Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: STANDOUT CASES  (Read 9910 times)

CamField

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #20 on: June 22, 2006, 10:33:22 PM »
Burnham = Pennoyer lives!

J D

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1388
  • Lust isn't one of the 7 Deadly Sins for nothing...
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2006, 10:34:22 PM »
Burnham = Pennoyer lives!

Perhaps, but it still doesn't reign!
"I never think of the future.  It comes soon enough."--Albert Einstein

CamField

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2006, 10:35:22 PM »
No doubt.  International Shoe or WWVW are the most important today.

CamField

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #23 on: June 22, 2006, 10:40:14 PM »
Mr. Hart, the facts of Hawkins v. McGee  :D

slacker

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 949
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #24 on: June 22, 2006, 11:13:03 PM »
Hmm...sounds like you guys had better torts and crim cases than I did. I did like the torts case that was written a'la the detective stories in the 1940's, but I can't remember the parties.

I remember Scott v. Finney in patents. (Who gets to claim priority of invention on the penile implant).

Highway

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2006, 10:40:05 AM »
This is excellent advice, so definitely read the whole post. Or not. Whatever.

This is the #1 standout case from my first year, and it wasn't even in the casebook. In fact, this is such a helpful case, you should definitely not share it with any of your classmates. ;)

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor co., 374 F.3d 797

When you deal with personal jurisdiction in civil procedure, which is always a challenge for most first year students, do yourself a favor and remember to look at this case. It won't be in your casebook, so retrieve it yourself. If you read no other case for personal jurisdiction, at least read this one. Relying on this case is definitely one of my top five first year tips.

This case is a template for a personal jurisdiction analysis. The court carefully and thoroughly walks through every step. A major issue on our exam was personal jurisdiction. I used this case almost fill in the blank style on the exam, and I got an A. I really didn't even understand personal jurisdiction going into the exam. I just hope your exam is open book like mine was.

On a side note, and I may get argued with on this advice, but don't labor over Pennoyer v. Neff very long. It's probably the first case you'll read for personal jurisdiction, and at its one of the most confusing. The bottom line is it's no longer good law, and other cases like Worldwide Volkswagen will be more relevant. The way our professor approached personal jurisdiction was to walk us through the entire development of the law in that area. In hindsight it was a major waste of time. In the end, the Schwarzenegger case gave me everything I needed, and it relies on the most current law.

The funny thing is, now that I've had some real world experience, I've found out personal jurisdiction is rarely an issue in most cases. Unless, of course, you're suing Satan. But, I would bet he has minimum contacts in most states. :)

Great...NOW you tell me about that case! CivPro is done. Thanks.

Seriously, Pennoyer v. Neff isn't really a difficult case conceptually. It's just a damn difficult read due to the way it's written. I had already heard it was supposed to be difficult, so I pulled a few briefs online and read those first. They gave me a good overview, and I found that I was able to muddle through the case without getting overly confused.

blawg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #26 on: August 19, 2006, 05:35:45 PM »
if you want a concise explanation of pennoyer and most 1st year courses, check out the following: http://www.audiocasefiles.com/cases/detail/case/8683/


blawg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2006, 12:23:58 AM »
you can download it from the home page www.audiocasefiles.com. right click on pennoyer.

Nowhere Man

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 165
  • You know who is a Blackstar? Who? Me!
    • View Profile
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #28 on: August 29, 2006, 11:20:19 PM »
The Crim Law rape case where the Doctor convinces his patient that she has some fatal disease that can only be cured by this medicine that has to be vaginally inserted and that the only tool that could be used to properly insert it was his penis. If I remember correctly the guy got away with it because the fraud was in the inducement of sex, not the act itself. The court explained this by distinguishing it from a case where another Doctor had told a patient to turn around so he could insert some inanimate medical device into her, but the only device he inserted was himself. The difference being that the woman did not actually consent to the act of sex itself.

...The best part of the whole experience was that as we left the classroom and while everybody was talking about how funny the case was the janitor's radio was playing "sexual healing" pretty loudly. True story.

Can i get the name of the case?
But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out, in!

Italian2L

  • Guest
Re: STANDOUT CASES
« Reply #29 on: August 30, 2006, 10:37:56 AM »
The Crim Law rape case where the Doctor convinces his patient that she has some fatal disease that can only be cured by this medicine that has to be vaginally inserted and that the only tool that could be used to properly insert it was his penis. If I remember correctly the guy got away with it because the fraud was in the inducement of sex, not the act itself. The court explained this by distinguishing it from a case where another Doctor had told a patient to turn around so he could insert some inanimate medical device into her, but the only device he inserted was himself. The difference being that the woman did not actually consent to the act of sex itself.

...The best part of the whole experience was that as we left the classroom and while everybody was talking about how funny the case was the janitor's radio was playing "sexual healing" pretty loudly. True story.

Can i get the name of the case?

BORO v. SUPERIOR COURT, 163 CA3d 1224 (1985)