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 - buggirl92002
« on: May 03, 2004, 05:29:18 PM »
I really do appreciate the positive feedback. I'm sure everything will work out fine in the end. If I had chosen a higher-ranked school at the expense of my scholarship, I'm sure I would be lamenting about all of the extra debt instead. When finances are an issue, it makes the decision difficult! It is definitely comforting to hear I'm not the only person in the world to choose finances over prestige. :-)
« on: April 28, 2004, 05:41:20 PM »
AJ: Thank you for your kind sentiment. Your post is encouraging. I don't often review published school rankings but when I have occasion to think about them, I sometimes end with tangential ranting! I feel like there are simply so many factors about schools that are not included in the analysis. Statistics based on limited criteria that almost exclusively reflect written test scores are so unidimensional in terms of the picture they present to the world. They're insulting. I would like the opportunity to be judged on my own merit, rather than on the basis of a *number* assigned to a school I selected mostly out of financial necessity. Yikes! I'm still ranting, aren't I? As Woody Allen would say, "it's nothing a little prozac and a polo mallet can't cure..."
Thank you for the recruitment tips! -- Bugg
« on: April 28, 2004, 03:58:30 PM »
You'll certainly have ample opportunity once you get there! If you're enthusiastic, give it a try. It takes a while to really get the hang of what you're looking at when reading opinions. If you're going to attempt a few briefs, I recomend using a case book, where the opinions are typically truncated, rather than attempting an entire opinion. The short case-book cases are easier to evaluate for a specific point than full-length opinions, which often address several issues. Good luck!
« on: April 28, 2004, 03:54:29 PM »
A prep class for the LSAT is definitely worth the investment. Beyond that, additional preparation certainly can't hurt. It's value can only be determined by opportunity cost. If you have extra $ and time, I say "go for it!"
« on: April 28, 2004, 03:39:00 PM »
It's been a looong time since Contracts but here are my thoughts: 1. This is about offer and accpetance. Was an offer made that was subsequently accepted before it was revoked? Typically a newspaper advertisement is not considered an "offer" BUT when a store lists a finite number of items (in this case responses) and references specific merchandise as this store did, I THINK it constitutes an exception to the rule. I think the store is obligated to keep the offer open until the merchandise is truly gone. No other reason for failing to perform is acceptable. Assuming the store's ad is an "offer," the mailed $ constitutes acceptance after it is mailed. I think the date of acceptance of the offer by the customer is the date the $ was mailed, not received, based on the "mail box rule." That's the best I can do for now. Good luck.
« on: April 28, 2004, 03:23:00 PM »
Here's my best response based on your presumably hypothetical fact pattern: 1. Yes, a petition can be filed against the clerk and the agency that employed him at the time of distribution. 2. It is up to the court to decide whether you have sufficiently alleged a claim upon which relief (in law or equity) can be granted. 3. It's my understanding that once an estate distribution has been made, the personal representative (private or state-appointed) has no right to request that it be returned. This is why private fiduciaries who administer estates for a living have bond premiums! 4. If the clerk made an erroneous distribution while acting as an agent of the state, the state may be found liable if the act was within the scope of the clerk's employment. (You don't want to sue the clerk personally -- that's not where the money is). 5. Absent evidence that the distribution was faulty, there is no claim. Was there a testamentary instrument or did the heirs take under the laws of intestacy? These facts must be determined/analysed.
« on: April 28, 2004, 02:35:42 PM »
The "cliche" method for briefing is called "IRAC" (i.e. Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion). Most people typically include in the beginning a section for the Facts of the case (what happened), the Procedural History (how it got to the present court - e.g. is it on appeal from a lower court decision?), and after the Conclusion, perhaps a section entitled "Held" that briefly notes the present court's decision (e.g. remanded, affirmed, etc.) and finally a Reasoning section explaining why the court decided the case the way it did. The Reasoning is typically included in the Analysis section so some people leave this out. The "Rule" you will look for is normally couched in a reference to a previous case (or several), which serves as precedent for the court's decision as it applies the rule to the present facts. I hope this helps!
« on: April 28, 2004, 02:19:55 PM »
I agree 100% - especially as we approach (yikes) exams.
« on: April 28, 2004, 01:33:27 PM »
I think the method depends entirely on the professor. Some professors have "target issues" or a novel interpretation of law that I think is best written in his/her own words. Also, if you must paraphrase to write notes quickly, sometimes you clarify things for yourself. I think the process of writing the professor's words (at the risk of sounding cheesy) forms a link betweeen you and the professor that can be key on an exam. Supplements only seem to work for me when the professor is really awful and I have no idea what to expect on the exam. Only in that case will I resort to an "external" source.
« on: April 28, 2004, 01:00:52 PM »
Unfortunately your initial assessment is statistically the correct one. It seems failing one time correlates with failing subsequently. I don't think statistics are determinative, however. If you don't make it the first time, you can certainly learn from your mistakes. I think it is silly to predicate readiness for lawyering solely on a written test that requires short-term retention of a bunch of stuff lawyers will either never look at again or can look up in a code book or via case law anyway; but I digress....