Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - LVP

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 9
1
The word you're looking for is "evidently."

Congrats on your grades.  Squeaky wheel gets the greasing.

2
General Board / Re: Quick Bluebook Question
« on: February 24, 2008, 09:47:00 AM »
Also, "superior form of medium" is awkward.  Why not simply "superior medium"?

3
General Board / Re: Quick Bluebook Question
« on: February 24, 2008, 09:43:52 AM »
Quote
You mean "579 N.E.2d 873, ___ (Ill. 1991)."

Quote
Incorrect. You need a period after Ill, and no comma after Ill.

Argh.  Yes and yes, thank you and thank you.  (The comma was a typo.)

Quote
Depends on the purpose of the document, generally this is good advice, but it really depends. I've had to put documents into state courts that specified state citations. However, given the OP's apparent level of knowledge, this is probably for some 1L assignment, so yes, the regional reporter is appropriate probably.

This is a fair point.  My answer was based on the title of the thread "Quick Bluebook Question."  Hewing to the Bluebook, you cite to the regional reporter.  But you are right, sometimes it's appropriate to deviate from the Bluebook.

Quote
Also, Cisarik, 570 N.E.2d at ___. would work. There isn't one correct way to do a short cite, and typically including the case name is a better alternative. Rule 10.9(a)(i).

Also a fair point, although it should be Cisarik.  My answers (without Cisarik) were based on Cisarik being mentioned in the sentence preceding the cite. 

4
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Exam taking improvement
« on: February 22, 2008, 11:24:30 PM »
Hi, I was wondering for those students who did well their first semester in law school, how did you prepare for exams?

Also, I was wondering from 2/3Ls who improved after their first semester what you changed to better prepare?

I am really looking to take my exam preparation to the next level. I did OK last semester but want to greatly improve.

1. Found a group to study with.  My unofficial study group throughout the semester all went to separate study carrels as exams approached, so I picked a study group (I didn't even know the people very well) and asked if they'd let me in.  Not only did it help me do well, but I made 5 friends.  This is probably the single best thing I did.  If there was something I didn't understand, people would explain it to me.  If there was something other people didn't understand, I would explain it to them, which was great because it really solidified my understanding of it.  And if there was something no one understood, it made us all work harder to try to figure it out.  Plus it keeps you focused, and makes the process more enjoyable.

2. E&E for every subject

3. Finals for every subject, especially those with a multiple choice section on the exam (for me, this was very helpful for Torts).

4. Crunch Time for every subject (I don't know how helpful that really was).

5. CALI for every subject.

6. Thumbed through Getting to Maybe a little.

7. Outlined.  I was pretty bad with keeping up my outlines through the semester, so I had a lot of work to do leading up to finals.  But I went through every case in every class, forced myself to remember what it was about and what we were supposed to draw from it, and where it fit in in the scheme of things.  Good stuff.

8. Positive thinking.  I imagined myself getting my grades back after exams, and getting all As.  I never really believed it would happen, but I lied to myself and told myself it would.  And it did.

9. Stopped stressing when the exam starts.  You have three hours.  You don't have time to stress.  You have a little time to read (enough to read very carefully), and a bunch of time to write.  You might have time to go to the bathroom.  You don't have time to stress, worry, fret, fear, ponder, wonder, regret, hope, wish, or pray.  Shut it down and write.

10. Focused on quantity.  This might be controversial, but here's my philosophy.  If you have studied right, and really learned the stuff, your quality is going to be good.  So don't worry too much about it - focus instead on saying as much as you can.  Most profs don't take off points - they just start at zero and add them.  The more you say, the more points you grab.  Quality obviously counts, but hopefully you focused on quality before the exam so you can focus on quantity during it.  One prof I had came out and said, before the final, that the way to do well is essentially to just make as many non-ridiculous arguments as you can.  Before the exam, learn which arguments are non-ridiculous.  During the exam, dump them onto the screen.  (Also, know your prof - there are some for whom this is definitely not a good idea.)

5
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Civil Procedure
« on: February 22, 2008, 11:05:40 PM »
Help. OMG, I am going to fail this class. Prof is terrible. Talks super fast and is hard to understand b/c he has trouble with the English language, and is all over the place. I'm freaking lost.

Any recommendations for some supplements to save my sorry butt? I'm going to lose it pretty soon.

Do CALI.  Best kept secret, at least at my school.  Whenever I mention it to someone, there's a 10% chance they say, "oh CALI is awesome," and a 90% chance they say "huh?"

It also happens to be free.

Also, don't forget that you're being graded on a curve, and all of your classmates have the same terrible, non-English speaking, fast talking prof you do.  They'll all take the same exam you do. 

Also, thoughts like "I am going to fail this class" are self-fulfilling prophecies.  As are thoughts like "I'm going to do well in this class."

6
Socratic Method / Re: Do u get called on once or more than once???
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:55:42 PM »
Every single time I got called on in class, I got PWNED because I wasn't paying any attention.  Several times I bet I got called on because it was clear that I was the only kid playing online poker, slouched in the back row.  Plus I don't brief. 
It's okay, at least you realized you got called on.  1L Fall one guy was so engrossed in his IM/online poker/fantasy football/whatever he was doing that he didn't even realize the professor was saying his name.  He repeated himself a couple of times, and everybody was staring at the kid, but the kid was oblivious.

I don't remember what happened next - I think the prof just called on someone else and moved on.

7
Socratic Method / Re: Socrtaic Method an act of scholarly mischief?
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:43:52 PM »
(5) It is impossible to test Law Students on final eam via Socratic dialogue. 


Literally, you are right.  But by internalizing Socratic dialogue, you become better at finding strengths and probing weaknesses in all arguments on all sides of a given issue.  And that's something that many professors do look for on final exams.

Sure, you'll get a point by identifying detrimental reliance as one of the elements of promissory estoppel.  But you'll get a lot more points by telling the prof all the reasons why there was detrimental reliance, and then telling him all the reasons why there wasn't.  At least, with some profs.

8
General Board / Re: Quick Bluebook Question
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:30:13 PM »
Is this a short form citation?  If not (which is my assumption), use a comma rather than "at" between the first page and the pincite.  "144 Ill. 2d 339, ___ (1991)." 

Correct.  And if it is, then you use the at but omit the starting page and year:

"144 Ill. 2d at ___."

Also, don't cite to Ill. 2d.  Cite to N.E. or N.E.2d, if therein.

The correct long cite is:

579 N.E.2d 873, ___ (Ill, 1991).  (ETA: This is wrong, see below)

The correct short cite is:

579 N.E.2d at ___.

9
First of all, I'm hoping you understand that Wallace v. Rosen didn't involve conversion.

Second, conversion is like the "big brother" to trespass to chattels.  Basically, conversion is an unlawful act, usually a taking or destroying, done to the chattel of another, that is serious enough that the owner has basically been deprived of his property, and it is fair to force the tortfeasor to pay for the entire value of the property.

Third, Wallace v. Rosen is the "crowded world" case.  Like any case, there are a million different points you can get out of it (well, 21 according to WestLaw), but I'm guessing you are reading it for its application to the law of battery.  The Plaintiff fell and/or was pushed down the stairs.  Defendant touched her to alert her to the fact that she was blocking a stairwell during a fire drill.  This looks to any alert 1L like a clear case of battery - after all, there was an intentional touching, and P didn't want D to touch her.  The court says:
Quote
Professors Prosser and Keeton also made the following observations about the intentional tort of battery and the character of the defendant's action:

Quote
n a crowded world, a certain amount of personal contact is inevitable and must be accepted. Absent expression to the contrary, consent is assumed to all those ordinary contacts which are customary and reasonably necessary to the common intercourse of life, such as a tap on the shoulder to attract attention, a friendly grasp of the arm, or a casual jostling to make a passage....

The time and place, and the circumstances under which the act is done, will necessarily affect its unpermitted character, and so will the relations between the parties. A stranger is not to be expected to tolerate liberties which would be allowed by an intimate friend. But unless the defendant has special reason to believe that more or less will be permitted by the individual plaintiff, the test is what would be offensive to an ordinary person not unduly sensitive as to personal dignity.
* * *
The conditions on the stairway of Northwest High School during the fire drill were an example of Professors Prosser and Keeton's “crowded world.” Individuals standing in the middle of a stairway during the fire drill could expect that a certain amount of personal contact would be inevitable. Rosen had a responsibility to her students to keep them moving in an orderly fashion down the stairs and out the door. Under these circumstances, Rosen's touching of Wallace's shoulder or back with her fingertips to get her attention over the noise of the alarm cannot be said to be a rude, insolent, or angry touching. Wallace has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing the battery instruction.

Basically, the court finds a presumption of consent to certain reasonable touchings in this crowded world, and it is the consent that makes this touching no battery at all.

10
Socratic Method / Re: Speaking Legalese
« on: October 17, 2007, 09:15:05 AM »
I'm a fan of the precision school of thought.  If the "fancy" word means something different than the "common" word, then the "fancy" word is preferable.

I would say if the "fancy" word means something different than the "common" word, then the word that is closer in meaning to what you're trying to say is preferable.

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