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 - Leaf2001br
« on: May 04, 2006, 02:15:29 PM »
Just curious whether my difficult exams are generally the most difficult for everyone, or whether it was just my professor/exam that was tough. Or perhaps even that different people are more naturally inclined towards certain skills than others. My star horse is Civ Pro II here, though I hear a lot bitching about Property. Common Law Property is an upperclass elective for us in Lousiana, though we have had Civil Law Property. It's a lot of material but it seems to be very mechanical and common sensical, though I have my suspicions this may be a reflection of civil law in general. Keep in mind that this conclusion is limited to my observations from taking both (common law)Contracts and Civil Law Obligations, and comparisons of Criminal Law (it's common law based here) and Torts (a predominantly civil law mix).
« on: April 19, 2006, 08:21:12 PM »
This is actually an offshoot of the same-sex marriage thread that I thought was worthy of its own thread. On that thread, deltaHUSL posted: "i disagree with it on a moral basis as a catholic, but if the court finds the right to privacy covers it, so be it."
I found being confronted with this kind of decision interesting, especially in today's political climate, so I responded (below) before just deciding to paste it here on a new thread.
How do you personally deal with your religious beliefs being abridged when it comes to the rights of others? As a law student you surely must also have some appreciation for the importance of individual rights. I'm just curious how you manage to balance this conflict. Or anyone of any religion for that matter.
Just so you know where I am coming from, I am personally about as non-religious as they come. I think that the singlemost tangible effect of organized religion is divisiveness and the ironic spread of hate through conflicting messages of love. I believe that morality exists independently of religion and is not necessarily a product of it. Please understand that I would never push this view on anyone and I afford all due respect to those who choose to practice an organized religion. My own grandparents have both gone to church and Sunday school their whole lives and I don't think I will ever meet their equal in terms of selflessness and compassion for others. Yet the nuts and bolts of organized religion is not something that I can fully understand.
Anyway, what I really want to know is how someone of faith in America reconciles this belief with a belief in American government. There are many very outspoken Christians these days but unfortunately many of them are also relatively uneducated so it's often hard to get a truly objective viewpoint. This is just my experience so please don't take it the wrong way. I know this is not ALL Christians. It is just a simple fact that most of any population is not going to be college-educated and Christianity just happens to be the majority religion in this country. I know that there ARE also educated people who are religious which is what I assume you to be. It just follows that since there are fewer educated people there are also fewer religious educated people.
So anyway, I am just curious. To admit to holding Catholic beliefs while at the same time giving deference to the judicial system (though I don't think same-sex marriage is necessarily a right to privacy issue) is an interesting point of view. And what about sharing space with others of differing religious beliefs?
I understand that this can be a delicate subject and as you can probably tell, I'm trying to be as respectful as possible. I think intelligent law school students are mature enough to have this discussion so have at it. I am really interested in hearing opinions from students of the law who also have faith in a religion, so I hope it doesn't turn into bashing. If that happens, it will only drive away those whose opinion I want to hear in the first place.
« on: March 29, 2006, 10:28:05 PM »
I use WestLaw exclusively but for no good reason, really. It was the first one I used at the beginning of my first semester and so I have always been somewhat comforted by the familiarity of it I guess. I hope I am not missing something(!)
« on: March 29, 2006, 10:17:39 PM »
Exams are coming up in about a month! What are you doing on this message board?
Since I know many people are spending a lot of time finding anything to do lately but outline, study, etc., what is your biggest weakness? I guess we can assume playing on the internet is a given, but are you cleaning your kitchen? Organizing your DVDs? Rearranging your furniture? Playing video games? ...
« on: March 18, 2006, 03:09:18 AM »
Anybody still out there was on the Pre-Law board in Fall 2004? That was quite an anxious little community we had. Where are you now? How was your first year?
Absy? Lexy? Maroon? Pookie?
What was that?
...Oh. Just my echo.
« on: December 04, 2005, 10:08:18 PM »
I'm in Louisiana, where our tort law is largely governed by civil code, and we will be giving only secondary consideration to common law on the exam. I have just a couple of hazy areas from common law if anyone wants to help me piece it together. (I know it may vary by jurisdiction):
1. If there is shared causation between multiple negligent tortfeasors that is indivisible, do most common law jurisdictions enforce joint and several (what we call solidary)liability?
Example: Simultaneous gunfire from three hunters causes damage. (In Louisiana, their damage liability would be 1/3 each)
2. Does the plaintiff's contributory negligence bar recovery if it is over 50%? (I know some use the "last clear chance rule". In Louisiana, plaintiff's recovery is only mitigated by his contribution as a percentage, even if it is over 50%)
« on: December 01, 2005, 02:07:35 PM »
I seem to be in the minority having already started exams. My first one (Contracts) was yesterday. I kind of feel like I aced it. Should I be concerned? I have often heard that people who think they did well often missed something.
But I don't think I necessarily oversimplified the exam. I was writing nonostop for the full four hours after most people had left. I just feel like I saw most of the major issues and responded to them adequately under the limited time circumstances. There were no surprises and I never had any moments of panic other the initial first few minutes of general stress.
Is it safe for me to assume that I did very well, or is this a dangerous assumption? Has anyone actually experienced a situation where they were utterly shocked by a lower grade when they thought they had done much better?
Honest answers are welcome. If I am reassured, the confidence will continue to motivate me to push hard and try to excel. If I am discouraged, the fear will motivate me to push even harder for my remaining upcoming exams!
« on: November 28, 2005, 07:14:04 PM »
If anyone wants to humor me with some very unintimidating contracts questions, or just feels like showing off please feel free. My pride was left at the doorstep when I realized that I will be studying nonstop from now until they hand me the exam.
What are the limits of reliance interest? If A promises to sell me his car and I build a garage, buy fuzzy dice, and a car stereo system, are these expenses reasonably foreseeable? Would it matter if I had another car that I could park in the garage, hang the dice and install the stereo in? Would I have a duty to apply these expenses to my other car to mitigate the damages?
What is privishing? I have seen it on an old exam and it is not in my book at all except for one brief mention in a case (I think Zilg v. Prentice-Hall) where the footnote just says that the editors think this was the first time the term was used.
Callano v. Oakwood Park Homes
In this case, developer Oakwood is in the process of constructing a house and contracts to sell the lot and completed house to Pendergast. Pendergast hired a landscaper to plant shrubs on the property but dies before paying for the completed work. Oakwood and Pendergast's estate agreed to void the sale contract. THEN...with knowledge of the planted shrubs, Oakwood sells the property, shrubs and all, to someone else. The landscaper sued Oakwood under quasi-contract for the value of the shrubs. The court denied their claim, and pointed out that the proper remedy available was against Pendergast's estate, and cited authority that says under quasi-contract you cannot "substitute one promisor or debtor for another."
My question is: Assuming the landscaper didn't have access to Pendergast's estate why wouldn't he be able to claim unjust enrichment when Oakwood had been paid by the new buyer for the house that included shrubs?
***Okay***...Just while typing that I think I figured it out. Geez. I'll go ahead with it anyway. It seems it is because as long as he does have access to Pendergast's estate he cannot substitute another debtor. If he didn't have access to Pendergast, I assume he could then bring the claim against Oakwood. (?)
Okay, one more angle just in case anyone is actually enjoying this. For some reason my professor never covered 3rd party beneficiaries at all so bear with me... But couldn't the landscaper have brought action as a 3rd party beneficiary? If so, is such an action allowable under quantum meruit or only contract price?
« on: September 06, 2005, 06:54:32 PM »
« on: September 05, 2005, 05:20:50 PM »
How important are dissenting opinions? It seems the purpose of studying them may be just as an academic exercise. Once you have read the arguments of the case, you should be aware of the issues raised by both sides. From this you should already be able to understand the merits of each side. Once the majority opinion has already established the ruling that becomes law, why is it important to hear one judge rehash the merits of the arguments all over again in their singular personal opinion? I understand dissenting opinion may have its specific place, but as a student attempting to get a handle on such broad areas of law it sometimes seems beyond the scope of what we are trying to do. When case assignments pile up, I often succumb to the temptation of skipping the dissent and starting my brief or going to the next case.
Does anyone agree or am I missing the point somewhere?