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 - Jumboshrimps

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 114
Traditional wisdom says that federal juries are more likely to be defendant-friendly and generally more sophisticated. Personally, I think this idea is a bit antiquated and you really need to investigate jury verdicts in the potential jurisdiction and look for patterns. Some local jury pools are remarkably conservative, both politically and with awarding dough to injured plaintiffs.

General Board / Re: Law is a funny thing . . .
« on: October 03, 2007, 11:53:13 AM »
"Fiduciary Doodies"

General Board / Re: Is something wrong?
« on: September 28, 2007, 11:56:13 AM »
Stress is good in law school; flipping out is not.

General Board / Re: Is something wrong?
« on: September 28, 2007, 11:03:20 AM »
Exam prep starts from day one. If you're in law school, it's exam time. Enter the forced curve. Enter understanding of simple statistics. If that doesn't stress you out, you are not working hard enough.

Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Hearsay - Statement Not Under Oath
« on: September 23, 2007, 06:42:21 PM »
The statement is "I had nothing to do with the crime." It is being offered solely to impeach the credibility of the witness. Therefore, it is patently not offered for the truth of its contents and thus not hearsay at all.

Then, the other attorney pipes up and says, "Your honor, counsel's stated purpose of introducing this statement solely for impeachment purposes is a mere pretext to get it in for the truth of its contents, namely, that the witness had nothing to do with the crime.
It is plain hearsay and does not fall under an exception."

Then, the first attorney says, "Your honor, I am merely trying to impeach the credibility of this witness. Moreover, this statement could not be offered for its truth in ANY circumstance because it is in fact false. A false statement is never offered for its truth, and therefore never hearsay."

Judge: I will allow the statement. It is either not hearsay or it falls under the impeachment "exception."

Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Hearsay - Statement Not Under Oath
« on: September 23, 2007, 03:13:05 PM »
Because you are not offering the statement for its truth, it is really not hearsay at all. This is really just another formulation of the impeachment exception, but it is technically more correct to call it "non-hearsay."

General Board / Re: What legal theory could make this work?
« on: September 20, 2007, 08:33:28 AM »
Yes, you need no special legal theory. These are your actual damages. However, you need to establish the value of your time. If you're not a lawyer or some other professional who necessarily spent business time on this matter, your time is worth nothing at all.

Your method is good for determining whether actual, "but-for" causation is present. Proximate cause is subjective, and the best that can be said about it is that it encompasses some combination of foreseeability and "non-attenuatedness." You couldn't design a formula to determine proximate cause any more than you could design one to determine whether someone likes you or not.

Not only feasible, but essential.

Seriously, do all of your studying in a brothel if it helps you get your work done.

Personally, I find that I have to move from place to place all the time to stay focussed. 

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 114