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 - Budlaw

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52]
511
Current Law Students / Re: Good Faith Purchaser Question
« on: December 16, 2005, 09:48:13 AM »
Well what does your professor say about it? Or have you fallen into the trap of using your case book and a commercial outline as well.....

Anyhoo...I'm not going to answer your question. But maybe you should consider the doctrine of subrogation and also since you're wondering about thieves.....What in essence is adverse possession? Finally, just because the good faith possessor gains a title to chattle, that doesn't necessarily equate to a a superior title than the true owner. To some extent everyone that comes into possession of chattles has a "title" to them.

My suggestion to you is to consider the competing policies of not allowing a thief to profit from his wrong doing, and the policy of returning an item (or chattle) to the true owner.

There are no simple answers in life and this is even more magnified in the area of property...





I'm seeing a discrepancy in the two property books I'm using.  A thief gains a void title and technically you can't transfer more rights than you already have so...  a thief has no rights and thus transfers no rights...

One book that I have states that when a thief transfers property to a Good Faith Purchaser, the Good Faith Purchaser gains rights to the chattel as a matter of policy.  The other book states that because the thief has a void title the Good Faith Purchaser gets no rights to the chattel..  So which is it???

512
Current Law Students / Re: F Grades....Please help freaking out!
« on: December 15, 2005, 12:48:55 AM »
Most profs won't give F's and D's unless they absolutely have to. At my school, if you have a 2.0 or less you are put on probation and given only one semester to bring it up. So two semesters of a 2.0 or less means your going home. Although some ppl are put on probation, it is really unusual for them to be kicked out.
[/quo


Yeah you're brilliant. Congrats. you must be very proud of yourself.

Loser

513
Transferring / Re: prestige
« on: December 12, 2005, 04:22:33 PM »
How did i cross the line?  by admiting i care about prestige?
How am I obsessing?  by posting a question I genuinely did not know the answer to on this board?
Judging by people's reactions i guess i hit a nerve, in my future career i'll just pretend i dont care about prestige like everyone else does.


If I were you I'd stop obsessing about prestige, and start obsessing about how to order encyte. (because you can always transfer schools to increase the "prestige of your degree" but there's not much you can do to increase the "prestige" of other things)

Here's a helpful link:

www.enzyte-male-enhancement.com 

Good luck!

514
Current Law Students / Re: contracts - reliance
« on: December 12, 2005, 12:01:09 PM »
sorry should have made it more clear --- formula for reliance as damage interest where there are #s such as $10,000 given and u need to calculate how much they could get back


First of all, you still weren't very clear on exactly what the hypo is. But, just by what you've put out there, I'd say that you can answer your own question when you keep the following two things in mind: (1) Reliance damages are meant to put the non-breaching party into the position she was in before the contract came into being and (2) Reliance damages are generally for when expectation damages would be too speculative to be awarded.

As far as reliance damages for goods verses land, then you'd look to the UCC, specifically in the 2-700 sections.

But as I said before, you didn't really give enough facts in your hypo to allow for an accurate answer.

515
Current Law Students / Re: After the Exam, How does an A exam feel??
« on: December 11, 2005, 07:46:14 PM »
The exam was 2 hours.

The suggested time allotment for the multiple choice was 50 minutes. The multiple choice section did not take that long if you had a clue what you were doing. I spent about 35 minutes on it.

So, the suggested time allotment for the essay was 70 minutes, but I actually spent about  an hour and 20-25 minutes on it.

I'm serious about spotting around 15 issues, maybe more. I typed my exam, and I can type pretty fast. I used copy and paste for the rules that kept being used over and over again (battery, assault, etc.). The essay was only on intentional torts and defenses, since we haven't finished covering negligence yet. As a result, the rule application was generally pretty straightforward.

Of course, since I spotted that many issues, I didn't exactly have an in depth analysis for 15-20 issues. For one thing, I gave short shrift to the minor issues. My analysis was fairly in depth on the major issues. Some of the issues had the same analysis. For example, two people falsely imprisoned someone, but the analysis was the pretty much the same because it was essentially in the same manner. So I just said, "see above analysis." Same thing for at least one of the defenses.

I do know that I missed a minor sub-sub-issue that was within a defense. I realized this afterwards, and I'm pissed because I knew it so well. Under the time pressure, I forget though. I also forgot one other even less important thing: I could have applied transferred intent from assault to false imprisonment. However, it was not very important since the guy's intent was clear anyway. If I had remembered, I would have said something like, "Alternatively, B's intent could have been established by the fact that he intended the assault (see above)," since the above analysis had established that he had the intent for assault.

I may have missed other stuff, but I definitely hit a lot of issues.

I'm not guaranteeing I'm going to do well. So if I come back in January or Feb and say I bombed it because the prof was more interested in an in-depth analysis of only the major issues rather than hitting pretty much every possible issue with a less in-depth analysis, then don't hold it against me. At least it will be a learning experience though.

Disclaimer: I'm a 1L. (But I probably know more than many 2L's).

First of all, it's obviously hard to determine.

If you have spotted a lot of issues, and I mean A LOT, and gone into some depth on them, I think it is pretty safe to say you are going to do well. I've only taken two exams so far, but I think a good guage is: how long did you actually spend writing or typing? (I know it's key to be concise. But obviously, if you've spotted many issues and resolved them by applying the appropriate rules and arguments, then it's OK that your response was 8 pages, and most of your classmates only wrote 5.)

For example, today on my Torts exam, I was typing for like 80% of the time almost. Obviously, you have to plan out your answer so that it doesn't look like sh*t. But, once you start typing, there shouldn't be any pausing to remember rules. (This is why you have to have the Black Letter Law down cold; so that it doesn't take you 5 seconds each time to remember the rule.) When you glance at the facts, it should be very quick to pick out a fact or two for your analysis.

There were a couple points in time where I had to stop and think for a little bit, whether it was for the relevant rule or how to analyze it. This sort of pissed me off. But I'm pretty sure I did well. (I must have spotted around 15 issues or more on my hour and 10 minute tort essay exam and resolved each issue.)

If you were spotting issues and resolving them by applying the proper rules and analysis while your classmates were trying to figure out which rule to apply, then you probably did well.


I'm just wondering how the heck you even have an hour and 10 minute Tort exam. I thought  the point of a law school exam was to run through some significant portion of the material you covered in class. Seems to me it kinda invalidates the course if the exam is only 70 minutes. (I could only possibly see this if the Tort class is a 2 credit hour class....Anyway....(and how the heck can you really apply the facts to 15 different issues and do a correct analysis in 70 minutes....)I'm not calling B.S....but you know what they say "If it looks like B.S. and it smells like B.S......"


Ok. I'll buy this. I was really just having a hard time wrapping my head around an hour and 10 minute exam. My torts class was 4 hours for one semester. (and my Property class I guess is kinda like your torts class, split up between two semesters, but 2 hours this semester and 3 next semster). Sorry to call you out like that. (especially seeing how everyone else is being pretty mean)

Good luck on the rest of your finals.

516
Current Law Students / Re: After the Exam, How does an A exam feel??
« on: December 10, 2005, 09:39:27 PM »
Are you f-ing serious???

There are so many 2L's that still haven't figured out the game that is law school.

One kid I know gave me advice that, "On your law school exam, you're basically going to throw up on the exam" (just write out everything you know). Though I kind of see what he is saying, this is precisely the opposite advice that seems to be generally accepted as being what NOT TO DO on a law school exam. You want to apply the law WHEN NECESSARY, WHEN THE ISSUES ARISE. You don't want to throw it down haphazardly.

Have you read the LEEWS manual? If not, check it out.

Just because you're a 2L, you know everything? There are plenty of 2L's who don't know their ass from your elbow. Don't try to say that there are not.

I'm not saying that you specifically don't know what the f-ck is going on. If I recall correctly, you have given good advice on this board (I don't remember a situation when you gave bad advice. In fact, contrary to what many have said, I think this board, as well as the Pre-Law board, provide a wealth of helpful information.

First, before, i answer the question, i must address this one issue:

mp - you are a pompous prick. what makes you think you know more than many 2Ls? I hope somebody stabs you in the neck with a pencil. arrogant dunce.

now, onto my answer. An A exam feels like you have just been through war. you should emotionally drained. your head should feel a little "in the clouds". not that its a brain dump, but you should feel as if every single issue you spotted, you analyzed as if your life depended on it. ALSO, you should feel as if u didn't get to every issue. Thats one thing, if u know ur stuff, you will obviously see things that you should address perhaps in passing, although not have time to go back and address it more fully, because your analysis on the other "meatier" issues took up your time. Its kind of hard to explain. some people say that the A's they have gotten, they felt the worst right after the exam because of some issues they didn't address.




One more thing to add. Just because you spotted a lot of issues, and applied the law to them doesn't mean that it was an A exam. I can't say how your law school works, but I believe most of them apply a hard curve for the grades on a exam. (like at least 5 percent have to be A's , but say no more than 15 percent can be A's....anyway) So, it doesn't mean that you made an A just because you spotted a lot of issues and applied the law, because if the professor thinks that a certain percentage of people had a better exam than you then you still don't have an A.


HTH

517
Current Law Students / Re: After the Exam, How does an A exam feel??
« on: December 10, 2005, 09:25:08 PM »
Disclaimer: I'm a 1L. (But I probably know more than many 2L's).

First of all, it's obviously hard to determine.

If you have spotted a lot of issues, and I mean A LOT, and gone into some depth on them, I think it is pretty safe to say you are going to do well. I've only taken two exams so far, but I think a good guage is: how long did you actually spend writing or typing? (I know it's key to be concise. But obviously, if you've spotted many issues and resolved them by applying the appropriate rules and arguments, then it's OK that your response was 8 pages, and most of your classmates only wrote 5.)

For example, today on my Torts exam, I was typing for like 80% of the time almost. Obviously, you have to plan out your answer so that it doesn't look like sh*t. But, once you start typing, there shouldn't be any pausing to remember rules. (This is why you have to have the Black Letter Law down cold; so that it doesn't take you 5 seconds each time to remember the rule.) When you glance at the facts, it should be very quick to pick out a fact or two for your analysis.

There were a couple points in time where I had to stop and think for a little bit, whether it was for the relevant rule or how to analyze it. This sort of pissed me off. But I'm pretty sure I did well. (I must have spotted around 15 issues or more on my hour and 10 minute tort essay exam and resolved each issue.)

If you were spotting issues and resolving them by applying the proper rules and analysis while your classmates were trying to figure out which rule to apply, then you probably did well.


I'm just wondering how the heck you even have an hour and 10 minute Tort exam. I thought  the point of a law school exam was to run through some significant portion of the material you covered in class. Seems to me it kinda invalidates the course if the exam is only 70 minutes. (I could only possibly see this if the Tort class is a 2 credit hour class....Anyway....(and how the heck can you really apply the facts to 15 different issues and do a correct analysis in 70 minutes....)I'm not calling B.S....but you know what they say "If it looks like B.S. and it smells like B.S......"

518
Current Law Students / Re: CivPro question re: joining a defendant
« on: December 10, 2005, 04:03:08 PM »
Quick question regarding joinder (I think...)

My CivPro class is a full year, and we've spend most of the semester on Jurisdiction.  We've also done venue, transfer, and and a little bit of pleading (but not much) so if some of my terms aren't quite correct for the procedural stuff, it's just because we haven't covered it.

We've discussed subject matter jurisdiction, and w/ diversity of citizenship a ptf can't "manufacture" diversity by either adding a frivilous party or ignoring a party integral to the suit.

Such fraudulent behavior isn't allowed by defendants either if they're trying to destroy diversity.

What happens when a defendant seeks to add a legitimate party though?  Say it's a tort case, and the defendant wants to add another party that at the very least likely shares some liability, or might be totally liable.  The additional of this defendant would destroy diversity.  Does this legitimately destroy diversity, thereby destroying subject matter jurisdiction?  Would this just be explained as an "integral party" or is that a judgment call?

I could've sworn we knew the answer, but neither myself nor anyone my study group could say for certain  Hopefully someone here does!  Thanks!


Well, as your law school professors are sure to tell you....you should look this up yourself. But I'm feeling good today so I'll help you out a little bit. (as my finals were over this past Thursday)

First of all remember "Blame is not a claim". A defendant can't join another defendant by saying that it's her fault(nor should he even want to, because if the tort is someone elses' fault, then this will be found out during the course of the trial, and the defendant will walk) A defendant can bring in a third party defendant via FRCP rule 14, but it has to be based on some type of derivatative indemnification claim.

When this third party claim would otherwise "blow up" diversity (when the plaintiff's claim is based solely on diversity), then you look to 28 U.S.C. statute 1367 which sets up grounds for supplemental jurisdiction. This sets out the guidlines for allowing these claims. So check it out...

Also keep in mind that a defendant isn't really the one who does the joining of parties....if the plaintiff doesn't name another party in the suit, then there's not much that the defendant can do to bring to bring in another defendant other than a rule 14 (and this is a good thing that you will find out when you get to Summary Judgement if you haven't allready got there in your course already...if you have gotten there think of the Celotex case)


Anyway, good luck! When you're looking at USC 1367 pay particular attention to section (b) and mentally insert the word "original" whenever you see plaintiffs come up.

Pages: 1 ... 47 48 49 50 51 [52]