts only resolve live, concrete disputes.
• Protects separation of powers by leaving certain issues to Congress or the Executive.
• Acts as a constitutional “gatekeeper” for judicial review.

Ripeness – Too Soon?

• Prevents premature cases based on speculative harm.
• Two-part test: (1) Fitness of issues for judicial decision, and (2) Hardship of withholding review.
• Key Cases:
  • Poe v. Ullman (1961) – Not ripe.
  • Abbott Labs v. Gardner (1967) – Ripe.
  • Lake Carriers’ Ass’n v. MacMullan (1972) – Ripe.
  • SBA List v. Driehaus (2014) – Ripe.

Mootness – Too Late?

• A case is moot if it no longer presents a live controversy or meaningful relief.
• Exceptions:
  • Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review.
  • Class Actions.
  • Voluntary Cessation.
  • Collateral Consequences.
• Key Cases:
  • DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974) – Moot.
  • Norma Faye Pyles Lynch v. Putnam County (Tenn. 2009) – Not moot.

Political Question – Not for the Courts?

• Certain disputes are “textually committed” to political branches or lack judicial standards.
• Guided by the six Baker v. Carr factors:
  1. Textual Commitment – Is the issue explicitly assigned to another branch?
  2. Lack of Judicial Standards – Are there no manageable legal standards to decide the case?
  3. Policy Determination – Would the decision require a nonjudicial policy choice?
  4. Respect for Other Branches – Would ruling show a lack of respect for coordinate branches?
  5. Adherence to Political Decisions Already Made – Is there a strong need to defer to an existing political decision?
  6. Potential for Embarrassment – Would multiple branches issuing conflicting rulings cause confusion?
• Key Cases:
  • Baker v. Carr (1962) – Justiciable (malapportionment).
  • Powell v. McCormack (1969) – Justiciable (Congressional qualifications).
  • Nixon v. U.S. (1993) – Political question (impeachment).
  • Goldwater v. Carter (1979) – Political question (treaty termination).
  • Zivotofsky v. Clinton (2012) – Justiciable (statutory enforcement).
  • Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) – Political question (partisan gerrymandering).

📋 How to Analyze (Exam/Practice Checklist):

• Step 1: Ask: Is this case ripe, moot, or a political question?
• Step 2: For ripeness – has harm already occurred or is it imminent?
• Step 3: For mootness – is there still a live controversy, or does an exception apply?
• Step 4: For polit

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

In this episode of American Law Café, we unpack the evolution of personal jurisdiction—how courts decide where a defendant can be sued. Personal jurisdiction doesn’t decide who wins; it decides which court has the power to hear the case. You’ll get a clear walk-through from the old territorial rule to the modern minimum contacts framework, plus what “purposeful” conduct and fair play and substantial justice really mean in practice.

🔑 Key Topics Covered:

Why Personal Jurisdiction Matters

• Ensures fairness and notice to defendants and sets constitutional limits on a state court’s reach.
• Anchors litigation to places with a meaningful connection to the defendant’s conduct.

Core Framework Today

• Two flavors:
  • General jurisdiction: defendant is “at home” (can be sued for any claim).
  • Specific jurisdiction: the claim must arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum contacts.
• Two steps for specific jurisdiction:
  1. Purposeful availment (defendant deliberately connects with the forum), and
  2. Fair play & substantial justice (reasonableness).

The Historical Arc (Key Cases & Rules)

• Pennoyer v. Neff (1877): Strict territorial view—presence, property, or consent inside the forum.
• Hess v. Pawloski (1927): Implied consent for out-of-state motorists—driving in the state implies consent to suits from in-state accidents.
• International Shoe v. Washington (1945): The modern rule—“minimum contacts” plus fair play and substantial justice; physical presence not required if ties are sufficient and reasonable.
• McGee v. International Life Insurance Co. (1957): One purposeful contact can be enough when the claim directly arises from that contact and jurisdiction is fair.

How to Analyze a Problem (Exam/Practice Checklist)

• Identify the type of jurisdiction (general vs. specific).
• For specific:
  • What contacts did the defendant create with the forum? (ads, mailings, sales, contracts, services)
  • Did the claim arise out of or relate to those contacts?
  • Would exercising jurisdiction offend fair play and substantial justice? (burden on defendant, forum’s interest, efficiency, etc.)

🎧 Whether you’re a Law Student studying CivPro for the first time or brushing up before finals or the bar exam, this episode breaks down the principles, leading cases, and practical takeaways that shape personal jurisdiction today.

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305

In this episode of American Law Café, we unpack the rules of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 and why they’re central to subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts. Federal courts don’t hear every case—they only step in when Congress has given them power. That means understanding when a case “arises under” federal law is key. You’ll learn how the well-pleaded complaint rule keeps anticipated defenses and counterclaims out of federal court, why the Holmes Creation Test matters, and how courts handle state-law claims that hinge on federal issues.

🔑 Key Topics Covered:

• Creation Test: A case arises under federal law only if federal law itself creates the cause of action.
• Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule (Mottley): Federal issues must appear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.
• Embedded Federal Issues: When state claims require resolving substantial federal questions (e.g., Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust).
• Limits and Exceptions: Why Merrell Dow v. Thompson and Gunn v. Minton show the boundaries of federal question jurisdiction.
• Irrelevant Factors: Citizenship and amount in controversy don’t matter when §1331 is satisfied.

🎧 Whether you’re a 1L tackling CivPro or just curious how federal courts decide who gets through their doors, this episode walks you through the principles and cases that define federal question jurisdiction.

 Introductory Music for American Law Cafe. In Jazz Short by moodmode / Vlad Krotov. 

Support the show

🎶 Intro Music: "In Jazz Short" by moodmode / Vlad Krotov
📚 Content Created by Heather Mora
🎙️ Hosted on Buzzsprout: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2429305