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 ... 5 6 7 8 9  11 12 13 14 15 ... 114
« on: July 27, 2007, 11:12:03 AM »
Is it crazy to be on a journal, take a full class load, be on the board of two clubs, volunteer at clinics, and work part time? The firm I worked for over the summer has asked me to stay on part time during the year, and I would love to, but I'm not sure if its really feasible. I didn't get awesome grades my first year, compounding the problem, because I imagine doing all of those things would be rather appealing to a future employer. Help?
No, it's not crazy. In fact, when I had a similar schedule, my grades improved. I think it's easier to stay on a roll once you get on a roll. Go for it.
« on: July 26, 2007, 10:10:13 AM »
sounds like a good argument.
thanks jumboshrimps (i was tempted to write jumboprawns)
That would be a ginormous shrimp!
« on: July 25, 2007, 05:55:51 PM »
If I had to argue for CE:
The quasi-judicial ruling, combined with the trial court's judgment effectively sustaining that ruling, constitutes a full and fair opportunity to be heard on the issue of wrongful termination, and the trial court's ruling constitutes a final judgment on that issue.
If I had to argue against CE:
There is no court judgment on the issue of wrongful termination. There is only a judgment on the mandamus issue, whereby the plaintiff was not fully heard on the merits of the case, but rather the trial judge reviewed the record in its entirety only to determine whether there was extraordinary abuse of discretion by the quasi-judicial officer.
« on: July 25, 2007, 05:45:35 PM »
It should be noted that one gets exponentially faster at the work of being a law student. Something that takes you 4 hours during your first week (like briefing a case) takes you five minutes as a 2L. i heard that briefing cases is a waste of time though, because it only prepares you for class discussion (not graded) and not your finals (graded)
Briefing a case was an example only. Reading a case takes you less time as you get better at it as well.
But for what it's worth, I consider reading a case to be synonymous with briefing it in your head. If you're reading case law for any other reason than to pull out the basic facts and/or law, you need to start watching more movies or something.
« on: July 25, 2007, 04:10:01 PM »
It should be noted that one gets exponentially faster at the work of being a law student. Something that takes you 4 hours during your first week (like briefing a case) takes you five minutes as a 2L.
« on: July 25, 2007, 04:03:12 PM »
But in the petition before the trial court, all the evidence that was available in the grievance is also reviewed by the TC judge in a limited trial de novo. Say that he makes his own findings as to what happened (on a particular issue the hearing officer did not reach), which are different, but not inconsistent with what the quasi-judicial hearing officer held. Is a petition for writ of mandate not a "full and fair hearing on the merits"?
"Limited trial de novo" hardly equates with "full and fair hearing" to me. In addition, CE usually requires that the issue to be estopped is identical with the issue previously litigated. A writ of mandate (mandamus) is an extraordinary writ. At the trial court level, the court was facing the question of whether or not to compel an official (the quasi-judicial officer) to do something. So, while the evidence may have been viewed de novo, the review was done only with regard to how bad the officer screwed up. The issues are therefore not identical. In the first case the issue was, "Is the quasi-judicial finding so contrary to law that we should compel that officer to change his ruling." The issue that the man will now try to litigate is "Was I wrongfully terminated?"
« on: July 25, 2007, 02:50:38 PM »
It looks like he had only one potentially "full and fair hearing on the merits" as to the grievance itself. Most jurisdictions require this for collateral estoppel. That was at the quasi-judicial hearing.
Of course, if you want to estop him as to the issue of whether the trial court properly denied the writ, then, if he had a full and fair hearing on that issue in the trial court (and the appellate court), he can invoke CE as to that issue only.
« on: July 21, 2007, 03:35:57 PM »
What's on the list?
« on: July 19, 2007, 09:58:22 AM »
« on: July 19, 2007, 09:57:06 AM »
Yep. The guts of the BB are for you. The best thing about the BB is the index. Go forth and use it wisely.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9  11 12 13 14 15 ... 114