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 - BME_Law
« on: October 31, 2009, 03:26:26 AM »
I was looking to take the patent bar. I was wondering if you had any suggestions as to the best patent bar review course to take. I took Bar/Bri for the state bar and felt extremely prepared. However, I have heard that PLI is the best for patent. It's kind of a toss up for me, although Bar/Bri would be about $1100 less ("alumni" discount).
I would appreciate any help or insight. Thank you in advance.
« on: December 23, 2008, 04:22:20 PM »
Facts: Landlord hires communications company to install fiber optic cable. Landlord tells tenants that it is mandatory. During installation, communications company causes water pipe to burst, putting three families out of their respective apartments. 2 have renter's insurance, 1 does not. Communication company admits fault.
Issue: Even though comm. company admitted fault, is there any claim against the landlord? Is the comm. company liable to any party to pay for a place to live (assuming no insurance or insurance does not cover it)?
Communication company has admitted fault, so they should liable to all parties involved. Their error caused the residence to be uninhabitable, and therefore, they should pay for the families to reside at a reasonable expense.
« on: November 10, 2008, 01:11:16 PM »
Here are some practice questions for my T+E exam on which I would appreciate some feedback.
1. Otherwise intestate, O makes a properly witnessed and valid will, the material provisions of which are "all to Ben" and "I disclaim the right to make more wills." Two years later, O validly makes a holographic "will" which reads in its entirety "my Mercedes SL to Carol." (This second will thus has no clause specifically revoking prior wills and codicils.) O dies. Who takes the SL?
A. Carol, because the second "will" overrides the first.
B. Carol, because in the absence of specific direction, the revocation of all prior wills and codicils is implied.
C. Ben, because a holographic "will" cannot override an attested will.
D. Ben, because O has validly disclaimed O's power to make further wills.
My answer/guess: A. Even though O has disclaimed the right to make more wills, the subsequent "will" or codicil will squeeze out the provisions of the previous will. Therefore, Ben would take everything but the Mercedes.
2. O opened a joint bank account of the usual sort with Ben. O alone deposited $100,000 in the account. Ben appeared at the bank and attempted to withdraw $80,000 (more than half) from the account. Can Ben withdraw the $80,000?
A. Yes, because a common joint bank account is not the same as joint tenancy property.
B. Yes, because O has made a completed gift to Ben of $100,000.
C. No, because the "joint" nature of the account only applies at death.
D. No, Ben can only withdraw $50,000 or half of the balance of the account.
My answer/guess: A.
« on: May 11, 2007, 12:08:09 PM »
What is a "tacit agreement"? Even though it is rejected by the UCC in 2-715, comment 2, I still would like to know.
Our professor touched on this, but never really went over it. There is no good definition or example anywhere. Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
« on: April 25, 2007, 06:14:12 PM »
It's funny that you mention phone calls and voicemails. I made a call and left a message, but did not hear back. So I finally called back and left another message. About 10 minutes later I got a call back from the paralegal with the necessary information. I guess it pays to be somewhat persistent.
Sorry that it's happened to you guys, but at least I know I'm not the only one.
« on: April 25, 2007, 05:03:54 PM »
What is the typical turnaround time for a response e-mail from a lawyer? When I receive an e-mail, I usually respond as soon as I am finished reading it (unless it is late at night or early in the morning, then I will wait). However, I recently sent a few e-mails and have not heard anything back yet (one I sent 9 days ago and two others I sent 7 days ago). These people were expecting the e-mail, so it was not just some random person sending them something.
I understand that I am not their colleague (yet), but I just find this to be disrespectful and unprofessional. How do you all feel about this?
« on: February 27, 2007, 02:39:19 PM »
Makes sense. That's what I was thinking, but seeing as how I haven't done this before I figured that I would get some feedback.
Thanks for all of the responses and help.
« on: February 27, 2007, 01:30:09 PM »
I doubt you will find out until the last week of July no matter how early you apply.
First, thanks for the responses.
Second, I am not sure which school it is because I am not back at my apartment (have everything laid out there). Only the application portion is due May 1, not the entire file (LOR, transcripts, certification, etc.). Two schools are due June 30 or July 1 for the entire thing (application included). On the application, it asks the other schools to which I am applying. Does it look better to say "none" (not a lie, but consciously decide to only apply to one)? When I sign the application, I am essentially saying that everything on it is true. What if I think that is the only one I want to apply to, then change my mind later?
I am not worried about when I hear back. I was concerned with the process: rolling admissions or simply admit/reject. I figured that the sooner I get my application in the better, but since my file won't be completed until later I guess it won't really matter.
« on: February 27, 2007, 09:33:07 AM »
Does the transfer group follow some sort of rolling admissions or just accepted/rejected?
Do you suggest sending the applications ASAP or waiting until I am confident that I have everything I need on the application? For example, we have a 1L Moot Court competition from the middle to the end of March. My application and statements are done, but I was thinking about waiting until the end of March to see if I win the competition. I feel as though this would look good on my transfer application if I won the competition or did well (made the finals).
ETA: The application(s) are not due until May 1 and would go out the last week in March (if I wait). The files do not need to be completed until July 1. If I do not wait until the competition, I would send them out beginning of March.
« on: January 25, 2007, 03:32:55 PM »
Today in Crim Pro we were going over Johnson v. US, 333 US 10, a case that suppressed evidence of opium and related paraphernalia after an officer was able to smell it in the hallway. Prior to this we had discussed that it would not a search if probable cause was obtained through information that was available to the public (the smell of burning opium in the hallway, in this instance). My understanding is that the evidence was suppressed because of the manner in which the cops entered the hotel room (essentially demanding entrance, instead of asking for permission) and because the other evidence would still be accessible. Is this correct? Or am I missing some reason why the officer would have needed a warrant in this instance?
That seemed to be the gist of what we were talking about in class and what I got from the case. I thought that I might have missed something for one reason or another. Thanks for any help.