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 - Jumboshrimps
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 10 11 12 ... 114
« on: December 02, 2007, 02:23:10 PM »
You can only have community property first of all if you're in a community property jurisdiction.
Once she sells the property to a third party, she is no longer the owner at all. Since she begins adversely possessing the property BEFORE she gets married, her new title in the property after the statutory period runs is dated from the moment she began possessing the property. Therefore, she received titled in the property before marriage, not during, and the property remains hers (since community property only includes property acquired during the marriage).
Granted I'm rusty on my property knowledge...
She gained title to the property after
she was married, not before. An adverse possessor does not attain "retroactive" title once the statutory period runs. Title only vests when all the elements of AP are met, including the running of the applicable statute. Therefore, the property is community property, or marital property, as the case may be.
« on: November 27, 2007, 03:38:06 PM »
Pay me $60,000 a year and I'll be happy as a pig in *&^%. Only conditions: let me actually practice law and treat me with respect.
« on: November 27, 2007, 03:31:33 PM »
The substantial factor rule is a substitute for the plaintiff's burden of proving causation. As you said, it allows the plaintiff to hold multiple defendants jointly and severally liable where no single cause for the injury can be shown. I don't know how popular that rule is, though. I doubt most jurisdictions subscribe to it.
Contrast this with "concerted action" theory, where multiple defendant act in concert to cause the plaintiff's injury, and there is no way to prove which defendant actually caused the injury. Example: 3 guys shoot bird shot simultaneously toward the plaintiff, who is hit in the eye by a pellet. P can't prove which one shot the pellet. Some jurisdictions will then allow the burden to prove the absence of causation to shift to each of the defendants. Any defendant who cannot meet this burden is held liable for the entire injury.
The obvious difference between the two theories of liability is that, with concerted action theory, the defendants are all engaged in the same activity, hence "acting in concert."
« on: November 27, 2007, 10:16:04 AM »
How does an interpleader come into a suit? Does the interpleader have to invited or can he just intervene on his own behalf? I understand that an interpleader is a form of joinder open to one who does not know to which of several claimants he or she is liable, if liable at all.
The "interpleader plaintiff" typically sues the claimants to the "stake." They are in fact "defendants" to the suit. In common interpleader actions, the stakeholder simply files a simple petition, deposits the stake with the court, and then files a motion to be dismissed from the case. The dismissal can come immediately, before any action by the defendants, who then duke it out among themselves.
Alternatively, the interpleader plaintiff might retain the stake until the outcome of the litigation instead of depositing it with the court.
« on: November 26, 2007, 06:11:51 PM »
You can always appeal a decision of a trial court. A common reason for dismissal of a petition is that the law is unclear about whether a particular cause of action is recognized in the jurisdiction. That would be one ground for appealing the dismissal (i.e. to force an appellate court to wrestle with the legal issue of whether the cause of action will be recognized). However, the most common reaction to having one's petition dismissed is to refile it, and this time make it thorough and backed by good law.
However, when you lose, as in your hypo, you have no "remedy." Remedies are for the winners. A loser may have recourse, but not a remedy.
« on: November 14, 2007, 07:49:12 PM »
Throw it away. The point of making an outline is that it forces you to learn the material. If you're not comfortable throwing it away, you didn't do it right, in which case you should throw it away and start making a new outline, which you can then throw away.
The other half of exam prep is answering practice questions. And that last poster is a male private part.
« on: November 06, 2007, 06:36:11 PM »
I don't think I've ever started a new thread on this board. The times, they are a' changin'
Ron Paul has raised a great deal of money in recent months. As a libertarian-at-heart, I find his ideas to be compelling and refreshing, and his personality to be downright charismatic.
I feel that current GOP foreign policy is a sure-fire way to cause our country to be destroyed from the outside-in, while Democratic policy has always been certain to cause America to rot from the inside-out. Ron Paul at least gives lip service to the absolute best compromise, and the one that accords most closely with the vision for our country as outlined in the Constitution.
Are there any Ron Paul fans on this Board? Is this guy what he claims to be, or just another deluded politician?
« on: November 06, 2007, 04:13:13 PM »
Torts should be the easiest exam to take. This does not mean its the easiest class, though, because you can never underestimate the ability of a law professor to overcomplicate things. But, it really should be your easiest exam in law school.
IRAC is not just one way to do legal writing. If you're not doing IRAC, you're not doing legal writing. It is the VERY GENERAL format followed by judges, lawyers, scholars, and everybody else. Your torts exam is the most stripped-down version of what it means to do an IRAC. I wrote my entire first year torts exam like this, and did well:
John is liable for battery, which requires an intentional, unwanted, and harmful touching. His letter to Mike establishes his intentional mindset, while Mike's comments show he did not consent to the beating, and his broken bones are his injury. John is liable for battery.
All the points are in there. No need to expand. Now go on to negligence. BTW, always discuss negligence, no matter how obvious it is that the defendant is more than just negligent. This goes for litigation, too. Almost every petition a good lawyer drafts has at least one count of negligence in it, regardless of the substance of the complaint.
« on: November 01, 2007, 09:07:26 AM »
You should take tax because almost everything a lawyer does has tax consequences. The course is required at my school, and I'm glad it is despite the fact that it was one of my least favorite classes. No matter what type of law you end up practicing, you need to at least be able to identify when you have a tax problem.
« on: October 26, 2007, 08:40:21 AM »
Yes, the terms for these documents, including living wills (aka health care directives or advanced directives, not to be confused with durable powers of attorney for health care decisions) are state-specific. And you should just write "wills" on your resume.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6  8 9 10 11 12 ... 114