Law School Discussion

Poll

How much time a day does thechoson spend on LSD.org?

10 mins a day
0 (0%)
1 hour a day
1 (4.2%)
2-5 hours a day
1 (4.2%)
more than that
22 (91.7%)

Total Members Voted: 19

Voting closed: April 22, 2004, 03:40:13 PM

Torts with Davidson

jeffjoe

  • ****
  • 1025
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2004, 03:27:55 PM »
I wasn't one of those. Mine actually went well. Lewis appeared to think so too. I think the key is to know the story line through and through.

The one who struggled basically read selected portions of the book and he knew it.

Dicta

  • ****
  • 415
  • Life Is Good
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2004, 03:35:03 PM »
...and he told her to write it out next time!  :o

Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2004, 03:43:35 PM »
It is definitely best, I believe to do that. I didn't have time to write it out, but luckily I knew the narrative very well and could just talk about it. I am not going to count on that for every case though!

Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2004, 03:48:44 PM »
Just wait until Lewis catches someone using a commercial brief - what a scene! :o

jeffjoe

  • ****
  • 1025
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #24 on: September 28, 2004, 08:32:56 AM »
Has anyone found the case prof mentioned regarding IIED not fitting the transferred intent rule?  Berger or Burger or ?? v. Grey or Gray or Craig or ??

Dicta

  • ****
  • 415
  • Life Is Good
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #25 on: September 28, 2004, 07:32:47 PM »
haven't found it yet. Maybe you should post it under Contracts.....or on our board.
Susan

jeffjoe

  • ****
  • 1025
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson Newsom v. Thalhimer Brothers 901 S.W.2d 365
« Reply #26 on: September 28, 2004, 08:10:21 PM »
False imprisonment case.

I think we missed a point when we discussed this in class.

At the end of the opinion was this:

Appeals in Faniel v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 404 A.2d 147-52 (D.C.1979):
"t is not enough for plaintiff to feel 'mentally restrained' by the actions of the defendant.   The evidence must establish a restraint against the plaintiff's will, as where she yields to force, to the threat of force or to the assertion of authority."


restraint against her will...to the assertion of authority



These were security staff who told her she would be arrested.  That is assertion of authority.  I think that would be a question of fact for the jury.


Wudya think?

Dicta

  • ****
  • 415
  • Life Is Good
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #27 on: September 28, 2004, 10:09:56 PM »
I don't think Davidson thinks so and I guess that's all that matters in the Torts' Universe.
That is just MHO however!
 ;)

jeffjoe

  • ****
  • 1025
  • ABA? We don't need no stinking ABA.
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #28 on: October 31, 2004, 05:43:59 PM »
So, who's going to skip this class on Thursday to prepare for the crimes final?

Dicta

  • ****
  • 415
  • Life Is Good
    • View Profile
Re: Torts with Davidson
« Reply #29 on: October 31, 2004, 07:44:22 PM »
I think if you haven't prepared enough, it's going to be too late!
Susan