Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - eloisa

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
General Board / Re: Law review too much time?
« on: March 28, 2007, 03:49:08 PM »
88 pages??   :o  Wow. 

We were specifically told by our journal advisor that if we had more than 55 pages, we were saying too much and it wasn't of "publishable quality," because no journal would ever print 88 pages written by a student.

So most of us are coming in around 40 pages, i think.

2
General Board / Re: 2nd Semester - Still Lost?
« on: January 21, 2006, 07:08:59 PM »
If you have grades, you're ahead of me.

We still haven't received our grades yet.  I felt lost last semester, and I have no idea how well I "got it" because I don't have any feedback.

Take heart, there are other 1Ls who feel just as confused.

3
General Board / Re: Crim Law Questions
« on: December 19, 2005, 09:28:26 PM »
This isn't conspiracy though (well not the particular issue I'm talking about). This is accomplice liability.

Also, I'm not asking whether a defendant can be guilty of accomplice liability AND attempt (although this is a good question too). I'm asking whether a defendant can be guilty OF accomplice liability FOR someone else's attempt to commit a crime (e.g. murder).


Under the MPC, I think a defendant can be guilty of accomplice liability for an attempt (under MPC 2.06). The important thing for the MPC drafters was mens rea -- in accomplice liability, the intent to facilitate/promote the crime -- so it seems like they'd want to prosecute a defendant for complicity even if the principal was only guilty of attempt.

Our crim law class focused almost entirely on the MPC ... so I don't know all the ins and outs of common law on this.

4
General Board / Re: Girlfriend Problems
« on: December 16, 2005, 04:57:03 PM »
Is your girlfriend in school?  If so, what is she studying?  She may not understand that you have to work a LOT harder in law school than you did in undergrad, and that this means that you will have less free time.  One of my friends bought her boyfriend a copy of one of those prepare-for-law-school books so he could see just how difficult it was going to be for her. 

That said, I don't think she's necessarily just a whiner.  I've been in a relationship where I constantly felt ignored.  No matter what I did, I would never be #1 for that guy.  That was a HORRIBLE feeling.  But it wasn't just my imagination; others saw it too.  In the end, we broke up (after 2 1/2 years together). 

Girls need to feel like they are your #1 priority, even if you are super busy.  That doesn't mean you have to spend 24 hours a day with her, but take the time to let her know you do care about the relationship.  Send a romantic e-card.  Send a real card.  Call her up at a time when you know she won't be home to leave her a voicemail telling her that you miss her.  Etc.  I really think you can let her know she's important to you without driving two hours to see her every day.

5
General Board / Re: Contracts Hypos
« on: December 08, 2005, 02:29:24 PM »
I don't have time to go into these in detail. In fact, I didn't even read the second one. With regards to the first question, though, I don't think that Clammy can claim the prize for fishing up the handcuffs because the reward did not induce his actions of finding them. He didn't know about the award. (see Broadnax v. Ledbetter) -- Merely performing the things called for without reference to the offer is not consideration towards the offer.

He didn't know about the offer at the time he found the handcuffs, but he did know about the offer at the time he turned them in.  The ad indicates that a reward will be given to anyone who returns the handcuffs -- not to anyone who finds the handcuffs.  Acceptance would be by returning the handcuffs, not by simply finding them.  Clammy returned the handcuffs after learning of the offer.  This would then operate as an acceptance, unless he manifests a subjective intent not to accept by his performance.

The next question is whether the offer was for the return of any of the three pairs of handcuffs involved in the incident, or just one pair (the one Braverman wriggled out of and kept).  The offer isn't clear on this.  Applying the objective test, C could argue that a reasonable person would read the offer to mean that C only wants one pair of handcuffs -- the handcuffs.  Clammy could argue, on the other hand, that a reasonable person would have assumed the offer was for any of the three pairs of handcuffs.  Each of these arguments seems plausible.

If the offer is read according to C's interpretation, then C wouldn't have to pay Clammy the reward, because his returning another pair of handcuffs wouldn't be a valid acceptance.
If, however, the offer is read according to Clammy's interpretation, then C does have to pay Clammy the reward.  Clammy's actions would be a valid acceptance because he did what the offer requested.

Under either reading of the offer, C would still have to pay Braverman.  Whether C was seeking the return of any of the handcuffs or just the most famous pair, Braverman's returning the handcuffs would be the performance the offer requests and thus a valid acceptance.

If the offer is read as seeking the returning of any handcuffs, then there is still another pair of handcuffs out there and C could have to pay another reward.  A press release wouldn't be sufficient for a revocation of the offer.  To revoke the offer, C would have to publish an ad in the same paper or papers that the original ad ran in back in 2001.  This revocation would be effective even if not all the people who read the first ad read the second one; the revocation is assumed to be communicated at publication, just like a revocation is communicated if the unopened envelope is put on your desk.  C probably wouldn't have to run the revocation ad for as long as the original ad ran, but it would have to be for a reasonable time and would probably have to be similar in size and placement to the initial one (e.g. if C took out a double-truck A section ad the first time, it can't revoke by a small classified ad in the back pages). 


I don't think Clammy could make a promissory estoppel claim because there's no information that he relied on the offer to his detriment.  As for a quasi-K claim, Clammy would have to prove 1) that he conferred a benefit on C with no intent of acting gratuitously, and 2) that C had an opportunity to decline the benefit (or there was a reasonable excuse why not).  Here, Clammy's actions brought a large stream of publicity, which is probably a benefit to C.  C may or may not have had opportunity to decline the benefit; it could have told Clammy to go away, but a media frenzy is rather hard to stop.  If it had no chance to decline the benefit Clammy conferred, the very nature of the publicity may be a reasonable excuse why no opportunity existed.  To get restitution, Clammy would then have to prove how valuable the benefit he conferred was.  This might be a bit difficult -- you'd have to ask whether C's business increased afterward, and by how much.


[disclaimer:  I'm also a 1L, and my Ks exam is tomorrow.]

6
General Board / Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« on: November 27, 2005, 10:15:39 PM »
I don't believe in your premise. There are no unsolvable mental problems, or at least they exist in such a low frequency as to not even deserve much comment outside niche medical journals. What I will do as a father is spend an enormous amount of time with my child to help him figure out any problems he's having and help him work through them. ...

If you truly believe that there are no unsolvable mental problems, try dealing with a relative who has acute, childhood-onset, paranoid schizophrenia.  His parents have tried everything -- individual counseling, family counseling, bailing him out of jail repeatedly, "tough love," a military-type school, religion -- and nothing has solved the problem.  This isn't a case (as you might suggest) where the family wants him on medication because they're too lazy to deal with the problem.  This is a case in which all the love and effort in the world is just not going to solve the underlying problem.  The family has spent 12 years trying to solve the problem with their love, but it isn't happening.

Do Americans overmedicate?  Sure, I'll concede that.  But there are numerous Americans (not just a handful, as you imply) suffering from severe mental illness, illness which cannot be remedied simply by a dad taking more time to spend with his children.  All fathers should spend time with their children, but this won't solve all psychiatric problems.

7
General Board / Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« on: November 27, 2005, 12:46:54 PM »
Yes, law school is stressful.  And I don't think making it "warm and fuzzy" is the greatest idea.  After all, graduate and professional education is supposed to be difficult.

But compare law school to other professional schools -- say, med school.  We always hear that "med students have it just as rough."  I know some med students, and I can say without a doubt that they are just as busy, if not more so, as law students.  But by and large, they are not as depressed as law students. 

The question then is, what is the difference between law school and medical school?  I
 think a large part of it has to do with teaching style.  My medical student friends have lectures -- lectures! -- and labs.  They know what the professors expect of them.  We law students attend lectures but come out of it even more confused -- we aren't being taught, we are being asked to teach ourselves.  That, I think, is what leads to the greatest distress among law students.

8
General Board / Re: What can you do to push and motivate yourself?
« on: November 24, 2005, 10:40:30 AM »
I don't like the idea of random drug testing, although I don't use Ritalin/Adderall/Strattera and have no intention of trying them.  I see random drug testing as rather invasive, particularly because (as you pointed out) there are legitimate uses for those drugs.

But I do think that students who use those drugs without a prescription during exams are breaking the law to gain an unfair advantage.  As such, perhaps the non-prescribed use of performance-enhancing medications could be included in the list of activities that violate the honor code.  That wouldn't stop all of the pill-popping students, but it would at least send a message that the behavior is verboten. Some students (though I'm sure not too many) probably would abstain from the drugs simply because they're afraid of getting caught.

The question, of course, is whether that would make enough of a difference.  I'm not sure.

9
General Board / Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« on: November 23, 2005, 11:23:39 PM »
This is something that far too few law students, let alone faculty or administrations, are willing to confront.  Law school is an incredibly isolating and agonizingly depressing place.  That's true no matter where you go.

We need to reclaim our own happiness.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8