Student Blog: Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co.

April 22, 2008

I found an article about two law school students who uncovered the political story behind a case called Rockingham County v. Luten Bridge Co. that took place in the 1920s. Please see the following: http://www.law.duke.edu/magazine/2005spring/features/filling.html and http://www.audiocasefiles.com/cases/detail/case/8510/
I am left curious about several details. We are told that Rockingham County was partially populated by farmers who were strongly against the use of their tax money for building the bridge. Yet three county commissioners, who originally had the farmers’ interests at heart, voted for the bridge because they were enamored with rich bridge proponent Frank Mebane. Then after the vote (and a sequence of events explained in the article) the three formed what they considered their own board of commissioners and encouraged Luten Bridge Co. to continue building the bridge, while the “other” three commissioners tried to rescind the contract. The bridge company ended up suing for the cost of building the bridge.
I would like more background behind the basis for the district court’s position that Pruitt, Pratt and McCollum’s answer was the board’s official answer despite the fact that (1) it wasn’t submitted as such, (2) Pruitt’s status as commissioner was questionable since he had resigned and been replaced, and (3) the fact that even if Pruitt was considered a commissioner at the time, their answer was not an action that took place at a legal meeting; it took place behind the backs of the other two (or three) commissioners. Also, how could the court be so adamantly convinced of the plaintiff’s claim that it would instruct the jury to rule in favor of the plaintiff and award them the full cost of the bridge’s construction?
Apparently, the district court judge who originally heard the case was “on the same side as” Pruitt, Pratt, and McCollum – a more or less an underground coalition, from what I understand. And Luten Bridge Co. placed its trust in this coalition; there must have been some sign or other that they wielded the power.
In the appellate court decision, the reasoning of the circuit judge seems indisputable; it seems clear that Hampton, Martin and Barber occupied the positions of county commissioners – and that the actions of the other the three men did not qualify. It seems plain on paper, but what was it like in real life? How could the district court judge not foresee that it would be appealed and reversed? I’d like to know who the other players were in the scheming and what the newspapers were saying at the time. This story might make a good documentary.
My next question is this: On what basis did Hampton, Martin and Barber claim that the contract was not valid and legal? Did they feel they could repudiate the contract because it had been formed in a corrupt environment? Did they simply believe they could repudiate the contract now that a quorum was against it? Were they going on the assumption that counties were not accountable for agreements they made with private parties? The article indicates that this case was a landmark decision regarding this issue. I’d be interested in hearing anecdotes of contracts made by county governments previous to this case that were not legally binding.
Because the outcome of this case (that county governments are not exempt from contractual obligations) was quite important for the progression of industrialization, the researchers seem amazed that this case is used instead to illustrate the duty to mitigate damages; however, I think it illustrates this legal concept quite nicely. Maybe it’s a nice example because we think of government as having power that private citizens and companies cannot fight, yet ultimately, the county was not able to avoid suffering the consequences that private contracting parties face in such circumstances, even when there was possible corruption and a lot of conflict taking place among the governing body and its population.

-Kathy Recchiuti

Posted by ajcontiguglia
Filed in Uncategorized
No Comments »

The Hyprocracy of Law?

April 14, 2008

This post might well be more suited for my law partner, but I thought it was too important to pass up. There might be some overlap in the the matters I practice and the matters I comment on. But all in all, I thought this had to be brought to everyone’s attention.

I have commented in the past on issues about the clash between multi-media and criminal prosecutions. There are the comments about first amendment rights, use of the internet and how sometimes those freedoms we hold so dear to ourselves get kicked around by the government. Now, according to this recent AP story, I haven’t seen any criminal prosecutions coming out of the teens’ actions, but I do know that a prosecution for this action is not unprecedented.

The Associated Press recently ran a story about teenagers sending x-rated pictures of themselves on their cell phones to their friends. According to the story “The instant text, picture and video messages have become part of some teens’ courtship behavior, police and school officials said. The messages often spread quickly and sometimes find their way to public Web sites.” (Source).

So, according to this article, this is happening a lot. And both boys and girls are getting in on the action.
“For instance, a central Ohio high school teen made a sexual cell phone video of himself and sent it to female classmates. One of the girls forward the Westerville South High School’s video to at least 30 other people.” (Source).

So, where is the hypocracy you ask? There is nothing in the law that prohibits teen agers from engaging in consensual sexual contact with one another, so long as they are within the age limitations set by various state laws. In Colorado, if one of the participants is under the age of 15, the other participant cannot be more than 5 years older. And, if both participants are 15 to 17 years old, there are no legal issues, again, consent assumed. (Tough being a lawyer sometimes … have to qualify everything). So, with that precedent established, it is acceptable for those teens to engage in sexual endeavors with one another. BUT, if a photograph is taken, whether the person takes it him or herself, or if another teen takes the picture, the crime of child pornography, or sexual exploitation of a child has occurred — regardless of consent, infatuation or love.

In fact, this occurred in Douglas County Colorado, in one of the fastest growing communities in the country, Highlands Ranch. A group of high school students got together for a party and a “sex fest” (for lack of a better term) broke out. The students took pictures of themselves engaged in various sexual acts. They were all prosecuted for sexual exploitation of a child because of the sexual photos.

As the AP story indicates, “a study last year found teens are placing more of an emphasis on image and fame than in the past. Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University who studies young people’s trends, found that teens are more confident and assertive than ever before.” Image and Fame? Teens finding ways to express themselves? Expression? Isn’t that what we adults call constitutionally protected speech? Are we saying that teens don’t have the same constitutional rights as adults do to express themselves? Shouldn’t a teenager have the same right to expression? Or, do we follow the thoughts of Candice Kelsey, a teacher from California and author of Generation MySpace: Helping Your Teen Survive Online Adolescence, that “Adolescents are not known for thinking things through - that’s a generational constant.” (Source). Because of this, instead, perhaps we need to pull back on the reigns of teenage expression to keep the wagon from running amok and over a cliff.

Posted by ajcontiguglia
Filed in First Amendment
7 Comments »