University of Minnesota. in Minnesota Law Schools
University of Minnesota Law School
Below is a focused, law-school–style overview of the University of Minnesota Law School (what it is, how it teaches, strengths), followed by short, carefully written case-briefs for landmark cases commonly taught in U.S. law schools (useful in courses at Minnesota and other law schools). I’ve kept everything self-contained and included the classic cases you’ll see across first-year and upper-level courses.
Quick institutional snapshot (concise)
Public flagship law school of the University of Minnesota system located in the Twin Cities.
Typical offerings: J.D. program (standard 1L core + upper-level electives), LL.M. and graduate programs, clinics/externships, joint degrees (e.g., J.D./M.B.A., J.D./M.P.H.), and law-related interdisciplinary work with other University departments.
Pedagogy: Socratic classroom for doctrinal courses; heavy emphasis on case-reading and briefing, legal writing, and experiential learning (clinics, simulation courses, externships, litigation and transactional clinics).
Career focus: mix of public interest, government, judicial clerkships, private law firms, and in-house roles — with a strong local/regional placement network in the Upper Midwest.
How the school uses case law in instruction
1L doctrinal method: students read appellate opinions closely, brief facts/issue/rule/reasoning (IRAC), and discuss policy and limits of holdings.
Skills integration: clinics and simulations force students to apply cases to client problems (e.g., using Miranda/Gideon in criminal clinic strategy or Erie/International Shoe when planning federal litigation strategy).
Research & writing: students cite, distinguish, and synthesize case law to craft briefs and memos; legal scholarship at the school studies doctrinal change through cases.
Assessment: exams often present a hypothetical fact pattern; success depends on identifying the controlling case law and applying its rule to new facts.
Selected landmark cases (briefs you’ll commonly see in courses)
For each case: Facts · Issue · Holding/Rule · Reasoning (brief) · Why it matters / classroom use
1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)
Facts: William Marbury’s commission as justice of the peace was withheld; he petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Issue: Can the Supreme Court issue a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of a commission, and does the Court have authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional?
Holding/Rule: The Court held it could not issue the writ under the Judiciary Act’s expanded original-jurisdiction grant because that portion of the Act conflicted with the Constitution. The Court announced the power of judicial review.
Reasoning: Chief Justice Marshall framed the judiciary’s role as saying what the law is; when an act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails.
Why it matters: Establishes judicial review — core to constitutional law and to questions about separation of powers.
2. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
Facts: Maryland attempted to tax the Second Bank of the United States; the Bank refused to pay.
Issue: Can Congress create a national bank under the Constitution, and may a state tax a federal instrument?
Holding/Rule: Congress has implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause; states may not tax federal institutions in a way that interferes with federal functions.
Reasoning: A broad reading of federal powers is required to effectuate constitutional ends; “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Why it matters: Key precedent on federal supremacy and implied powers—frequently discussed in federalism and constitutional courses.
3. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Facts: Segregated public schools under “separate but equal” were challenged.
Issue: Does state-sponsored segregation in public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding/Rule: Segregation of public schools is unconstitutional because “separate” facilities are inherently unequal in the context of public education.
Reasoning: Examines equality, effects of segregation on children, and the role of public education in society.
Why it matters: Foundational equal-protection and civil-rights decision — used in constitutional law and civil rights courses.
4. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Facts: Statements obtained during custodial interrogation without warnings were used at trial.
Issue: Are statements obtained during custodial interrogation admissible without procedural safeguards to protect the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
Holding/Rule: Statements are generally inadmissible unless suspects are informed of rights to remain silent and to counsel (Miranda warnings).
Reasoning: Protects the Fifth Amendment privilege by requiring procedural prophylaxis in custodial settings.
Why it matters: Central to criminal procedure and clinical practice in criminal law clinics.
5. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Facts: Gideon, indigent and charged with felony, was denied appointed counsel under state law and convicted after self-representation.
Issue: Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel apply to states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Holding/Rule: Yes — states must provide counsel to indigent defendants in felony cases.
Reasoning: A fair trial requires counsel; without counsel the adversarial system fails to function properly for indigents.
Why it matters: Cornerstone of criminal-justice teaching and public-defense clinics.
6. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
Facts: A man boarding a train caused a package to fall; it exploded and caused scales to fall, injuring the plaintiff at the other end of the platform.
Issue: Is the defendant liable for the plaintiff’s injuries as a result of negligence toward a third party?
Holding/Rule: Liability for negligence depends on whether the harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence to a person in the plaintiff’s position — proximate cause limits duty.
Reasoning: Cardozo emphasized foreseeability and duty — negligence requires a relation between defendant and plaintiff such that duty exists.
Why it matters: Teaches proximate cause and limits of negligence liability in torts classes.
7. Hadley v. Baxendale (Court of Exchequer, 1854)
Facts: Delay in returning a mill shaft resulted in lost profits for the mill owner; claimant sought damages for those lost profits.
Issue: What damages are recoverable for breach of contract?
Holding/Rule: Recoverable damages are those that arise naturally from the breach or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties at contract formation (foreseeability test).
Reasoning: Limits unforeseeable, extraordinary losses unless the other party knew of them when contracting.
Why it matters: Fundamental rule on contract damages and foreseeability used in contract classes.
8. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)
Facts: The State of Washington sought to impose unemployment contributions on an out-of-state corporation.
Issue: When does a court have personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant?
Holding/Rule: Due process requires that a defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum so that asserting jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
Reasoning: Replaced rigid presence tests with a flexible standard focused on fairness and connection.
Why it matters: Bedrock of civil procedure and jurisdiction doctrine.
9. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)
Facts: A plaintiff injured by a train in a diversity case faced inconsistent federal common-law rules.
Issue: Should federal courts sitting in diversity apply federal general common law or state substantive law?
Holding/Rule: Federal courts must apply state substantive law in diversity cases; there is no general federal common law.
Reasoning: Promotes equality between state and federal fora and respects state law.
Why it matters: Central to conflict-of-laws and civil procedure teaching.
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
Facts: Plaintiffs alleged birth defects from exposure to a drug; trial courts admitted expert scientific testimony under prior standards.
Issue: What standard should trial courts use to admit expert scientific testimony?
Holding/Rule: Federal trial judges must act as gatekeepers and evaluate the scientific validity and relevance of proffered expert testimony (Daubert factors).
Reasoning: Reliability and relevance rather than mere general acceptance.
Why it matters: Evidence doctrine — affects expert testimony strategy in both litigation and clinic practice.
11. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)
Facts: A dispute over interpretation of a statute administered by an agency.
Issue: When a statute is ambiguous and an agency has issued an interpretation, how should courts review the agency’s interpretation?
Holding/Rule: If Congress has not directly addressed the precise question and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, courts defer to the agency (the “Chevron” two-step).
Reasoning: Recognizes agencies’ policymaking/technical expertise in ambiguous statutory gaps.
Why it matters: Core in administrative law; impacts litigation strategy involving regulatory agencies.
12. Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)) & Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (597 U.S. ___ (2022)) — doctrinal change example
Facts/Context: Roe recognized a constitutional right to choose abortion; Dobbs later held the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning regulation to the states.
Why it matters: Demonstrates how constitutional doctrines can be reinterpreted and how case law evolution affects federalism, rights litigation, and clinic practice in fields like reproductive health law.
Putting these cases into practice (class / clinic exercises)
Doctrinal problem: Given a fact pattern that raises Miranda and Gideon issues, students must structure a pretrial motion excluding statements and argue whether counsel should be appointed.
Clinic task: Use International Shoe and Erie to advise whether a client can be sued in federal court and what law will govern.
Research assignment: Trace the doctrinal path from Marbury to modern judicial review challenges — identify constraints and policy arguments.
How I can tailor this next
If you’d like, I can:
Produce longer, course-style case briefs for any of the above (expanded facts, full holdings, citations, and arguments for/against).
Prepare a sample 1L exam question applying several of the listed cases with a model answer in IRAC form.
Create a focused brief on Minnesota-specific case law or cases involving the University of Minnesota (e.g., cases decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court that are frequently taught)—note: that would require naming specific Minnesota cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments