« on: February 14, 2009, 03:21:01 AM »
Nothing over here. I'm kinda wondering about others.
Topics - ,.,.,.;.,.,.
Although I didn't want to think it at first, the YLS answers blew the T25 answers out of the water on similar tests. The best students at the T25 and the best at YLS didn't compete. The YLS students got so much deeper into the facts, I had to close my eyes, lest I be blown away by analytical prowess and intellectual ability. I won't mention that the best T25 exam missed the law, analyzed the wrong things, and still beat the classmates.
Just another prestige-fixated thought from your friendly prestige-addict to go T14 or bust!
« on: January 26, 2009, 08:27:37 PM »
At my school, nobody seems worried in the least, despite the fact that I've met a few 2Ls without offers.
Are there tensions I'm missing beneath the surface? What about at your school? Is the whole "stressing out about the economy" an online LSD/xoxo thing? It doesn't seem material IRL. People look at me strangely when I talk about the possibility of not getting BigLaw.
I've been reading Levmore's scholarship, particularly his essay in "Torts Stories" about Wagon Mound and foreseeability/causation analysis, and I think I've been reading all wrong all these years. Suddenly, it hit me: I was reading it like it was a book, rather than trying to find the thesis and meat of the analysis before constructing the essay around it.
So how do you read LR articles? Do you go for the gold? Read it like a book? Make a cup of coffee and peruse the footnotes for six hours before jumping into the main text?
Perhaps I might ask: how *should* you read LR articles?
Madsen v. East Jordan Irrigation Co., 125 P.2d 794 (Utah 1942)
-- This case is the lulz. Vibrations from the defendant's blasting caused the scared plaintiff's minks to eat their babies. The court held that strict liability should not apply because the minks' cannibalism does not ordinarily result from blasting. We read it for the abnormally dangerous activities unit, and talked about information forcing.
Vaughn v. Menlove, 132 Eng. Rep. 490 (C.P. 1837)
-- Citing English cases is tough. C.P. is common pleas, I hope. The defendant built a chimney in a haystack, despite the plaintiff's warnings. The hay caught fire and burned down the plaintiff's property. Although the defendant argued that he should not be held to a reasonable person standard because of his low intelligence, the court held that the defendant should be judged by an objective reasonable person standard. I loled as I read it.
Forster v. Red Top Sedan Service, 257 So.2d 95 (Fla. App. 1972)
-- This was my favorite respondent superior case. The plaintiffs' slow highway driving aggravated the defendant, who drove a Red Top bus. He forced them to stop on the margins, walked over to their car, and slapped both of them. He said that "no old bastard" would "hold him up from getting to the beach." I love how strict liability applies here. I do not see what the company could have done otherwise, besides extending the bus times. (Konradi)
Riss v. City of New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)
-- This case about special relationships and the police protection duty must be read to be fully appreciated. The facts are almost too stupendous for summary. After Linda Riss broke off an extramarital affair with Burton Pugach, his hired goons threw acid in her face, blinding her. In prison, he sent her love letters. Not only did they marry when he was released, but she served as a character witness in a later assault case against him. The court held that the police did not owe her a duty of protection from the goons. The eloquent dissent argued that New York law against concealed weapons kept her from self-defense, and that tort law, being normative, required the police to pay up.