Thank you so much!
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 - bb
Also, check the actual text for errors as well as the footnotes (the bluebook covers capitalization (they love to incorrectly capitalize the C in court), ellipses, etc).
So what is the rule on capitalizing court? Do it only for SC? Thanks!
Sorry, I should've given more information.
I have a VERY compelling reason for wanting to go to UT. I'd rather not spell it out, but I really can't imagine it being possible to have a better reason. Also, I think I probably would've been semi-competitive as a 1L (4.0/159). I know the LSAT is a bit low, but I was in-state applicant and I know some people who got waitlisted with similar numbers (I personally didn't apply as 1L).
That's why I think my grades being slightly lower would be good enough to get me in. There are also a couple people I've heard of who went Hastings to UT being top 1/3.
So assuming I get in, any thoughts on which is preferred?
What do you guys think? Say I would be around top 20% if I stay where I am now. I'm not keen on Biglaw, but not completely ruling it out. All I'm looking for is decent pay with decent hours. Assume I have no location preferences.
So I hear wildly differing opinions about the "prestige" of a federal government internship (for 1Ls). Seems like some people say anyone can get one, other says it's the best thing you can do after federal judicial or big/medium law firm. Certainly most people agree that it's a great practical experience, but I'm not clear on how firms view it for 2L OCI purposes.
I guess my main problem with #2 is C's interest. I think C has a shifting exectory interest. So we must apply RAP. B's children's lives wouldn't save the interest, because they're an open class. So does it fail RAP (disregard destructibility)? I think the grandmother's death would save the interest. Once she dies, the children cannot visit her anymore, so C's interest would vest. Does this make sense?
I've noticed that a lot of professors/books/supplements use slightly different terms and analysis, so I just wanted to bounce around some idea here.
Can one of you fine LSD kids help me with the following transfers:
1. G to S for life, then to M's children and their heirs; M is alive with no children
2. G to A for life, then to B's children for life, but if B's children stop visiting their grandmother, to C and his heirs; B has one child
State the interests, and subject appropriate ones to Rule Against Perpetuities. Why or why not does each one pass or fail RAP?