Total Members Voted: 96
That's cool how you referenced a case.
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.
tortNretort, since you have posted elsewhere that your professors have told you your problem was throwing in too many tangential issues, I strongly urge you to disregard Mina's advice. Issue-selection is much more important for you than issue-spotting. Spinning out additional twists to the hypos will lead you away from the meatiest issues.
Are you serious? Assumption of risk because . . . maybe he lived near a shooting range? This would not fly on any of my exams.
Quote from: Miss P on January 18, 2009, 10:33:20 PMAre you serious? Assumption of risk because . . . maybe he lived near a shooting range? This would not fly on any of my exams.Maybe this is why you think all exams are controlled by luck Miss P? Because you really dislike speculating, and I don't know why. I think you should consider trying it on a practice exams, and ask your professor about it--before you rationalize the tool away. I really believe its helpful. Consider this:If he did live near a shooting range/hi crime rate area, the defendant would have an assumption of risk defense and a very solid one.As a Plaintif's attorney I could lose my case unless I asked this man about it, and as a defense attorney, I could win my case if I asked the place. The question is harmless, and can only benefit. Actually, it would be malpractice if you did not ask that question, and it turned out to be the case. (Rule 11 violation of investigation of facts)
Quote from: Miss P on January 18, 2009, 10:09:21 PMtortNretort, since you have posted elsewhere that your professors have told you your problem was throwing in too many tangential issues, I strongly urge you to disregard Mina's advice. Issue-selection is much more important for you than issue-spotting. Spinning out additional twists to the hypos will lead you away from the meatiest issues.Thank You Miss P for bringing up that point. This is a good point, as there is a risk of over-speculation. I think it highlights the idea your speculation should be reasonable. And, one should not spend much time discussing the speculated issues. JUST NOTE them, and DON"T DISCUSS THEM, unless you really should. For example, Man shoots other man's leg, hitting him while he was at home eating breakfast.1. there is likely a trespass here, the bullet was in the other man's home.2. the bullet hit him (core discussion battery).3. assumption of risk should also be dicussed. Since bullets don't usually fly into people's home, may be the area was hi-crime rate, may be he lives near shooting range etc.If I was a professor, only people that spot (3) would get an A. The rest would be mediocre. The reason is, part of being a lawyer is your ability to realize YOU NEED MORE FACTS, your Ability to Notice that YOU NEED MORE to make a complete legal analysis. But if I discussed self-defense in that hypo, I would be wrong. And if I discussed, 'necesstiy': may be another person had to shoot to protect himself, and this is reason it cam through the window. I would be wrong if I spent any more time OVER that sentence in discussion. RAISING the issue is enough. Its really fine line that takes much practice. But I find it essential to an A.
I am also wondering 1) what this person's grades are (this board occasionally devolves into the blind leading the blind) and 2) where this person goes to school. Wherever that crap consistently gets you an A is not anywhere anybody needs to go. My professors would be baffled if they saw that crap.