LOL--No one even dignified this poster with a response.
Messages - USC313
This is going to sound like a stupid question, especially for a 1L, but what is OCI exactly? What does it mean? From what I've read on here it has something to do with legal employment. Since I already have a summer internship lined up with a judge, I'm not that worried about it. But, I'd still like to know what it means.
I don't know. My Con Law class just read Marbury v. Madison and I didn't find it that hard to understand. Are you reading a lot of cases from the 19th century? Some of the language in them is pretty archaic. Luckily my professor is grouping our cases together according to subject--so I have Copper v. Allen (1950's) next under the subject of "Judicial Supremacy". My recommendation is to use the computer (i.e. Wikipedia can be helpful sometimes) as a means of obtaining background information about a given case. This can put it in context for you and assist in better understanding. Other than that, just keep re-reading.
« on: December 22, 2007, 12:57:05 AM »
I disagree. Although I learned the basics of Civ Pro from Glannon (thank god for that man), the cases provide the best illustrations of how the rules work in practice. Understanding the cases is often essential to performing well on exams, because the prof will write hypos that bear logical similarities to cases that were discussed in class. With pleadings, for example, a case like Wigglesworth effectively illustrates how a compulsory counterclaim works, and how supplemental j/d applies to these claims. Knowing the case law for personal j/d is also crucial, as there are a handful of landmark supreme court decisions (that I'm sure we're all familiar with) that each illustrate different concepts - forming a unified framework for analysis.
You have a point... Wigglesworth is a great example of how compulsory counterclaims work. However, that kind of case is the exception. Anyone ever read Gold Dust? There's no way that case does a good job of explaining the ins and outs of Rule 15.
I'm in a PT program currently. It takes 4 years instead of 3. All it essentially means is that you take 1 less class per semester than FT students. However at my school you have the option to switch into the FT program after your first year if you choose. You can also take summer classes to catch up and finish in 3 years. I worked one night a week this semester. My advice is to access your workload before you commit to any jobs--PT is easier than FT of course, but it's not a cake-walk either.
I don't really see much difference in terms of prestige, at least at my school. You still graduate with the same degree and most people are too busy with classes and homework to be worried about what students didn't have to take Property I because they are PT. I suspect you'd end up looking like a jackass if that was the most important thing on your mind. In any event, don't stress over the PT thing--go for it, see what your school requires for an eventual switch into FT, and if anyone gives you BS for being part time tell them to go pound sand.
« on: December 14, 2007, 03:57:07 PM »
F study groups. That's my motto. Seriously, if I don't understand something I don't know how a bunch of people struggling with the same material are going to help me out. I find studying alone and then referring to the professor--either in person or through e-mail--to be a much easier and productive solution. Study groups are like Wikipedia--you never really know if what your given is the true authority. Avoid them at all costs.
Does anyone else think that reading case law isn't necessarily the best way to learn Civil Procedure? Most people seem to use a supplement in order to truly understand the rules, and most cases don't necessarily explain the ins and outs of a given provision. Case in point: Diversity. When I'm reading a diversity case, the opinions never seem to get into the various methods of determining a corporations "principle place of business" etc etc. Judges tend to write from the standpoint that you (the reader) know what they are talking about already. To me it makes much more sense to read a supplement first (like E & E) and then read the case law as a supplement to that. Anyone agree/disagree?
Also keep in mind that speed limit statutes are not always enacted for the purpose of protecting others from injury. My Torts professor gave us an example of a speed limit statute in Virginia that was enacted for the purpose limiting oil consumption, or something along those lines. In any event, the statute didn't act as the duty standard in this instance--where the injury suffered was the result of negligent speeding.
And to the above poster--I think what me and the other person were trying to say was that the original post did not provide any information regarding the purpose of the statute, and therefore we couldn't make a judgment as to whether negligence per se applies or not.