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 - dkast

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10
Current Law Students / Re: Is Batman the best superhero ever?
« on: August 13, 2005, 02:34:04 PM »
Green Lantern.

He should be able to make nuclear weapons and an army of tanks or whatever he sees fit to destroy his foe.

The onslaught of his army based on sheer numbers would defeat any superhero's abilities.  I dont know of a super hero who can deal with more than one enemy at a time.  Sheer numbers could defeat any superhero.

Current Law Students / Re: Professional Conduct, Responsibility & Ethics
« on: August 13, 2005, 02:26:12 PM »
I believe that ethics should be a part of your everyday existence whether you're an attorney or not.

Ethics is a fundemental principle which at the foundation of the law.  I dont see how ethics would play a role in law that differs from ethical considerations in everyday life.

The law is there to uphold ethics and when applying the fact situation of your clients case, ethics are invariable present within the law.

Current Law Students / Re: Albinger v Harris
« on: August 13, 2005, 02:20:03 PM »

Thank you for your insight and replies to this case.

Objectivity of course is essential to any type of legal analysis and applying the law to given fact situations.

Where do you go to school btw?

Current Law Students / Re: MUST HAVE reading materials for 1Ls
« on: August 13, 2005, 10:57:21 AM »
I think the restatements are important not necessarily for your class, but more along the lines of legal analysis.  Enabling you to apply the law i.e., restatements to fact situations.

Current Law Students / Re: Anyone here NOT buying Case Books
« on: August 11, 2005, 05:25:47 PM »

Yes again i was contemplating either attemtping to find them on cd or just copying the assigned cases.  I was not considering not even looking at the case books.  Just not purchasing them.  Through some research however it seems there are no cds and I dont know if i want to waste time copying the cases in the library.

Though carrying the case book to class everyday is a pain.  I'll figure it out.

I've been told hornbooks are a waste of time.

Current Law Students / MUST HAVE reading materials for 1Ls
« on: August 11, 2005, 02:08:27 PM »

I have composed a list of what I believe are "Must Haves" for advanced entering 1L students.

Black Letter Law Outlines
ABC's of the UCC
Restatement of contracts 2nd
Restatement of torts 2nd
Law Dictionary

I would put the LEEWS tapes in the list but i have not researched it to the extend where i can make a qualified decision on it.

Advanced students please let me know if I am missing anything.

Thanks everyone and good luck with your study and analysis of the law.

Current Law Students / Re: Anyone here NOT buying Case Books
« on: August 11, 2005, 02:05:01 PM »
Lincoln and Rapunzel thanks:

This is what I consider must haves for 1L.

Black Letter Law Outlines
ABC's of the UCC
Restatements of contracts torts
Law Dictionary

Advaced students please let me know if I am missing anything.

Current Law Students / Re: Touro or Cuny where should i transfer to
« on: August 11, 2005, 12:34:24 AM »
d**mn.  Great post.

Il Principe.

Did you even bother to read my reply?

Current Law Students / Re: Albinger v Harris
« on: August 11, 2005, 12:32:42 AM »

Hi again chaser. 

It has been a very interesting discussion. I believe that the unconditional gift theory is analogous to the "contract" theory which you mentioned would apply in the courts of England.

Its great you mentioned:

It should be noted that the bride can elicit the conditional promise by fraud, and have to give the ring back.

This would constitute a breach and be applicable to contract law.  Here's my brief of the case:

The court finds that an engagement ring is a gift because it can not be anything else under Montana Law.

    Appelle and Cross-Appellant      



1.   Albinger presented Harris with an engagement ring and diamond earrings on Dec. 15th 1995.   
2.  The relationship was troubled and volatile, on each separation the ring was returned to or reclaimed by Albinger and was represent to Harris after each reconciliation. 
3.  Albinger and Harris lived together form August 1995 until April 1998 during which time Albinger conferred upon Harris a new Ford Mustang, a horse and a dog in addition to the earrings and ring. 
4.  The parties separated again in late April 1998 at which point Albinger told Harris to “take the car, the horse, the dog, and the ring and get the hell out.”

Does the transfer of an engagement ring fall under  a “conditional gift theory” with an implied condition of marriage under Montana Law?

No, an engagement ring is an unconditional gift upon delivery and is subject to Montana Gift Law as such.

It is the courts findings that an engagement ring is a gift given without implied or express condition and, as such, must be applicable to the existing gift law and common-law principles in the state of Montana.

Appellee’s counsel argues that the court should adopt a “conditional gift theory”.  Albinger maintains he held a reversionary interest in the gift of the engagement ring grounded in an implied condition subsequent, in which said condition is the marriage. Montana law recognizes the transfer of personal property subject to an express or implied condition which must be satisfied before title vests, as either a contract or as a gift.

Due to “anti-heart balm” statues, specifically  §  27-1-602 MCA, which bars all causes of action in breach of contract to marry , the court applies Montana gift law to the case which maintains that the only revocable gift recognized by Montana law is a gift in view of death § 70-3-201, MCA.. Based on these findings, the court declines to create a new category of gifting under a “conditional gift theory”.

The court also finds that if a “conditional gift theory” were to be applied exclusively to engagement ring cases, it would carve an exception to the aforementioned Montana gift law which would be biased to the predominately male plaintiffs, and as such, the court declines to apply the rule to this case.

Rules of Law: Montana Gift Law; “Anti-heart balm” statute § 27-1-602 MCA;  Gender Bias; Conditional Gift Theory.

Application of Rules of Law: (see Reasoning)

The court reverses the 8th District Court’s ruling in regards to an engagement ring being a conditional gift in the state of Montana.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10