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 - btideroll

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
1
Book Sales and Trades / LEEWS CD audio program for sale on Ebay
« on: October 03, 2005, 07:39:49 PM »
LEEWS audio program for sale here: http://cgi.ebay.com/LEEWS-CD-Essay-Writing-System-for-Law-School-Exams_W0QQitemZ6981029024QQcategoryZ2228QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

or search ebay using  6981029024   in the search field.

goodluck

2
General Board / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 06, 2005, 11:16:19 PM »
Hmm, are you sure this is the test the professor offered?  We just did the case with the chair being pulled out, and for us the test wasn't whether a reasonable person would find the act to be offensive, but instead whether a reasonable person would have known that the offensive contact would occur.

In other words, if D didn't mean for the offensive contact to occur, but knew that his actions would most likely cause the contact then D had intent...



This is what my prof said today about this:


D can be liable for battery if he makes offensive contact with P, even if he does not intend for it to be offensive. ie D pulls chair out from under P before P sits down. P falls and bruises back. D might not have intended the harmful contact, but a reasonable person would find the act by D offensive and is therefore liable for the injury that results from such contact.

D cannot be liable for battery if he makes harmful contact with P if he had no intent to harm and it was not considered offensive by a reasonable person. ie the man who grabs the falling man and he breaks his arm. A reasonable person would not find that contact offensive, and D did not intend to harm.



when judging whether the contact was offensive you look to see what a reasonable person would feel under the same circumstances. judging whether or not the contact was harmful is pretty straightforward.

in determining whether there was intent, you look to what the DEFENDANT was thinking (what was in his head? did he have substantial certainty he was going to cause contac ?)

3
General Board / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 05, 2005, 11:15:08 PM »
causing "apprehension of such a contact" is an element of assault, not battery, right?  there actually has to be some kind of harmful contact for battery.

and what about vosburg v. putney where the court ruled that intent to act is enough even if there is no intent to harm?  if you slap someone in the face in a joking manner but end up breaking his/her nose, you can be held liable for battery simply because you intended to commit that act of slapping, even though you didnt intend to cause any harm.

I think that is a principle that contradicts some other principles...but it definitely is valid. My prof must have really liked that case because that is how he defines intent and battery.

4
General Board / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 05, 2005, 11:13:29 PM »
"My torts prof would say that is not a battery, because the man had no intent to break the arm of the person falling etc. "

With implied consent, and also lack of intent; a reasonable person in the man's shoes (falling off a cliff) would not find that offensive.



it was still harmful

5
General Board / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 05, 2005, 11:12:39 PM »
Grabbing a woman's arm helping her on the bus probably wouldn't be battery, as a reasonable person wouldn't think there was an intention to cause harm inspite of the result.  Grabbing a woman's butt in a line would be even if she weren't hurt, as it's likely to be considered offensive by a reasonable person even if it didn't hurt.

According to Gilbert's, the test is subjective to the D. In other word's what in FACT did D desire or believe...not what a reasonable person would assume if they acted that way.

6
General Board / Re: Intentional Torts question
« on: September 05, 2005, 11:06:44 PM »
I was taught the same way your professor thinks.  And the E&E for Torts agrees.

"Intent" alone is not the element of intentional battery.  The element is "intent to cause harmful or offensive contact, or an imminent apprehension of such a contact."

So unless the contact is intended to be harmful or offensive, as determined by the reasonable person standard, not the victim's subjective opinion, it's not likely to be considered battery.  Grabbing a woman's arm helping her on the bus probably wouldn't be battery, as a reasonable person wouldn't think there was an intention to cause harm inspite of the result.  Grabbing a woman's butt in a line would be even if she weren't hurt, as it's likely to be considered offensive by a reasonable person even if it didn't hurt.

This question is a total bait question that would be argued on both sides on an exam. There is no clear cut answer to this...it lies in the gray area of intent and that's why he asked it, because its a *** to answer.

Page 1 in Gilbert's Torts, Under the "Chapter Approach" heading [$$1-2] it says, and I quote..."Remember to apply the term "intent" to the result that occured, NOT the act the defendant engaged in; the defendant must have desired that a particular result occur or have been substaintially certain that such a result would occur."

Then on page 4 it says "to make out a case for battery, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's intentional act resulted in the infliction of a harmful or offensive touching..."

Talking about confusing....

Thus it all depends on which side convinces the jury over a 51% level of reasonable doubt.

Defense would argue the man was just being helpful and couldn't forsee her arm breaking, and possibly that he even had implied consent
Prosecution would argue that in order to break someones arm the contact must have been substantial and that when the D grabbed the arm he had to be certain such a grabbin could result in a break.

In the end the law usually favors the innocent and injured Plaintiff over a defendant even if he had good intentions....because someone has to be accountable and it can't be the person who didn't act.

7
General Board / Re: Canned Briefs
« on: August 22, 2005, 05:16:24 PM »
Tell you what...and I really do mean this...don't get canned briefs.  I can promise you right now that you'll do well in all of your classes if you read and brief every case yourself.  Just watch when halfway through the first semester people stop briefing.  You'll get the process and the material so much better than others. 

I finished top 10% and I've never been in the top third of anything, simply by doing the work: reading, briefing etc.  It may take more time but believe me, for the few people that do it, it pays.  Canned briefs will only tempt you to get lazy.

what if you don't understand a part of the case, or can't identify its correct parts. What do you, or how do you figure it out the correct material so that you aren't studying an incorrect brief?

8
I can't find any canned briefs that are keyed to either my Torts or Contracts casebooks.  Would it still be a worthwhile purchase to buy a volume keyed to a different casebook?  I know that it wouldn't be perfect, but many books use all the same cases but somewhat differing orders, or is this an incorrect assumption on my part?

Any advice suggestions about what to do?  Thanks in advance!

I feel you on that one. My torts doesn't have any canned brief. Property is also hard to find (I think MABYE Casenotes makes one). I wish I could just get high court for all of them though! I don't know why my profs shewed away from the most popular(and best) casebooks! No dressler...no dukminier...no calamari....no prosser

:(

9
General Board / Re: Joint JD / MBA? Career path question...
« on: August 14, 2005, 10:33:35 PM »
Pursuing a JD/MBA to start a business doesn't make sense.  It indicates a risk-adverse personality, somewhat anithetical to the traits of an entrepreneur.  It probably only makes sense if you generally enjoy the subject matter of both, otherwise the real world rewards ut experience than education, especially since you're likely to only use 10% of the education 5 years out.

I said it would probably make starting your own business easier--implying you have the knowledge of the legal ramifications, restrictions, and requirements to operate as well as knowhing about business itself. Folks who start businesses usually end up seeking some sort of legal advice or service at some point--get my point?

And to further the argument, I think you are assuming starting your own business as the first thing out of school. All I meant was at some point in your career, if you decided to pursue your own firm or business venture, whether by yourself, or with others, it would be beneficial to house the knowledge of both degrees and experience.

10
General Board / Re: Law degree and business?
« on: August 14, 2005, 10:29:09 PM »
I hear a lot of people saying that law firms are scared of having someone with an MBA around.  I was an IT contractor for a while, and the life of the contractor is basically anybody on any side can sever the ties if something better comes along.  I would think that if I was to service business clients, they would be much more comfortable talking with someone who didn't just understand the legalities of business.

Just like I hate voting for someone into a senate position who never made less than $2,000,000 a year.  If they've never truly had to worry about living on a budget, how can I expect them to run the country on a budget? 

I think that this posting has strengthened my position to get a joint degree.  If I don't like a law firm (or they don't like me) I want to have career options open.  If you want to be successful, choose your job, and don't let the MARKET choose it for you.

question is.....do you start on the MBA classes first, and then get into your law stuff?  It seems like the MBA stuff is more principals and theories, and less memorization.  plus, there's not a business equivalent to the Bar exam....

For those coming into law school (presumable straight from college or working in "the real world" for a few years) and who chose the joint degree typically enroll in the JD/MBA program, after being accepted into both schools, with law school taking the first shot at you. Meaning, your first year is nothing but law school (the typical first-year law program), the second year is nothing but the first year of the MBA program, and the last 1 1/2 to 2 years are a mix of both.

My circumstance  is a little different because I already started my MBA before being accepted into law school. So all I have to do is tell the registrar to sign me up for the joint degree. I'm just elated because I only have 2 business courses left and law school will take care of the rest of the MBA requirements...so essentially I get to focus 100% on law since my MBA is basically complete.

Like you I value having knowledge in the field of the clients I want to represent. I think it brings much needed perspective and understanding...and the relationship should be stronger. It also opens other doors in fields outside of law if needbe. The idea firms are "scared" to hire a JD/MBA is ludicrous. The firm I worked at would die to have the business savvy perspective and knowledge from a business degree. And afterall, if someone just truly enjoys business and wants the degree just for knowledge, I don't see why firms should question any loyalty. I also strongly believe those who want to practice law in-house for a corporation would be at an advantage to have an MBA.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11