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 - LostMyMonkeys

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38
31
I've heard this happens, though I didn't truly believe it...but do some schools really find a way to give you lower grades as a punishment for trying to transfer out? Sort of as a way to stick it to you?

I didn't believe it happened but now I am starting too...


32
Current Law Students / Re: Violation of fourth amendmant right?
« on: December 14, 2006, 07:16:03 PM »
Ahh, just now saw that myself.  What the hell, that's what not reading closely will get you.  That certainly does change the entire issue.  That has to be a typo because if not this is a quite convoluted hypothetical.  The passenger probably doesn't even have standing to complain about any search of the car whether illegal or not. 



The driver admits that he had 3 beers. The officers then give him 4 field sobriety tests, and the passenger passes them all.

???

Yeah.. my thoughts exactly...where is the error? Should the tests have been done on the driver? or Both? But why on earth would an officer do FST's on a passanger? In my 8 year law enforcement carrer (pre law school) we only did FSTs on a passenger a handful of times and that was only to determine if we had a sober driver to take the car or else we would have to tow it...


33
Current Law Students / Re: Violation of fourth amendmant right?
« on: December 14, 2006, 07:01:30 PM »
The way I read it (as it is typed) the tests were done on the passenger. Why, I don't know, but his failure to, well, fail, is irrelevent to the initial scope of the stop..ie the DRIVER and the driver's admission of drinking beer. TO me, searching the car for something related to that is well within the scope. Plus it was the passenger who protested the search, not the driver and I say again, Passanger here is irrelevant...

And ya'll are probably right about RS vs PC to search, but within the scope of the initial stop is still ok... at least from what I could tell after having just written a 30 page brief on the issue.

34
Current Law Students / Re: Torts Hypo - input appreciated
« on: December 14, 2006, 06:57:20 PM »
My novice opinion...There is no IIED or battery.

This question is about the professional standard of care - whether the doctor had the duty to inform the patient of the source of the organ.  The prudent patient rule says the doctor should inform the patient of all relevant information so she can make a responsible decision about the type and risk of care. The doctor failed to do that - the doctor is negligent.

The source of the organ may be criminally responsible and might be contributorily negligent. But, this is largely a question of the special duty owed by the doctor. The special duty was to provide more information and not providing that information was the breach.

The causation and damages part of the question is more difficult - how do we assess damages for an injury which has not occurred? This might be akin to the way damages are measured for "lower chance of recovery" - a very omplicated process that would require expert witnesses to determine the type of risk, the increase in risk as a result of the doctor's negligence in using imperfect transplant organs, and the price tag for that risk scenario.

We didn't get much into malpractice but there's probably a claim for that too...

Just my guess.
How can you say there is no battery??? There certainly may be some issue of medical professionalism and duty to warn and what not but I think that stuff goes beyond the scope of a first year torts class and goes into an upper level law and medicine course.

Most definitely battery and quite possibly IIED for sure...at least make the argument on the IIED

35
Current Law Students / Re: Torts Hypo - input appreciated
« on: December 14, 2006, 06:55:51 PM »
I bet the IIED wouldn't even be that hard if it is within the SoL.
The guy's conduct was certainly outrageous.
Intent is satified because of the recklessness of the act.  Fearing of cancer is severe emotional distress.

Working from memory, but...IIED doesn't extend to mere fear. There has no be actual emotional distress, right? It was outrageous, any reasonable person would say that when presented with the facts. But, the patient didn't display the distress, did she? Hmmm...

Which is why the IIED claim would be excellent fodder for a law school exam

36
Current Law Students / Re: Torts Hypo - input appreciated
« on: December 14, 2006, 02:51:13 PM »
Definitely has a COA for the battery...the IIED would be tougher but definitely something worth discussing.

No brainer on battery. The 'damages' necessary are the offensive contact itself. It has been repeatedly held that non consentual medical care (ie, switching docs mid surgery while patient is out without consent, even if new doc is BETTER doc) is definitely battery.

I wonder if there is a conversion issue cause of action from the family of the dead body from whom the parts were taken???

37
Current Law Students / Re: Violation of fourth amendmant right?
« on: December 14, 2006, 02:41:01 PM »
Why wouldn't the admission to drinking three beers constitute probable cause?

And reasonable suspiscion isn't as high of a bar as probable cause. You only need RS to search. Driver admitted to be drinking = RS to search the car.  Passengers objection is irrelvant.

38
Current Law Students / Re: which is harder?
« on: December 14, 2006, 01:40:16 PM »
I think the concepts in Contracts are harder. But I loved Crim Law and had a knack for it. I have friends though that hated torts, for example, which I thought was one of the easiest courses out there, but yet did exceptionally well in Contracts because they thought that class was easy.

It all comes out in the wash anyway.

39
Current Law Students / Re: California Western or Florida Coastal?
« on: December 14, 2006, 01:38:08 PM »
I had $12K at FC and it only paid half my tuition. Not sure what the tuition at Cal Western is. That said, I've lived in both San Diego and Jax and while I do like Jax, I like San Diego infinintely better. So I would go where you think you would enjoy your 3 years since all other things about the schools are relatively equal. Well, thats not true. FCSL is only 10 years old and still finding its way. Cirriculum is constantly changing, they are letting in bigger and bigger classes with every semester, something a lot of people (myself included) don't think is very condusive to fostering the best student body you can. Cal Western is older, mor eestablished, has a name for itself in the reigon, but I don't know anything about its cirriculum. I do know several graduates from there and they seem happy with their education.

40
Current Law Students / Re: Do you answer the question asked on the exam?
« on: December 13, 2006, 10:43:20 AM »
My professors all stress "ANSWER THE QUESTION ASKED"
Generally the question is one that can be answered in the issue/rule/argument/counter format but make sure you read what the question is asking and answer it...

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 38