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 - FreddyPharkas

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
31
General Board / Re: Quick Bluebook Question
« on: February 24, 2008, 12:01:22 AM »
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.

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.

The correct long cite is:

579 N.E.2d 873, ___ (Ill, 1991).

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

The part in parens should state: (Ill. 1991), check out table 1 to verify.


The correct short cite is:

579 N.E.2d at ___.

579 N.E.2d 873. would also work if the short cite was to the entire case. 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).


32
General Board / Re: Quick Bluebook Question
« on: February 23, 2008, 11:51:42 PM »
In your example, yes. The only time you don't need a pincite is when you are citing the entire case, generally. It's rare that you would do that.

Correct.

33
General Board / Re: Quick Bluebook Question
« on: February 23, 2008, 11:49:06 PM »
If I cite a case name in a sentence, do I need to include the case name again when I do the full cite? 

IE
 In Cisarik v. Palos Community Hosp., the court noted that a comparison of video evidence to photographic evidence is not a fair comparison due to video evidence being a superior form of medium. CASE NAME AGAIN??? 144 Ill. 2d 339 (1991).     

Nope. Just "144 Ill. 2d 339 at ____ (1991)"

You're wrong. Check out examples in Rules B2 and B4.1. Did you just give out advice without actually knowing whether it was correct or not, or were you trying to mislead?

I have NEVER seen a cite like you are saying.

34
Law School Applications / Re: Is a 155 a horrible LSAT Score?
« on: February 24, 2008, 08:50:24 PM »
Doesn't that put you slightly over the median of law students?

So you're asking if it's horrible that you scored slightly above average?

It's certainly not horrible, just quite mediocre.

I took the exam 3x so I cannot take it again. I guess I went from 2 horrible scores (in the 140s) to a mediocre score (155).

Oh well. I didn't read where you had taken it three times, that puts you in a bad position.

Maybe wait until you can take it again and actually study some for the exam?

My poor performance has less to do with studying and more to do with the fact that I am just not a good standardized test taker. I know it sounds like an excuse but I just get really nervous. I had a tutor, took princeton review and powerscore. I studied for over 1 year and spent over $3500 on classes, tutors and study aids. It sucks but I hope to atleast get into a tier 2. If I do I will definitely do my thing.


You know that law school exams are worse than the LSAT, right? Many of them have multiple choice questions and you have to take at least four per semester. At least with the LSAT you can guess and have a 20% chance (or better) of getting the right answer.

If you really put in that much work and time to only get a 155 and are looking at at Tier 2 school, think long and hard about your choice to attend law school. There's a very real chance that you'll end up at the median, which at a Tier 2 means it's almost impossible to get a job that will pay off your loans.

In my eyes law school exams are different. # 1 They are not multiple choice. They require you to write which I can do just fine. # 2 I have a solid grasp of the LSAT, for some reason I just got extremely nervous during the exams. # 3 I work for a very busy law firm over 50 hours a week so it wasn't like I was devoting all my time (like people in college or those who can afford to be unemployed while they study for the exam) Bottom line there were mitigating circumstances that led to my 155. Thanks for all your input but I think I will be just fine at my tier 2 law school. ;D

I just told you that some law school exams ARE multiple choice, especially at lower ranked schools.

You were nervous during ALL THREE EXAMS? And you think you'll be just fine on actual law school exams?

You didn't think it was important enough for your future to take a little time off from your job to study for what is objectively the most important factor in where you go to law school and how much scholarship money you get?

I worked 50 hour weeks myself after college and had plenty of time to study. Evidentially you chose to devote yourself to other endeavors aside from studying for the other 113 hours a week you weren't working.

Naturally, it's your life and you should do what you want. It just pains me to see people so oblivious to things like this, especially when the hiring market for attorneys is not looking great in the short run.

Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Good luck to you!

35
Law School Applications / Re: Is a 155 a horrible LSAT Score?
« on: February 24, 2008, 08:31:19 PM »
Doesn't that put you slightly over the median of law students?

So you're asking if it's horrible that you scored slightly above average?

It's certainly not horrible, just quite mediocre.

I took the exam 3x so I cannot take it again. I guess I went from 2 horrible scores (in the 140s) to a mediocre score (155).

Oh well. I didn't read where you had taken it three times, that puts you in a bad position.

Maybe wait until you can take it again and actually study some for the exam?

My poor performance has less to do with studying and more to do with the fact that I am just not a good standardized test taker. I know it sounds like an excuse but I just get really nervous. I had a tutor, took princeton review and powerscore. I studied for over 1 year and spent over $3500 on classes, tutors and study aids. It sucks but I hope to atleast get into a tier 2. If I do I will definitely do my thing.


You know that law school exams are worse than the LSAT, right? Many of them have multiple choice questions and you have to take at least four per semester. At least with the LSAT you can guess and have a 20% chance (or better) of getting the right answer.

If you really put in that much work and time to only get a 155 and are looking at at Tier 2 school, think long and hard about your choice to attend law school. There's a very real chance that you'll end up at the median, which at a Tier 2 means it's almost impossible to get a job that will pay off your loans.

36
Law School Applications / Re: Is a 155 a horrible LSAT Score?
« on: February 24, 2008, 07:50:27 PM »
Doesn't that put you slightly over the median of law students?

So you're asking if it's horrible that you scored slightly above average?

It's certainly not horrible, just quite mediocre.

I took the exam 3x so I cannot take it again. I guess I went from 2 horrible scores (in the 140s) to a mediocre score (155).

Oh well. I didn't read where you had taken it three times, that puts you in a bad position.

Maybe wait until you can take it again and actually study some for the exam?

37
Law School Applications / Re: Is a 155 a horrible LSAT Score?
« on: February 24, 2008, 06:55:56 PM »
Doesn't that put you slightly over the median of law students?

So you're asking if it's horrible that you scored slightly above average?

It's certainly not horrible, just quite mediocre.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]