Law School Discussion

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.

Messages - ShakedownStreet

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
Job Search / Re: Bias against part time/"second career" (older) students
« on: October 10, 2008, 11:08:28 AM »
in Denver, it seems as though there is exactly the opposite bias.  if grades are all the same, those with work experience are favored to those right out of undergrad. 

Law School Admissions / Re: University of Denver
« on: July 27, 2008, 08:02:30 PM »

By the way, I read on DU's website that the light rail pass is only good at certain stops in Denver. My wife and I are moving to Sante Fe/Mineral and I was wondering if I will be able to take the light rail for free from that far away?

The light rail pass is good for all stops on the light rail.  I have used my pass, and  been checked, on every light rail route.   Here is the website:


Law School Admissions / Re: University of Denver
« on: July 19, 2008, 12:35:46 PM »
Hey all... I received my schedule as well :)

Civil Procedure: Marsh
Contracts: Moffat
LP: Anderson
Criminal LAw: Still doesn't have a name...

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. And thanks SoManyQuestions, for the tip to check out the evals.

I move in three days!!! Finally!

Marsh is my favorite professor so far!  I had her for property, and I am taking trusts & estates this fall.  Just make sure you have always done the reading, because she hates it when people are unprepared.

Law School Admissions / Re: University of Denver
« on: July 16, 2008, 02:56:03 PM »
I got my schedule of classes today!  I can't wait!  Matthies, can you give me any info on the following Profs? 

Civil Pro-Hardaway
Lawyering Process-Thompson

Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Hardaway is a character all right!  I had him for Civ Pro fall 07.  You do have to get over the fact that he uses a mircrophone in a small classroom, which is weird.  I used to make the class interesting by typing all the rediculous phrases that he uses.  Example:  "The Supreme Court did not have to address issue X, but Justice Y just had to guild the lilly." 

He uses a card system as matthies described, but it is far from random.  The same people get called on all the time! He does work really hard to make sure people understand things by having an after class session every day.  I did not attend any after class sessions and did well in the class, so they are not necessary but if you are not understanding things I would definetely attend. 

His test was aweful...The test packet was 75 pages, with 4.5 hours to complete the exam.  I would say 80% of the class was still there when I left with 5 min remaining. 

He has the AAP people administer practice exams over each topic, which I thought were extremely beneficial.  Even if you do not attend all the practice tests, email the AAP person and ask for the test and the answer key so you can do it on your own time.  The practice tests are usually verbatim old bar exam questions, so it is great practice.  Whoever gets the top score on the practice test gets a fantastic prize...a book Hardaway wrote on some infamous murder in Denver. 

Just a few phrases Hardaway will likely use, and you may never find them in any supplement:
-Under Color of Law
-Raw Power
-Reverse Erie

Take good note, always be prepared for class, and study like hell for the exam!!  Let me know if you have any other questions about Hardaway or 1L generally.

Law School Admissions / Re: University of Denver
« on: June 08, 2008, 05:13:33 PM »
The new website at DU is a significant upgrade. I was impressed. I am getting ready to plunk down my second tuition deposit.

it's about time. the old website was terrible.

Law School Admissions / Re: University of Denver
« on: May 16, 2008, 11:03:48 AM »
done with finals...2 weeks off until summer classes!

Current Law Students / Re: how to study
« on: December 13, 2007, 11:08:23 PM »
For my torts test I memorized all the legal tests and policy reasons for the tests by writing them all over and over.  If you know the policy behind the doctrine, it makes spotting issues much easier.  This worked well for me on my torts we shall see how the final turned out.   

Current Law Students / Re: torts questions
« on: December 13, 2007, 11:03:44 PM »
different jurisdictions tackle the lost chance for recovery problem in different ways. Here is a general description of the development of lost chance of recovery.

Under the traditional rule, a patient could recover full damages if a doctor deprived the patient of a 50% or more chance of recovery. 
     This rule was rejected, because it allows doctors to be up to 49% negligent for free

Under a modification of the traditional rule, a patient could recover full damages if a doctor deprived the patient of any chance of recovery.
     This rule was rejected because it allowed a patient to recover full damages when a doctor deprived the patient of a mere 1% chance of recovery

Lost chance for a better outcome:  allows a patient to recover partial damages when a doctor deprived the patient of any % chance for recovery.

This is how my torts professor taught this it could be different at other schools.  I hope everyone is fairing well on finals...Good luck to those still studying!!!

Current Law Students / Re: Torts Question-HELP!!
« on: December 07, 2007, 10:25:41 AM »
Hmm.. I was under the impression that you use Substantial Factor to determine factual causation.  I'm pretty sure it is used as a test when But-For doesn't work.  For instance, in a multiple-sufficient cause scenario (two fires burning the woods) but-for won't work because even if one fire had not occurred, the other one would have done the same amount of damage.  As such, you would use substantial factor in order to show 'factual' causation.

I haven't ever seen substantial factor discussed in relation to proximate cause.... proximate cause is more of a matter of public policy/duty than it is about actual causation.  Even with the intervening superseding causes, the idea isn't to determine whether the intervening actors are substantial factors, but rather if their actions were so unforeseeable/extraordinary that liability should be cut off.   

I haven't seen substantial

yes substantial factor is used in mutliple sufficient causes where the but-for test would fail.  In our torts class we learned 3 approaches to proximate cause:  1) directness (whether there were any intervening acts between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm, if so--no recovery) ; 2) foreseeability (whether the defendant's conduct created a zone of risk, from which the plaintiff's harm resulted; 3) substantial factor (when comparing the defendant's conduct to other causes, was the extent of the defendant's conduct a substantial factor in the plaintiff's injury)

We read cases where different jurisdictions applied each one of these tests for proximate cause.  I am sure how cause-in-fact and proximate cause are taught varies greatly with the school. 

Current Law Students / Re: Torts Question-HELP!!
« on: December 05, 2007, 01:43:04 PM »
another way to look at whether there was a foreseeable duty that was breached is by asking, 1) Did the defendant's conduct create a foreseeable zone of risk? and 2) Was the plaintiff's harm within this zone of risk created by the defendant's conduct?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10