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 - USC313

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11
Current Law Students / Re: I Need Civ Pro Studying Advice Please
« on: November 02, 2007, 11:06:20 PM »
I concur--get the Glannon book as soon as you can. I think the latest is the 5th addition. I know what you mean about Civil Procedure being a mess--Sometimes the cases just simply don't tell you everything you need to know and if you have a bad professor (which it seems like you do) that can just make it more confusing. Glannon writes in a narrative style--very direct and down to earth--its almost like reading a regular book. I used it when I studied for my midterm and I KNOW it helped me get a better grade than I would have without it. In fact I think about 75% of my Civ Pro class has the book. My recommendation is to read Glannon for whatever corresponding topic you are studying in Civ Pro.  He breaks everything down and sometimes uses diagrams to illustrate a concept. Trust me Civ Pro begins to make more sense after you've read him. The added benefit is the "examples" part. He provides a series of hypotheticals along with very good explanations. You can test yourself by trying to get the answer first.

Anyways, that's my two cents. Hope this helps. By the way, where do you go to law school?

Current Law Students / Re: Cause in fact vs. Proximate Cause
« on: October 25, 2007, 08:40:59 PM »
Just as a side note to this discussion, "cause-in-fact" does not always use the "but-for" test. There's also Alternative Liability, Concert of Action, and Market Share Liability (among others) that courts have used to establish cause in fact. So, while "but-for" is the easiest way that cause in fact can be established, it typically only works when there is a single defendant whose negligent act has resulted in harm. Multiple defendants is a whole different story. That being said, when you are working through the proximate cause cases in your Torts book, don't focus TOO much on the concept of cause-in-fact. The case examples operate under the assumption that cause in fact has been established, and now we are seeing if proximate cause is met.

Current Law Students / Is Glannon the Best?
« on: October 19, 2007, 11:36:03 PM »
How is Glannon's E&E for Torts? I'm looking for a supplement that has a lot of information on Negligence, particularly Causation and Proximate Cause. Does Glannon address these areas adequately? Would anyone recommend a different supplement for these topics? (i.e. one that treats them more thoroughly than Glannon.)

Current Law Students / Re: What do junior associates do?
« on: October 18, 2007, 12:07:17 PM »
Maybe, but that still must suck.

Current Law Students / Re: What do junior associates do?
« on: October 16, 2007, 07:09:26 PM »
That must suck.

Current Law Students / Re: What do junior associates do?
« on: October 15, 2007, 10:49:18 PM »
You can change your name from the profile.

You're right--and when he graduates he can call himself "NYU Graduate"; When he lands a job, "NYU Associate"; Maybe one day he'll make it to the top of the legal profession and we'll see "NYU PARTNER" written in big letters. And many years from now, upon his retirement, we'll see "NYU Retiree".

Seriously, you're actually defending that screen name?

Current Law Students / Question concerning "But-for" Causation.
« on: October 15, 2007, 09:44:30 PM »
So lately in Torts we've been reading about Causation and the "But for" test. (That is, "but for" or "without" the defendant's negligence conduct, would the "accident/injury" to plaintiff still have occurred? If so, then the negligent conduct was NOT the cause of the injury and hence no liability. If not, then the negligent conduct was the cause of injury).

However, how does "but for" apply when two separate negligent acts are at play. For example, Defendant A's polluted water leaks into plaintiff's pond and kills all his fish. A few hours later, Defendant's B exact same polluted water reaches the pond but the fish are already dead.

Under the traditional "but for" test, this would seem to negate Defendant A's liability.("But for" or "Without" Defendant A's negligent act of allowing his polluted water to reach plaintiff's pond, Defendant B's polluted water would have killed all the fish.). But how can that be so, since Defendant A was, in fact, the cause of injury?

Any insights?

Current Law Students / Effective Torts Supplements?
« on: October 15, 2007, 12:59:01 AM »
Can anyone recommend an effective Torts supplement, similar to Glannon w/ Civ Pro?

Current Law Students / Re: What do junior associates do?
« on: October 15, 2007, 12:57:21 AM »
Not a single serious answer--even from the NYU guy. I would have expected more from someone who consciously made their user name "NYU 2nd yr".

p.s. What are you going to do when you become a 3L?

Current Law Students / Re: Hornbooks, Nutshells, Study Gudies for Torts
« on: October 15, 2007, 12:47:09 AM »
Well, I wouldn't say that's "pretty much" what Torts is. There's also Wrongful Death, Nuisance, Products Liability, Defamation, Privacy and Civil Rights, among others. I created the post to see if anyone was aware of a well know/well respected or effective supplement--such as Glannon for Civ Pro.

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