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.
Topics - mutual_biscuit
« on: December 03, 2008, 04:18:44 PM »
Does finding contraband that is not within the scope of the original search expand the scope of the original search?
#A) Legitimate warrant to search a home for stolen coins. During searh, and in plain view, the police find evidence of bomb making. Has the scope of the original search been extended to areas that might contain bomb-making materials or would a warrant to search for this new contraband be required? I'm pretty sure that since it's a residence and since they already have control of the residence a new warrant would be required absent some emergency need to search.
#B) The police pull a car over for speeding and in the process they see a joint (marijuana cigarette) sitting in the ashtray. They arrest and search the interior of the car for further marijuana evidence and under the seat they find an expertly packaged kilo of cocaine under the seat. Does finding the kilo expand the search to the trunk and upholstery given the fact that he may be transporting drugs as opposed to a minor offender. Given the fact that it's an automobile I think the probable cause can expand the scope of the original search to the trunk and upholstery absent a warrant.
What do you think?
« on: November 20, 2008, 10:45:36 PM »
Anyone have a good source for an evidence checklist. Nothing too detailed, I just want a basic flowchart type thing that will help me put the rules some sort of logical order because, as of now, I've just got a bunch of f-ing rules with no order and everyone knows that rules don't mean anything without order because when there's no order there's anarchy and when there's anarchy there are no rules.
« on: July 29, 2008, 01:56:47 PM »
Here's the low-down on a real life problem that I (or nobody else) cant seem to find a solution for. This is a very brief overview and I must necessarily withhold many of the details. The firm I am interning for this summer represents a number of labor unions. One of the unions we represent (Sheet Metal Workers) is losing work because a competing union (Carpenters) is putting the work traditionally performed by sheet metal workers into their contracts with the general contractors on jobsites. The sheet metal workers have the same work assignments in their contracts, however, the sheet metal workers have their contract with subcontractors as opposed to the carpenters union who has a direct contract with the General Contractor. The Carpenters Union is doing the same thing to other trade unions and they basically have a right to do it because the carpenters are generally the first people on a jobsite and they get the contract with the GC. If the General Contractor or subcontractor assigns any of the work to the sheet metal workers the carpenters will leave the site or impose fines on the GC.
THEORY 1: Restraint of Trade/Antitrust - Traditionally this would probably amount to restraint of trade, however, the National Labor Relations Act grants labor unions immunity from antitrust actions so long as the action takes place in the context of a collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the Carpenter's Union are free to contract whatever the hell they want so long as it's in the context of a collective bargaining agreement.
THEORY 2: Intentional Interference with Contract - Reverts back to the problem above. The carpenters union has a right to interfere with the contract so long as their interference is based on a "good faith" belief that they have a rightful claim to the work. Since it is in the context of a collective bargaining theory they do have a rightful claim to the work.
These are the two main theories I have explored and neither would be successful. Any thoughts or ideas on other legal theories that might be successful, keeping in mind that there is probably an labor exception for theories that might normally be successful in this situation.
« on: May 12, 2008, 12:05:46 PM »
O transfers Blackacre to A who does not record. O transfers Blackacre to B who does record. B is the rightful owner. My question is this: What cause of action does A have against O?
I know he doesn't have any action under a covenant of quiet enjoyment because that only warrants against claims that would arise from acts that occurred prior to the grant from O to A. Is there a cause of action under a covenant of general warranty or is the same true in that it only protects against claims of superior title arising from acts prior to the grant from O to A. How can A get to this O a-hole?
« on: May 11, 2008, 11:28:41 PM »
Suppose if you will that you are in a Race-notice Jurisdiction and the following occurs:
O conveys Blackacre to A, who does not record the deed from O to A. O conveys Blackacre to B, who has no knowledge of the transaction between O and A. B does not record. Who owns Blackacre?
Since neither recorded I'm not sure if A would win since he was first in time and would win a common law, or if B would win because she was a SBP without notice. I'm guessing A wins under common law.
« on: April 16, 2008, 10:43:19 PM »
WTF? Is this outdated piece of garbage going to be on the exam?
I just don't get it. Seems like I can always come up with some situation to invalidate every life within 21 years (e.g. world explodes).
Can anybody lay it out clear for me? I've tried the examples & explanations, but that just seemed to confound matters even more. This is the only concept I have ever encountered and attempted to learn that I can't seem to understand.
« on: April 05, 2008, 04:02:08 PM »
Can a corporation be considered a citizen of three states for a diversity claim. Suppose, for example, they are incorporated in New York, they have their executive headquarters in Pennsylvania, and they have their manufacturing facility in Ohio.
Certainly they would be a citizen of New York, but would it be an either/or test between Pennsylvania and Ohio based the particular test ("nerve center" "place of operations") dependent on the jurisdiction?
« on: April 03, 2008, 10:59:47 PM »
Discuss . . .
« on: March 31, 2008, 10:09:59 PM »
House A is next door to House B. They are in very close proximity. Between them sits a garage that is attached to House A. However, the owners of house B have the right to use the garage and it's recorded in the deed.
I am correct in assuming this is an expressed affirmative easement appurtenant? What would make this a covenant.
« on: March 24, 2008, 05:55:58 PM »
I cannot explain to you how much I loathe Environmental Law. Any recommendations for a supplement for use with Environmental Regulation: Law, Science, & Policy by Percival et. al.?