Sorry, what? Jack just responded to a question in Criminal Law… and I’m confused:
Jack: “…and the guy walking down the street carrying a banana thinking, ‘Ah! I’m going to kill someone today!’ is less likely to be successful than someone who planned it out.”
I’m not suggesting that Jack’s answers are incoherent. I’ll just listen better next time.
Everyone just lost it in Property. The topic is “ancient lights” (or lack thereof) in American jurisprudence. The professor doesn’t see how awkward his hypo about the “Pleasure Palace Hotel” is:
Professor P: “…and the plaintiff has a gigantic sign that says “Come to the Pleasure Palace!””
Okay, and now back to maturity.
We had a mandatory statutory interpretation research lecture today. The research librarian was pretty funny:
Librarian: “You know how there are those people who get scared talking in front of large groups of people? Well, I should have checked where they keep the defibrillators beforehand…”
Librarian: “This is a diagram from Westlaw. I don’t think it’s that helpful but other people have told me it is. Personally it makes me a little dizzy, a little nauseous..”
Librarian: “And everyone just loves microfiche! Typically when we tell someone that we have the document in microfiche they suddenly don’t need it anymore…”
He also mentioned that there was a Soulja Boy version of School House Rock’s “How a Bill Becomes a law”… and sure enough…
At UMN Law we have optional supplementary courses called “structured study groups” (SSG). The courses are taught by 2Ls and 3Ls.
Today our SSG instructor for Civil Procedure asked:
SSG Instructor: “You guys haven’t had multifactor balancing tests yet right?”
Jill: “Yeah, in legal writing last semester, but that was a disaster too…”
* The topic is personal jurisdiction balancing tests.
We just a semi-brutal moment in Corporations. The professor started with yesterday’s reading:
Professor M: “And can shareholders act with written consent in Delaware?”
Jack: “I didn’t catch that in the reading.”
Professor M: “And you wouldn’t have caught it in the reading unless you read the statutes I assigned for today! Well?”
(Deathly silence. Jack blushes)
Professor M: “Does anyone know the answer?”
(More awkward silence)
Professor M: “I’m disappointed. I’m not surprised, but disappointed.”
Why isn’t Professor M surprised? General incompetence? Nope. Today is the day before “Winter Break.”
“Winter Break” is a four day weekend at UMN Law. I think Winter Break is designed to help 1L retention. Our professors told us to “take some time off to do things we love.”
No one bought that line.
Grades are in. Classes, legal writing and the 1L summer job hunt are in full swing. This is our 4-day catch up weekend and we are grateful for it. But whether Winter Break is the reason no one read the Corporations statutes is another matter…
We just had an interesting exchange in Criminal Law:
Jack: “I don’t get how the defendant didn’t know he was a felon. I mean, how can you not know? This is nuts. Are you saying I can just murder someone and then vote?
Prof R: “Well, they generally don’t run criminal checks when you vote. If they do catch you then you’re violation…”
Jack: “I just lost respect for this system! (professor and class gasps, awkward moment ensues…) I know that’s not your fault, it’s more of a societal thing, but whatever…”
Jill has the best legal argument…
Jack: “I would argue that the possession wasn’t hostile. There was no confrontation at all!”
Jill: “I don’t think the standard here is to dig a moat and set up the catapults…”
Professor M is very to-the-point:
Prof M: “In this case we have someone who gets drunk and dies in a night club.”
The case is: Soerries v. Dancause, 248 Ga. App. 374 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001)
The facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, show that Soerries was the sole shareholder of Chickasaw Club, Inc., which operated a popular nightclub in Columbus for 23 years until it closed in 1999.
At approximately 11:45 p.m. on July 31, 1996, 18-year-old Aubrey Lynn Pursley was intoxicated when she entered the Chickasaw Club. Although a Columbus ordinance prohibits individuals under 21 years old from entering nightclubs, it is undisputed that club employees did not check Pursley’s identification to establish her age.
A friend testified that Pursley already was intoxicated when she arrived at the club. Even so, friends testified that Pursley drank additional alcohol at the club and was visibly intoxicated when she left at approximately 3:00 a.m. on August 1, 1996. Security videotapes showed that she left the club with a beer in her hand.
Shortly thereafter, Pursley was killed when she lost control of her car and struck a tree.
Prof P: “Let’s see this is a very hard case… Jill let’s start with you!”
Jill (loudly): “ARGH!”
Prof P: “What was that?”
Jill : “Oh nothing!”
Prof P: “I thought I heard ‘no’, because if that’s so then I could just move on…”
Jill: “Wait, is that an option!?”
Prof P: “I wouldn’t recommend it.”
Prof P: “So does your client lose?”
Jill: “No. Not automatically.”
(long silence)
Prof P: “That’s the sound instinct of an advocate! Now I’m interested to hear the legal argument…”
So the professor calls on a student:
Professor M: “Is it… Lay Smith?”
Leigh:“It’s pronounced Lee.”
Professor M:“Oh, I really got that one wrong. I bet you’re used to it though.”
Jack says nevermind:
Professor V: “So what type of evidence is allowed?”
Jack: “Well, you can go to rule 56(c) and the permitted materials from rule 56(e)(1), or you can go to rule 32…”
Professor V: “Wait, so where are we going?”
Jack: “Uh, I shouldn’t have opened my mouth…”
Re: The Elvis hypo
Professor V: It’s pretty persuasive that when you clean your gun you don’t put it in your mouth to lick it off.”
Don’t ask me:
Professor P: “Okay, you suggested a case and shot it down, so let me rephrase my question: Does the Plaintiff win under Ohio v. Shaw?”
Jack: “Uh…” (flips through book) “…obviously I don’t know the answer because I’m looking for it.
It was downhill from there…
Jill: “I think there’s a difference between marking and capturing. Dogs mark things all the time and don’t capture them!”
Professor P: “Uh, let’s assume for a moment that dogs can’t obtain property rights…. so that’s not the best example…”
Lawyer fail (re: this case):
Professor P: “And Ganter presented the maxim: “Finder’s keepers losers weepers.” That was his legal argument!” If you had to guess, would say that he was represented?
Jack: “No, I guess he was representing himself.”
Professor P: “Well, actually he WAS represented by a lawyer!”
It’s poop suit day* in Property class.
Jack speaks plainly:
Jack: “Apparently in 1869 the roads were covered with manure.”
Poop ensnarement?
Professor P: “Do we have something close to possession of the manure? Like ensnarement?”
Professor P: “Did the manure become wild or unowned?”
Haslem v. Lockwood, 37 Conn. 500 (Conn. 1871) — (Or Westlaw: 1871 WL 1608 )
Starting Statutory Interpretation on a high note:
Professor S: “You all have finished a semester of law school so you should be able to answer this question: Where can we find law? Who makes it, and where is it found?”
Jack: “Cities!”
Professor S: “Uh…cities? I guess you can find a book of statutes in a city…”
That was before the bailout…
Prof M: “Many large public corporations are incorporated in Delaware, like GM…erm, well, GM is not that big anymore but you get the idea…”
Another source of amusement is the girl sitting in front of me*:
* yes, I’m on wordpress, but no one is sitting behind me.
Prepare for the muddle…
Prof R: “There’s no restatement for Criminal Law. Someone once said that criminal hasn’t been stated well enough to be restated. I recommend a horn book…”
Jack the thief:
Prof R: “So you think if society didn’t punish burglary, we would all go out and commit burglaries?”
Jack: “I dunno... I would!”
The first day of Spring semester started with my favorite class: Civil Procedure!
Professor V: This semester we will cover more doctrinal topics. So for those of you who wondered why I made you buy that big casebook that you hardly used: your chance is now!
Indeed. Now excuse me while I spend the next four hours studying in an undergrad library.
Oh, Law School Discussion…how I’ve missed thee. I know I’ve written about gunners before but can we just acknowledge this ridiculousness? The topic of the thread is: “How To Respond To People Calling You a Gunner?”
Gunner: Last semester I amply and vastly participated in class and I could decipher my classmates’ opinion of said participation. How best to respond to these (to put it generously) rather immature individuals?
The first response (by “Stole Your Nose!“) was rather good:
While attempting to describe tomorrow’s civil procedure exam to Jamie:
Me: “Not being able to use notes on a civpro exam is like being forced into a blindfolded gymnastics competition and the being compared to all the other gimpy, blindfolded contestants.”
**** two hours later….
Jamie (coming into dining room): “I hear too much music out here. I don’t think you’re studying.”
Me: “Yeah huh! I’m reviewing dispositions…dysput…desspu… damn it I can’t say it… DESPOSITIONS! RULE 27!”
Jamie: “You’re fried.”
What happens when you have the review session the day of another exam:
Professor L: “I’m surprised this many of you stumbled over here for this.”
…there was also someone sleeping in the corner. Eek.
Exam advice:
Professor L: “Don’t make up facts. I don’t want to you to say there’s a man with a gun outside of the school because it happened in Lopez.”
Why we love Professor L:
Professor L: “Well in the marijuana case, the question is: does the commerce clause apply even if they are growing it at home in a little pot? No pun intended of course…”
And the final threat:
Professor L: “I’ll be around in the morning, and I’m going to answer any emails…otherwise good luck! You’ll need it…”