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 ... 39
Well I just talked to the prof.. he gave me the general breakdown of how he got to my grade... he apparantly 'justified' it... we're meeting in a week or so to go over the more detailed breakdown but whatever...I guess it is what it is...time to move on

Yeah, it doesn't make sense, especially considering this prof is one who wrote me a letter of rec for the transfer to begin with, but this grade is a horrible deviation from my standard.. and it wasn't like I didn't try...It was a paper class, no exam, and half the grading was done prior to me making the decision to transfer, so it wasnt like I was slacking because I knew I was transferring. Its just so bizzare ....I'm at a loss. Maybe I will know more once I get my paper back and can talk to the prof...

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...

General Board / Re: Violation of fourth amendmant right?
« on: December 14, 2006, 09:16:03 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...

General Board / Re: Violation of fourth amendmant right?
« on: December 14, 2006, 09:01:30 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 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.

General Board / Re: Torts Hypo - input appreciated
« on: December 14, 2006, 08:57:20 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 least make the argument on the IIED

General Board / Re: Torts Hypo - input appreciated
« on: December 14, 2006, 08:55:51 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

General Board / Re: Torts Hypo - input appreciated
« on: December 14, 2006, 04:51:13 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???

General Board / Re: Violation of fourth amendmant right?
« on: December 14, 2006, 04:41:01 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.

General Board / Re: which is harder?
« on: December 14, 2006, 03:40:16 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.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 39