Also known as: special rules
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A rule applicable only to a particular case or circumstance rather than to a class of cases in general.
Solstice Ventures granted a covenant restricting development on land conveyed to Stonehaven Properties. The parties later disputed whether the covenant fell under the general rules for servitudes. Because the covenant appeared in a lease, a special rule removed it from the scope of the applicable restatement.
State legislators enacted a statute targeting only one named individual for punishment without trial. The individual challenged the statute as violating due process. The court held that due process demands general rules rather than a special rule aimed at a particular person or case.
Joseph Hurtado was charged by an information filed in the Superior Court of Sacramento County with the murder of Jose Antonio Estuardo. The information was in the usual form and charged the crime with technical precision and in due legal language. It was filed after the defendant had been examined and committed by a magistrate, as required by the statute. The Constitution of California, adopted in 1879, provides that offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment. The Penal Code of the State, adopted in 1872 and in force at the time, contained provisions authorizing every person to be proceeded against criminally by indictment or by information, and specifying that an information is an accusation in writing presented by the district attorney after preliminary examination or waiver. Hurtado moved to set aside the information on the ground that it was not found or presented by a grand jury. The motion was overruled. He was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and judgment was pronounced sentencing him to be hanged. From this judgment Hurtado appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of California, which affirmed it. He then sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.
View caseSophia Singh challenged a statute that might chill protected speech of third parties even though it did not directly affect her. The court applied a special rule allowing overbreadth claims in First Amendment cases. This exception departed from the usual rule that a litigant may not assert the rights of others.
After admission to the bar in 1972, appellants worked as attorneys with the Maricopa County Legal Aid Society. In March 1974, they left the Society and opened a law office in Phoenix that they called a legal clinic. Their aim was to provide legal services at modest fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for governmental legal aid by accepting only routine matters such as uncontested divorces, uncontested adoptions, simple personal bankruptcies, and changes of name. To keep costs down, they relied on extensive use of paralegals, automatic typewriting equipment, and standardized forms and office procedures. After conducting their practice in this manner for two years, they concluded that advertising, and in particular the advertising of fees, was necessary to generate the volume of business required for the clinic to survive. On February 22, 1976, they placed an advertisement in the Arizona Republic, a daily newspaper of general circulation in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The advertisement stated that appellants were offering legal services at very reasonable fees. It listed exact prices for the services, including $175 plus a $20 filing fee for an uncontested divorce or legal separation, $225 plus a $20 filing fee for an uncontested adoption, $250 plus a $55 filing fee for a non-business bankruptcy, and $95 plus a $20 filing fee for a change of name, with personal injury cases handled on a contingent fee basis. Upon the filing of a complaint initiated by the president of the State Bar, a hearing was held before a three-member Special Local Administrative Committee. The committee recommended that each of the appellants be suspended from the practice of law for not less than six months. Upon further review by the Board of Governors of the State Bar, the Board recommended only a one-week suspension for each appellant, the weeks to run consecutively. Appellants sought review in the Supreme Court of Arizona. The court rejected both their Sherman Act and First Amendment claims, concluded that the conduct violated the disciplinary rule, and imposed a sanction of censure. Appellants then appealed to this Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
View caseSeveral groups filed challenges to a new campaign finance statute immediately after its enactment. Section 403 of the statute directed all such suits to a three-judge district court with expedited procedures. The court followed the special rule requiring prompt advancement and resolution of the cases.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the Communications Act of 1934, and other statutes to address the role of soft money and issue advocacy in federal elections. Plaintiffs included a diverse group of entities and individuals such as the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union who alleged that BCRA was unconstitutional. Defendants included the Federal Election Commission and the Attorney General of the United States. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and heard by a three-judge panel pursuant to special procedures in BCRA Section 403. The District Court received a voluminous record from the parties and issued a judgment on May 1, 2003, that upheld some provisions of BCRA and invalidated others. All losing parties filed direct appeals to the Supreme Court within ten days, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction on June 5, 2003, ordering expedited briefing and argument on September 8, 2003. More than a century of federal legislation preceded BCRA, beginning with the Tillman Act of 1907 that banned corporate contributions in connection with federal elections. Congress later extended prohibitions to unions, required disclosure of contributions and expenditures, and enacted FECA in 1971 with further amendments in 1974 that imposed contribution limits, expenditure ceilings, and created the FEC. The Supreme Court addressed constitutional challenges to the 1974 amendments in Buckley v. Valeo. After Buckley, the FEC permitted political parties to fund mixed-purpose activities such as voter registration and generic advertising in part with soft money not subject to FECA's source and amount limits. Soft-money fundraising by the national parties grew from $21.6 million in 1984 to $498 million in 2000, with large corporate and union donations often motivated by a desire for access to federal candidates. National parties transferred substantial soft money to state parties, which could use higher percentages for mixed activities under FEC allocation rules. The use of soft money also supported so-called issue ads that avoided express advocacy of a candidate's election or defeat and therefore fell outside FECA's disclosure and source restrictions. These ads frequently aired in the 60 days before federal elections, referred to clearly identified candidates, and were funded by corporations, unions, and tax-exempt organizations using misleading names. A Senate investigation into 1996 federal election practices documented both parties' use of soft money to obtain special access for large donors and the coordination of issue ads with candidates. The District Court compiled extensive evidence from declarations, expert reports, and internal party documents showing that federal officeholders solicited soft-money donations, that parties maintained tallies crediting donors to particular candidates, and that large soft-money contributions were often made to secure influence rather than for ideological reasons.
View caseA state statute imposed special responsibilities on married women that limited their independent legal capacity. The court noted that these rules flowed from an older understanding of family hierarchy. The special rule persisted in some jurisdictions despite broader constitutional changes.
The Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, as amended in 1988 and 1989, established several requirements governing the performance of abortions within the Commonwealth. The Act required a woman seeking an abortion to provide informed consent after receiving specific information from a physician or counselor at least twenty-four hours before the procedure. It mandated that a minor obtain the informed consent of one parent, subject to a judicial bypass option. It further required a married woman to sign a statement confirming that she had notified her husband of her planned abortion, unless certain exceptions applied. The Act also imposed reporting obligations on facilities providing abortion services and defined a medical emergency exception to the various requirements. Before any of these provisions took effect, the petitioners brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The petitioners were five abortion clinics and one physician representing himself as well as a class of physicians who provide abortion services. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged each provision as unconstitutional on its face. The District Court entered a preliminary injunction. After conducting a three-day bench trial, the District Court held all the provisions unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement by Pennsylvania. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. It adopted the District Court's factual findings and legal analysis except with respect to the spousal notification requirement. The Court of Appeals upheld the spousal notification requirement as constitutional and applied the undue burden standard in evaluating the provisions. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the constitutionality of the challenged provisions of the Pennsylvania statute.
View caseSebastian Santos sought to avoid an arbitration clause containing a class-action waiver under state unconscionability doctrine. The court refused to apply a special rule that singled out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment. General contract principles therefore governed the enforceability question.
In February 2002, Vincent and Liza Concepcion entered into an agreement for the sale and servicing of cellular telephones with AT&T Mobility LLC. The contract provided for arbitration of all disputes between the parties but required that claims be brought in the parties' individual capacity and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding. The agreement authorized AT&T to make unilateral amendments, which it did to the arbitration provision on several occasions. The parties agree that the December 2006 revisions control. The revised agreement requires customers to complete a one-page Notice of Dispute form. It allows AT&T to offer settlement. It provides that AT&T must pay all costs for nonfrivolous claims. Arbitration must take place in the county where the customer is billed. For claims of $10,000 or less, the customer may choose in-person, telephone, or submission-based proceedings. The agreement preserves the right to bring claims in small claims court. It requires AT&T to pay a $7,500 minimum recovery plus twice the claimant's attorney's fees if the arbitration award exceeds AT&T's last written settlement offer. The Concepcions purchased AT&T service advertised as including free phones but were charged $30.22 in sales tax based on the phones' retail value. In March 2006, the Concepcions filed a complaint against AT&T in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Their suit was consolidated with a putative class action alleging that AT&T had engaged in false advertising and fraud by charging sales tax on phones it advertised as free. In March 2008, AT&T moved to compel arbitration under the terms of its contract with the Concepcions. The Concepcions opposed the motion on the ground that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable under California law because it disallowed classwide procedures. The District Court denied AT&T's motion. It described the arbitration agreement favorably in several respects. Nevertheless, the court found the provision unconscionable under the California Supreme Court's Discover Bank decision because AT&T had not shown that bilateral arbitration adequately substituted for the deterrent effects of class actions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. It also found the provision unconscionable under California law as announced in Discover Bank. The court held that the Discover Bank rule was not preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act because the rule was simply a refinement of the unconscionability analysis applicable to contracts generally in California. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseA special rule applies only to a particular case or circumstance. A general rule applies to a class of cases or circumstances. The distinction appears in both procedural and substantive contexts.
A court may apply a special rule when the facts present a circumstance that the general rule does not adequately address. Examples include certain First Amendment overbreadth claims and statutory provisions for expedited review of constitutional challenges.
Supporting sources
Due process requires that law operate as a general rule rather than a special rule for a particular person or case. A statute that singles out one individual for punishment without trial violates this requirement.
Supporting sources
States may not adopt special rules that single out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment. General contract principles of unconscionability must apply equally to arbitration and non-arbitration contracts.
Supporting sources