Awesome. What kind-of stuff was on the exam? I'm going to start studying for my Civ Pro exam tomorrow ... it's on Tuesday. My brain is totally fried, I'm going to have some booze, maybe smoke a little _\|/_ and start the nightmare jourey once more.
Torts I successfully did the whole duty, breach, causation crap, but it seems way looser and up to how well the argument was crafted. Civ Pro seems more structured
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:38 (fifteen years ago) link
i finished trial practice final and now i am a little tiny bit durrnkkkk. doing a self-scheduling take-home exam tomorrow and friday :((((
― harbl, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:40 (fifteen years ago) link
:((((((( what subjects you got?
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:40 (fifteen years ago) link
family lawinternational laweducation law (lol)
― harbl, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:56 (fifteen years ago) link
basically i'm taking crap classes
― harbl, Thursday, 11 December 2008 03:57 (fifteen years ago) link
What kind-of stuff was on the exam?
Long ass subject matter jurisdition question, long ass personal jurisdiction question, shorter essays on preclusion, erie doctrine, hard multiple choice qs on application of the rules. There was all kinds of stuff designed to catch people off guard -- for example in personal jurisdiction we spent a ton of time in class doing minimum contacts analysis for out-of-state companies in personal jurisdiction. The fact pattern sounded like a classic minimum contacts set-up and had lots of facts in common with other business cases, but the defendants were actually individuals, so you really had to look for the traditional bases for jurisdiction.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 December 2008 10:50 (fifteen years ago) link
So is there any good reason not to sell any of my textbooks? I wrote in them exclusively in pencil with the hope of resale.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:07 (fifteen years ago) link
You fail and take it again?
I jest. If you fail a first-year class, you should probably not continue to accrue debt.
I kept most of mine - I still look back at them from time to time, especially Constitutional and Criminal Procedure. My Civ Pro class was such a joke, we didn't even study joinder. I shit you not. SO bad. But money be tight, and books be expensive.
― B.L.A.M., Thursday, 11 December 2008 17:16 (fifteen years ago) link
I'm suffering through Civ Pro now. On the exam our professor wants us to explain the the theory behind each answer we give on the exam, so I'm going through all the cases now to get the explanations the courts give for their decisions.barfo. I'm sooooooo fucking tired.
and I still need to get a grasp on the fucking Erie Doctrine. I hate you so much!
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 18:52 (fifteen years ago) link
International Shoe and the Erie Doctrine are my bains right now. Joinder might be a little iffy as well. :{
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 18:53 (fifteen years ago) link
bane
uh i would say yes sell back all books. i wish i had. they are totally dead weight & take up a lot of space now (3 yrs out)
― johnny crunch, Friday, 12 December 2008 19:06 (fifteen years ago) link
johnny crunch, esq.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 19:49 (fifteen years ago) link
Fuck Erie doctrine. After reading and re-reading the case book, Glannon, my friend's notes from a bar-bri lecture and REPEATEDLY going through it with my professor, I'm convinced it's a lot of bullshit, and if I had the smarts and the pedigree I'd write a scholarly article explaining why.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 21:25 (fifteen years ago) link
Civ Pro is all about taking vague, arbitrary stuff and making it look like it fits some kind of formula that can be put into flowchart form.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 21:26 (fifteen years ago) link
Here's the shit I"ve got to get down for Tuesday's exam:
International Shoe stuff... not so bad. Erie Doctrine - Fuck noJoinders - I might be OK with these. Interjurisdictional claim prelcusion - OK, I guess.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 21:44 (fifteen years ago) link
I think I rocked Int'l Shoe on the exam because it was also the subject of our memo (of course so did everyone else in my section, probably). People tell me the BarBri lecture for Erie is great. I didn't put down a BarBri deposit, but I looked at notes from it. Glannon is pretty helpful on that too - do you have a Glannon book?
Joinders was something we did less thoroughly. We did a lot of claim and issue preclusion but I don't specifically remember interjurisdictional preclusion as a topic.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 22:24 (fifteen years ago) link
I don't have the BarBri lecture ... but I do have the BarBri audio CD for Civ Pro. I've got the Erie CD in and I'm going to listen to it once I get there in my syllabus runthrough.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 22:47 (fifteen years ago) link
Barbri CD featuring that Frier dude
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 22:49 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, the audio thing is the one everyone liked. The Freer one. Didn't know it was available on CD, but I was honestly a bit broke to go buying more study aids.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 12 December 2008 22:52 (fifteen years ago) link
yeah, it was fairly pricey for a bunch of audio CDS ... $60
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 22:53 (fifteen years ago) link
get some steroids
― cutty, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:03 (fifteen years ago) link
I am so fucking tired right now, but I've got to get this shit done. Maybe now it's time to invest in some yuppie drugs.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:04 (fifteen years ago) link
im pretty glad i didnt know of ilx as a 1L
― johnny crunch, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:06 (fifteen years ago) link
i did but i certainly didn't document my life here
― cutty, Friday, 12 December 2008 23:19 (fifteen years ago) link
Eh, I learned some pretty useful things bantering ideas in here. Isn't that the whole point of the internet? It's easy and quick to share ideas about this shit. What, did you guys get straight As all by yourself? If so, congrats.
― burt_stanton, Saturday, 13 December 2008 23:07 (fifteen years ago) link
Crimmin. Fuck an inchoate offense.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Saturday, 13 December 2008 23:21 (fifteen years ago) link
ps never say anything earnest on ilx
yeah. You're just lucky you didn't have to do joinders in Civ Pro. This is the only thing I have a problem with now.
― burt_stanton, Sunday, 14 December 2008 01:13 (fifteen years ago) link
Actually there were two questions involving joinder issues -- our Erie question included Rule 18 joinder of claims (which is an easy rule), and there was something in an issue or claim preclusion question about whether a claim should have been brought in an earlier lawsuit.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Sunday, 14 December 2008 01:35 (fifteen years ago) link
Hey Hurting, on your Civ Pro exam when you did stuff like International Shoe personal jurisdiciton questions, did you bring up the due process clause of the 14th amendment at all?
― burt_stanton, Monday, 15 December 2008 20:31 (fifteen years ago) link
I did indeed. I wouldn't spend like two paragraphs on it, but probably a good idea to show you know the foundation of it all.
Crim this morning. Whew. One left to go.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Monday, 15 December 2008 20:39 (fifteen years ago) link
Yeah, I was thinking of doing that, too. I bet a few nerds in class are going to do that
― burt_stanton, Monday, 15 December 2008 20:39 (fifteen years ago) link
Most professors advise against "brain dumping" but it does seem like you should at least show that you know what's up.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Monday, 15 December 2008 20:45 (fifteen years ago) link
Well, that was fun. There was an Erie question over whether or not a judge should use a state or federal rule for how a judge decides a motion for summary judgment, a big question about whether a defendant could use nonmutual offensive issue preclusion, and other good things.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 17 December 2008 00:10 (fifteen years ago) link
That's finally over. You done Hurting? I better get at least one A with the work I put into this shit ... and As from Cardozo are a pretty good ticket to Columbia.
― burt_stanton, Thursday, 18 December 2008 22:50 (fifteen years ago) link
Nope, Torts is tomorrow. Hey, maybe you know the answer to this -- does a defense negate transfered intent? Like if I defend myself against an attacker but injur a third party in the process, can I be liable for transferred intent battery?
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Thursday, 18 December 2008 23:45 (fifteen years ago) link
We spent about 1 minute on intentional torts, so I donut know. If it's a defense then it probably wouldn't be intent, but depending on the action and situation maybe you could run it through causation? Like, if you defend yourself with a bat in a crowded room, it's foreseeable you might crack an innocent person in the skull.
The sad thing is, despite learning all these fancy doctrines, my Torts exam was just ... duty. breach. causation. damages. Pretty vanilla.
― burt_stanton, Friday, 19 December 2008 00:06 (fifteen years ago) link
As I understand transferred intent, there has to have been an intent to harm one person, and then you cause the same harm to another person by way of that act. Shoot at one person, hit another - transferred intent for the second.
In a situation where you're defending yourself, you are not intending to cause harm to the other person, but are instead seeking to prevent harm to yourself. If, during that defense, you happen to harm someone, then I would go into a negligence analysis - Did you have a duty to act reasonably while defending yourself? If so, what was that duty? Did you meet it? Was there a harm caused? Was your defensive act the cause of the harm - both actual and proximate? And what are the measure of damages?
So, yeah. Take your time. Torts is all about the analysis, as detaileda above.
Just wait until Constitutional Law. That shit is AWESOME.
― B.L.A.M., Friday, 19 December 2008 01:19 (fifteen years ago) link
Nice, my brains all thinkin lawyerlike
― burt_stanton, Friday, 19 December 2008 01:24 (fifteen years ago) link
Just wait, dude. You'll be embarassing your spouse and alienating family members soon enough.
Oh, how they hate arguing with me. HATE.
― B.L.A.M., Friday, 19 December 2008 01:27 (fifteen years ago) link
"As I understand transferred intent, there has to have been an intent to harm one person, and then you cause the same harm to another person by way of that act. Shoot at one person, hit another - transferred intent for the second.
In a situation where you're defending yourself, you are not intending to cause harm to the other person, but are instead seeking to prevent harm to yourself. If, during that defense, you happen to harm someone, then I would go into a negligence analysis - Did you have a duty to act reasonably while defending yourself? If so, what was that duty? Did you meet it? Was there a harm caused? Was your defensive act the cause of the harm - both actual and proximate? And what are the measure of damages?"
This sounds right to me from a common-sensical perspective, and ultimately I believe the purpose of this kind of analysis is to reach sensible conclusions and not merely to follow abstract conceptual rules. But from a purely conceptual POV I have a problem with it. Self-defense is technically an affirmative defense -- I committed the tort, but I was justified. The actor DOES intend the contact and does intend it to be harmful, he just has a proper reason for doing it. And a negligence theory is almost never going to work unless the guy was doing something REALLY reckless and excessive in defending himself. Of course, maybe the original offending actor, rather than the defender, should be liable for the third party's injuries.
― Indiespace Administratester (Hurting 2), Friday, 19 December 2008 03:47 (fifteen years ago) link
you have enough to do well on this exam. Go with God, and enjoy your break.
― B.L.A.M., Friday, 19 December 2008 04:00 (fifteen years ago) link
ahhhh
― ichard Thompson (Hurting 2), Friday, 19 December 2008 22:57 (fifteen years ago) link
Right on, DUDE!!!! One round down!!!!
Seriously - to both you and burt - the first round is EASILY the hardest. You have little to no idea what you're doing , and everyone is just stressing about everything all at once, etc.
Take the next two weeks to just kick it and get fat. You've all earned it.
― B.L.A.M., Friday, 19 December 2008 23:18 (fifteen years ago) link
Any of you law types have advice on a good law resume? I'd like to start sending resumes off for summer internships soon, mostly because I'm too poor to afford a proper vacation.
― burt_stanton, Monday, 22 December 2008 00:39 (fifteen years ago) link
Summer job-gettin' advice appreciated. Career services is not much help (not to mention closed over the whole break -- GAH!)
― ichard Thompson (Hurting 2), Sunday, 28 December 2008 17:01 (fifteen years ago) link
oh man, I bombed my exams. What now?
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 21:03 (fifteen years ago) link
Should I drop out? I feel terrible.
― burt_stanton, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 21:04 (fifteen years ago) link
hey dude now you get to pick a job cooler than being a lawyer!
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 7 January 2009 21:07 (fifteen years ago) link