Discussion
Resources
|
Show Posts
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.
1
General Board / Re: Today's MPRE« on: September 09, 2009, 04:21:03 PM »
I passed, too. I also felt as if I'd done poorly when I left the exam room. A couple of guys who had taken the bar exam the week before were in there for their second shot at the MPRE. Man, that would suck to have to take it a third time, and soon after receiving their bar results.
2
General Board / Re: To everyone taking the bar tomorrow…« on: July 28, 2009, 09:22:46 PM »
Yes, Matthies is definitely a class act, even if he does hate Admin Law.
 Good luck to all, especially to all the Cleveland-Marshall grads taking the bar in Columbus, Ohio this year. 3
General Board / Cell phone« on: May 08, 2009, 03:07:12 PM »
Ok, just asking to amuse myself....
How many of you DO NOT own and/or use a cell phone? I do not own or use a cell phone. I'm a land-line kinda girl, rotary dial preferable. Just taking a time out between finals and wanted to ask a silly question. 4
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Main difference between COMMERCE CLAUSE AND DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE« on: May 04, 2009, 03:16:45 PM »
CC-->In the text of the Constitution; express Congressional power to regulate commerce among the states.
DCC-->Not in text of Constitution; derived from Commerce Clause; does not directly involve Congress' authority to regulate commerce; is a power that the Court has read into the Commerce Clause to limit state and local governments from impeding interstate commerce. It is "an implicit restraint on state authority, even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute." United Haulers, Inc. v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority, 127 S.Ct. 1786 (2007). So, there are two theories for justification of the DCC: 1) Because the Commerce Clause is an express grant of power to Congress, state action respecting interstate commerce is foreclosed; and 2) Congress, by its silence, preempts state legislation because the presumption is that "Congressional inaction was equivalent to a declaration that interstate commerce shall be free and untrammelled." Welton v. Missouri, 91 U.S. 275 (1876). 5
General Board / Re: The Matthies Appreciation Thread« on: February 18, 2009, 08:44:42 AM »
I appreciate Matthies even though he hates Admin Law.
6
General Board / Re: How drunk are you going to get following your last final of the semester?« on: December 10, 2007, 08:24:24 PM »Scale of 1-10 Probably a 5, but at my age that'll be enough to qualify as alcohol poisoning. I'm thinking 7-7s or whiskey sours. Beer doesn't do much for me lately. 
7
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: rant, depressed« on: December 08, 2007, 01:17:49 PM »here goes the scenario. This reminds me of one of the many wrong answers I gave in Torts this semester. Only a slightly different twist: Hypo: Man in bar breaks beer bottle, threatens me menacingly from approximately 10-12 feet away. I had a gun. Prof asked if I had a duty to retreat? Dumbass me, I said yes because 1) in most states one cannot carry in permitted liquor premises, and 2) I have a concealed carry license, but would never carry in a bar and, therefore, would try to retreat if at all possible. Wrong. Prof said I could shoot because I could use deadly force as self-defense against deadly force. I guess it all hinged on whether or not someone menacingly waving a broken beer bottle at me from 10-12 feet constituted deadly force. But can I shoot him before he cuts me? Sigh...wonder how that would play in court, and if I could bring the prof in to testify for me..."I told her she didn't have a duty to retreat..." 
8
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Contracts Tips/Help« on: December 03, 2007, 10:18:47 AM »Hey ... considering that our Contracts prof is all over the place and everyone is feeling like "what?" now that exams are around the corner, I thought I'd ask for some assistance. I have a good lexis outline that I'm going to sort through and compare to my notes since it seems to follow our class pretty well, but I'm wondering if anyone has just a checklist to go through on exam hypos to make sure you're getting everything (or if there is one online). It must be the nature of Contracts profs to be "all over the place"--mine is, too. I went to a review session on Saturday, given by another section's K prof, and he organized his reveiw this way: What body of law is involved? UCC or common? Formation of K-->does K exist or not? 1) Offer and acceptance-->do they exist? a) Look at communications btw. parties: i) Offer, acceptance, counter-offer, revocation ii) Mirror-image rule, 2-207-->varying acceptance? Add./Diff. terms? iii) Option K? Restatement 87 or 2-205 iv) 2-204 and 2-206--> general principles to find K exists (goods) 2) What terms become part of K? 3) Consideration-->benefit/detriment and/or bargained-for-exchange a) Illusory promise b) Past consideration c) Indefiniteness 4) Bilateral and Unilateral Ks a) Classical approach (Petterson) b) Modern approach (Caldwell Banker, Restatement 32, 45) 5) Express, Promissory Estoppel, Implied-in-fact, Implied-in-law Statute of Frauds 1) Does it apply? a) UCC 2-201--> >$500, signed writing (sufficient? exceptions? linkage of series of writings?), quantity? i) (2)Btw. merchants? ii) (3)(c) goods or payment received/accepted? b) Restatement 110-->1-yr. rule, realty Interpretation 1) Contra-preferendum, Restatement 206 2) Restatement 201(2)-->interpreted against party with superior knowledge 3) Canons of Construction 4) Frigaliment case a) Does Ct. determine K is ambiguous? (considers evidence--> not about parol evidence) b) "Plain-meaning" c) Corbin's rule d) Is term reasonably susceptible to perferred meaning? 5) Course of performance, course of dealings, trade usage-->can add to agreement (UCC) 6) Parol Evidence Rule a) Integration? (total or partial?) No? PER doesn't apply. b) Is one party trying to introduce other terms? If so, do they: i) Contradict? Prohibited if total or partial ii) Supplement? Possible with total or partial iii) Interpret? Permissible with total or partial c) Merger clause?-->Restatement 210(b) says "evidence" of total integration d) 4-corners approach e) Any exceptions to PER? Implied terms and Good Faith 1) Implied terms that save K 2) Implied covenant in good faith and fair dealing Promissory Estoppel 1) Detrimental reliance on promise/assurances? 2) Must meet all elements for reliance damages Restitution 1) Any benefit received with knowledge or consent? Promissory restitution/Material benefit 1) Any promise after benefit conferred? 2) Material benefit rule I probably missed some stuff, but I'm just a know-nothing 1L. 9
General Board / Re: Gunners firing blanks?« on: September 19, 2007, 11:33:02 PM »It's great if you don't care about what other people think of you, but you will be working with or for these people some day, or possibly need a referral. Don't sour your reputation now. Maybe it's because I've left the fire service, or just because I recognized the value of the above statements before I started law school, but I'm being nicer to people now than I ever have been. Not suck-up nice, just a little more respectful and cooperative. It's worth it, too...a classmate backed me up in Torts the other day, telling the prof my recitation of a disputed fact was correct. He didn't have to do that, and I damn sure thanked him after class. On a related note...soon after the bridge collapse in Minneapolis I found the mission statement for the MFD online. It read: "Be Safe. Be Nice. Be Prepared." We would all do well to remember that mantra for our three years of law school. (I'm guessing the "be safe" part could speak to moderation in all of the fun activities in which law students like to engage... )
10
2L job search / Re: Your Worst Interview« on: September 17, 2007, 10:02:16 AM »I got asked what I thought of Florida football fans. I said they were obnoxious and that Spurrier was a prick. Interviewed in Columbus, OH?
|
