This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - iracafella
« on: January 19, 2012, 03:00:39 AM »
this sounds like something that would be small claims kind of issue, if not international of course. Anyway, it sounds like the restaurant was saying things, that the chef reasonably relied upon. The fact that the offer was made, and the restaurant knew he was in thailand, but still kept speaking with him, negotiated visa payments and living arrangements, accepted a payment (knowing where this was going) and followed up a second time to get more money (strengthening the belief the chef had of thinking this was leading to a job). Although there was no express promise, the circumstances are pretty strong in the chef's favor, though not all the way. I would bet that a judge would decide that much of the chefs money would be returned, not on fraud grounds though. There was a lot implied and constructively shown to the chef, the restaurant knew what they were doing. I would vote that perhaps some money would be kept for the restaurant if it was honestly true that paperwork was burdensome and costly, but only enough to cover that to the T. And I should also state, that under your facts, it is certainly a FACT that the restaurant never said "well we have to charge for this process, but we can't guarantee a job at this time." Now that is a very powerful fact, that is what SHOULD have been said, and it is their responsibility to say that one way or another (a judge might say). It is reasonable to say that, and unreasonable not to.
« on: January 19, 2012, 02:48:27 AM »
I've heard that there are also other places online where a person can download free ebooks
« on: January 11, 2012, 03:24:45 AM »
wait... so what is the answer ?
« on: January 11, 2012, 03:22:13 AM »
« on: December 31, 2011, 05:52:22 PM »
okay, after some more research I conclude the following: yes your initial post seems on the dot correct to me. If compulsory, and SMJ was fine in the first place on the reliance on Fed Law, then there is no problem to what your answer was. The 75k for the other countersuing would not matter if compulsory. But is it possible in that hypo, that the 75k part was permissive, and the other counterclaim was compulsory? Exchange nat'l bank of chicago v. abramson, D.C. Minn 1968, 45 F.R.D. 97, says that even if the amount for the 75k was not enough and dismissed for the amount in controversy, that would not stop a counterclaim against that person if other factors were fine. so I think u are totally right, in other words. every thing u said in your answer covers all the bases. So yea, as long as the Fed claim was strong enough to not be substantially predominated by the state claim, then all other dominoes falling are perfectly fine as u said.
« on: December 31, 2011, 05:30:02 PM »
julie, u have posted 26 thousand times. Are u actually a female, and if so, can u post pictures please
« on: December 30, 2011, 07:05:14 PM »
Erie doctrine (eer-ee). (1943) The principle that a federal
court exercising diversity jurisdiction over a case that
does not involve a federal question must apply the substantive
law ofthe state where the court sits. Erie R.R. v.
Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938). Cf. REVERSE
ERIE DOCTRINE. [Cases: Federal Courts (;:::>373.]
aggregation doctrine. (1942) 1. The rule that precludes a
party from totaling all claims for purposes ofmeeting
the minimum amount necessary to give rise to federal
diversity jurisdiction under the amount-in-controversy
reqUirement. See diversity jurisdiction under JURISDICTION;
AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. [Cases: Federal
Courts C=>344.] 2. Constitutional law. A rule that
allows Congress, under its Commerce Clause powers,
to regulate purely private acts, such as growing wheat
for one's own consumption, if the consequences of
many such acts, taken together, would have an effect on
interstate commerce. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S.
lll, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942). [Cases: Commerce C=>7(2).]
aggregation of claims. Patents. In a patent application,
an excessive number of claims that do not differ significantly
in scope and are essentially duplicative .•
Although a patent applicant may claim an invention
and its various features in a reasonable number ofways,
each claim must differ materially from the others.
Also termed multiplicity ofclaims;
also look at diversity and jurisdictional amount - suing for 75grand may be not allowed if u can prove that the amount would not actually end in 75 or more.
Just keep researching. ill be back in a 6 hours and help more.
pendant and ancillary jurisdiction also
« on: December 30, 2011, 06:53:52 PM »
Yea I kind of feel like we didn't get the whole story yet. So, if the A, b, and c, people are sueing D over a state law matter, but are going to rely on a federal COA, are they doing this strategically, like a potemkin? Couldn't this be an issue if the state claims substantially predominate the federal ones?
But from what you did say, I am leaning toward No, as my answer. But what is the countersuing about? like what specifically? And, is this a trick question, because isn't the law more concerned with interstate taxation of goods and services, than what can be sold between states. and I kind of think it is a trick because it has a kink in the gears, when it says "they are suing FOR (because of) a state law matter". So that is what they are standing up for, but their strategy of relying on a fed claim, may still be allowable if the fed claim is valid and meritorious. But the way that the question leads off into saying countersuing without saying for what, makes me think that there was a catch, earlier on. But please tell us a little more, this is interesting. But if I had to choose, I would say no, under your current facts.
« on: December 28, 2011, 04:34:49 PM »
The only thing you want if you hope to work in the law, is a high class rank from the best school you can get into. Most other factors will be negligible at best. Though, if you hope to work in IP law, a master's in engineering (especially EE) is a big plus.
I agree to an extent, Mr. Falcon, but I think there is more to that story. On one hand, yea law school teaches you what you need to know to be a lawyer, all else before that may help, but it is not a game-breaker. Only a minority of professions in law would be helped by having a masters in something. BUT, if you want one of those professions, like mr. falcon said, then that is good and go for it. BUT, there is one other thing: if you become a lawyer, your prior history of masters degrees or previous accomplishments will matter for a few reasons: 1 is that if you were a private attorney, the laypeople of the world search for lawyers, and may be dramatically impressed by someone with a masters in a field that is relevant to what they want a lawyer for. The average layman may pick you, due to your credentials, even though fellow law people like on this site may see it is not being a game-breaker. 2 is that if your law career involves any factor of clout, like working for a state's attorney general office, then more notches on your belt will open more doors. A lot of times, a judge or attorney will excel past others in law professions, and any one can notice that they also have a masters, or good political/career experience, etc. So there are many factors, but generally, I think you are on the right track. But do investigate the LSAT to see if your study period is adequate to score what you want to score. The law school u go to, or your GPA there, are just one of many factors that will define what happens afterward, IMO
« on: December 28, 2011, 02:25:27 AM »
I was one of those people who scored low on the LSAT the first time, then worked extremely hard for the next go-round. Let me tell you, the LSAT is beyond any test you have faced. GMAT, LSAT, and MCAT are 3 big tests, but each one unique. The LSAT is notorious for taking a looooong time to prepare for. I don't ever tell people to work their brains out for it, but only to taaaake their tiiime. That was my big mistake, I underestimated it, then rushed it. It tests things that take a while to learn. I just want u to think of that as your main thing right now, one thing at a time.