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 - dkast

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11
91
General Board / Re: Anyone here NOT buying Case Books
« on: August 10, 2005, 02:06:28 AM »
Krisace:


You seem to be missing the point here i just stated that i wasn not going to buy the case books.  Not that I wasnt going to refer or use them i.e., photocopy the cases and appropiate suppliments assigned or buy the cd.

I think black letter law outlines will be a highly more valuable book to purchase in order to end up top 10% your class.


If you want to lug around a big case book in which 70% of the cases arent even going to be assigned be my guest.  I think people are drawn to the gold lettering and the psuedo Bender's Form esq hardcovers.


92
New York U / Re: Transfer to NYU Law with a 3.6?
« on: August 09, 2005, 10:07:31 PM »
Sure they need the money...NYU owns half of downtown Manhattan.  Property takes are very very high here. 

In all seriousness though i would recommend calling admissions and stating your specific situation to them.  Better yet go to admissions if you are in the area.

Good luck.

93
General Board / Re: SETON HALL or NYLS???
« on: August 09, 2005, 10:02:25 PM »
Hi starlet.

My friend just graduated from NYLS and she is making 120k at a major firm in manhattan.

She made law review however you will have to make law review at NYLS to make that kind of money, which quite frankly isnt alot to live in Manhattan where i live and spend 2600 for a studio apartment.  Suffice it to say its a luxury apartment but suffice it to say you will have to spend at least 2k a month at the least to live here.

I think you should also judge your competency and confidence in doing well in law school.  I know thats a very difficult thing to do, but you have to figure that out.  Also your confidence and ability to deal with people especially when interviewing is going to be important.


94
General Board / Re: Anyone here not buying Case Books
« on: August 09, 2005, 09:57:51 PM »
Hi rapunzell:

Thank you for the input.

Your absolutely right in your assertion  that we should read the entire case via lexis nexus or west as that is what we will be doing when we become attorneys at least with a few of our assigned cases to get a better idea of how "real world" attorneys operate.

My concern is more based on the practicality of having this huge case book.  Sure it looks pretty and lawyer like but i could care less about that..all i care about is the information contained in it and applying legal analysis to those cases.  They will do us no good when we become attorneys.

I'd rather purchase the Black Letter Law outlines.

I'm plan on checking the syllabus and taking it from there.  I will buy the cd, i dont plan on lugging the huge case book to class every day.
day.

What law school are you in btw?


95
General Board / Re: Touro or Cuny where should i transfer to
« on: August 09, 2005, 08:17:04 PM »
Go to CUNY, I got a 163 on my lsat and a 3.3 GPA from NYU with a double major in poli sci and philosophy and they rejected me.  Though I have been told that they really only take disadvantaged students and my work experience and address probably informed them that was not the case.

96
General Board / Re: President of my Law School student senate?
« on: August 09, 2005, 08:06:54 PM »
I start law school in the fall.  I already know that I am interested in this position.  Do any 1L, 2L's or 3L's know anything about running for this?

I wasn't part of student government in hs or college so does that hurt my chances of being 'experienced' so to speak?

Also, is the President of the senate the class speaker at graduation?

You probably have to finish your first year before you are eligible for that sort of thing.

97
General Board / Anyone here NOT buying Case Books
« on: August 09, 2005, 08:05:01 PM »
I'm conteplating not buying the casesbooks for my class and either purchasing
the cd with some fellow students or just photocopying the cases we will be
assigned from the library.

Has anyone gone this route if so can you offer an opinion if this worked for you?
 
Being that these books will only be used for our classes
and will not do us much or any good when we become
attorneys i think its wise to just buy the cd and print
out the edited cases that we are assigned.  Plus it will
be so much easier to reference in class.

98
General Board / Re: Albinger v Harris
« on: August 09, 2005, 07:58:56 PM »
The "conditional gift theory" is currently the majority viewpoint, because that is the theory expounded in the Restatement of Restitutions.

An interesting relatively recent ruling on the "conditional gift" theory is Marshall v. Cassano; 2001 NY Slip Op. 40320U.  This is what I would call a "conditional gift given in pari delicto," i.e. the plaintiff gave the gift in contemplation of marriage while he was still married; and the defendant knew he was married.

(Under a Contracts theory, it would have been an "illegal contract," to wit, "Contracts" illegal; which of course means "contrary to public policy," not necessarily "you are going to jail.")

Under the above case of what I would call, "conditional gift/in pari delicto," the fiancee' keeps the ring.  In Contracts (in pari delicto), the judge would probably return the parties to where they were before the contract was formed, which I would assume means the groom gets the ring back, and the fiancee' can accept new proposals.

Many jurisdictions use the objective contract theory--but some courts are reluctant, because what constitutes a "breach of the terms" of the engagement?  E.g., is a rowdy bachelor party a "breach"?


One last theory that would be the clear minority opinion but I believe is still in use would be the seisin/"transfer of title" theory.

In this theory, which was developed in ancient Anglo-Saxon law, the bride is sort of "one step above chattel."  The groom is asking for "transfer of title," from I guess her father.

In a similar way that one would offer, say, a lump of dirt and a twig for land, the groom is offering the ring as a symbol.

Ironically, this system would favor the bride, because she keeps the ring if the "title doesn't transfer" for whatever reason (transfer of title meaning "marriage")--similar to a land transfer not closing, and you don't have to give the lump and the twig back.

Yes this case involves quite a number of legal nuances that complicate the decision for the court and appellant’s council.


I belive that your analysis does in fact deal more with the issue at hand and what this case should turn on then what was represented by the majority decision of the court.  The case should turn on whether an engagement ring falls under contract or property law.  I believe that appelate's council was aware of this but his only recourse, under Montana law, was to attempt to argue under unjust enrichment under MCA 27-1-602 which a was futile effort at best. This is what the court based its decision on along with the gender bias argument which seems to come out of left field.

Your point:

Many jurisdictions use the objective contract theory--but some courts are reluctant, because what constitutes a "breach of the terms" of the engagement?  E.g., is a rowdy bachelor party a "breach"?

I would find it applicable, to contract law if at the end of the rowdy bachelor party the recipient of the engagement ring, receiver of the transfer, believes that the ring is given on said condition then a breach is evident again going back to the issue, is the giving of an engagement ring a gift or does it fall under the conditional gift theory.  The court never addresses this in their opinion and seems apprehensive to do so.   Very interesting case.

This is what i wrote on another board.

"if we look at the argument present by appellant’s counsel,
he should have attempted to prove that the
engagement ring was never a gift and hence can not be
construed as such and is not applicable to any gift law.

Now by firmly establishing that the engagement ring was
never intended as a gift the appellate counsel can refute
any type of gift legal analysis. So he would have to
argue in terms of property law or more specifically a
contract law case.

He has 2 major problems with this

1. MCA 27-1-602 which states: all causes of action for
breach of contract to marry are herby abolished...with
the exception of unjust enrichment which is his
argument.

2. By stating take the car, horse, dog ring Albinger
fails to put a contractual symbolism on the ring and
hence he fails to negate any elements of what is
considered a gift in black letter law. (a) competency
of the donor to understand the nature of his act; (b)
voluntary intent on the part of the donor to make a
gift. (c) delivery, either actual or symbolic, acceptance actual
or imputed, complete divestment of all control by the donor."

99
New York Law School / Re: August 15th.
« on: August 09, 2005, 02:31:18 PM »
I didnt find outlining troubling in the least bit.  Yes you are right the outlines are specific to the professor and course.  Hey where you able to find any outlines for NYLS professors online?

100
General Board / Re: Law Schools named after scumbags!
« on: August 09, 2005, 01:01:44 AM »
Let's here it girls!
Which law school is named after the biggest SCUMBAG?

Miriam you rule, one of the funniest subjects i've seen on here.  Really out of left field.  WHere you intoxicated writing this?


Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11