More of Professor L’s sound and fury:
Professor L: “For our last day we have a really easy agenda – actually NO! I’m gonna unleash on you! This is all my aggression for all the times you were unprepared for class! Haha, I’m kidding, you guys were really good …for the most part…”
Only in Con Law…
Professor L: “Ms. Dennel? Demmel?”
Jill: “Her name was De-mal. Sarah Demal.”
Professor L: “Yes, so Ms. Dememel? Dennel? Oh forget it! I’ll just call you Ms. D!”
(Class laughs)
Professor L: “So Ms. D…”
Jill: “Actually, I’m Jill. Jill Smith.”
Professor L: “Huh? Where’s Ms. Demmel? Is Ms. Demmel, Dannel, Dennel not here today?”
Jill: “Sarah Demal sat in front of me. She actually dropped out the first week of class…”
Professor L: “OH! That explains things! I just had a note here that she wasn’t here the last time I called on her… hm.”
Jill: “…So do you want me to answer?”
Professor L: “No. I didn’t even want to call on you! Forget it!”
(Class laughs)
Professor L: “This is literally sound and fury signifying nothing…THERE! I got a Shakespeare quote in! ”
(later)
Professor L: “Okay, let me turn to…Ms. Chang…oh, she’s not here. She didn’t drop out too right?”
From Torts:
Professor T: “Just the aroma of bucks will affect the flavor of the milk… and you thought you came to torts today…so what happens when your neighbor moves in next to you with buck goats?”
Jack: “Do they stink?”
Professor T: “As my daughter said, it smells worse than a skunk…so your neighbor moves in with goats and the goats just are doing what goats do: stinking up the whole neighborhood…”
From torts, Ind. H. B. R.R. Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 916 F.2d 1174 (7th Cir. Ill. 1990). The gist: a railroad creates a toxic chemical spill in suburban Chicago ala DeLillo’s White Noise.
The court says: “Maybe you shouldn’t live there.”
Court: “Brutal though it may seem to say it, the inappropriate use to which land is being put in the Blue Island yard and neighborhood may be, not the transportation of hazardous chemicals, but residential living. The analogy is to building your home between the runways at O’Hare.”
Oh dear…
Professor C: “You can expect that my exam will take you 8 hours to do. Some 8 hour exams are like 2 hour exams that you have 8 hours to do, but my 8 hour exam is for 8 hours.”
(Nervous chuckles from the class)
Jill (loudly): “Gee Thanks!”
For our last day of contracts we read Alaska Packers’ Asso. v. Domenico, 117 F. 99 (9th Cir. Cal. 1902).
Professor C couldn’t resist taking a swipe at Palin…
Professor C: “So we have Salmon fishermen here. And this takes place in Alaska, which we know is close to Russia…”
Poor Jack…
Professor C: “Jack, what test does the court use?”
Jack: “Uh… restatement § 261, “Discharge By Supervening Impracticability” it says “Where, after a contract is made….” (starts reading it)
Professor C: (cutting Jack off) Okay, we get it. It’s on the page. So what part of the test isn’t satisfied?”
Jack: “Uh, what test are we talking about?”
Professor C: “JACK! YOU JUST READ THE TEST FOR US!”
(Class laughs)
Jack: “Oh, when I get called on I can’t even think…”
Mr. and Mrs. Pickles purchased an apartment complex and received a nasty surprise:
“Five or six days [after signing the contract], when the Pickleses went to introduce themselves to the tenants, they discovered raw sewage seeping out of the ground.”
Of course the apartment building is condemned by the county, the cost of fixing the defective sewage tank is prohibitive, and the court doesn’t rescind the contract.
Basically, the Pickles were screwed.
And our professor went there:
Professor C: “So we have a couple named the Pickles, and they find themselves in a pickle! Hah! I’ve been waiting ALL SEMESTER to tell that joke…”
Indeed.
In the decision the court mentions then discards the Barren Cow case. Complicated legal analysis? Not really…
Professor C: “The courts problem with the historical analysis is that it DOESN’T MAKE SENSE!”
I just imagine Mrs. Pickles with big Winehouse-beehive hairdo, all excited to meet her new tenants, stepping into the soggy, smelly grass…
Today in Torts we had a lecture by a local attorney who worked on the Exxon-Valdez oil spill case.* The attorney was intense, yet funny. Here are some quotes:
Attorney: “I was the Barry Bonds of law, and let me tell you: it was sweet.”
Attorney: “We only settled it two years ago. So while you guys were having rich and full lives, I was going in and out of the court of appeals…”
Attorney: “The Supreme Court gave a survey of law. They started off with a quote from Hammurabi, but they might as well have started with the bible…”
Attorney: “If I hit you on purpose – because you’re the asshole I know you are – that’s a purposeful act.” **
Attorney: “If you come and work at Someone & Somebody with me, you’ll make so much money you’ll choke on it. Then, after five or six years, you’ll think “what am I doing with my life? What will make me happy and lead a fuller life?” and then your spouse hears you and screams “NO! GO BACK TO WORK!”
Attorney: “One of my hobbies is suing the federal government… (laughter from audience) for killing wolves and bears…”
The court writes:
“The criterion of “substantial” takes into account the role of punitive damages to induce legal action when pure compensation may not be enough to encourage suit, a concern addressed by the opportunity for a class action when large numbers of potential plaintiffs are involved: in such cases, individual awards are not the touchstone, for it is the class option that facilitates suit, and a class recovery of $500 million is substantial. In this case, then, the constitutional outer limit may well be 1:1.”
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2634 (U.S. 2008)
Attorney’s responds:
Attorney: “If you were working for me and you wrote something like this I’d fire you!”
A student asks a question, and then:
Attorney: “First off you’re wearing a packers outfit, and should be ashamed…”
* Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (U.S. 2008)
* The attorney used this analogy to explain the Supreme Court’s reasoning. The full quote is, “If I hit you on purpose – because you’re the asshole I know you are – that’s a purposeful act. But if I know you’re a drunk and put you in charge of a school bus and hope you will make it to the other side…that’s equally as blameworthy of an act, and probably worse than if I punched you.”
Apparently in Miami the ice cream man comes late…
Paul: “What gets me is the ice cream man.”
Mom: “Yeah, I haven’t seen in a while.”
Kevin: “I saw him last week I think…”
Me: “The ice cream man?”
Paul: “Yeah, there’s an ice cream man that comes around midnight.”
Me: “Midnight?”
Kevin: “Yeah, he’s selling drugs. It’s always on the other side of the river…”
*** clarification, “Ice Cream man” is not some clever nickname, there’s a guy in an actual ice cream truck, with the music and everything, who rolls around East Little Havana at night…even though all the kids are fast asleep.
Congrats: pay up.
Professor T: “It just so happens that the employee goes out and does something tortuous and we congratulate the employer for their liability…”
Professor T is out of control
Professor T: “So when I’m driving home today I commit a tort. Can you sue the school?”
Jack: “No. The university isn’t exercising any control over you.”
Professor T: “And you’re suggesting they have any control of me NOW? PROFESSOR T IS OUT OF CONTROL!”
“Culminating Purposes”
Professor T: “So the store manager goes off and visits his girlfriend and commits a tort en route. Is his employer liable?”
Jack: “It depends on his intent.”
Professor T: “His intent was to visit his girlfriend for cumulating purposes.”
Reprints of Love
Professor T: “So at this conference there’s this really attractive criminologist that I’ve been eying for a while. So I offer to show her my reprints (reprints are a form of intellectual seduction)… so she’s upstairs in my hotel room looking at my reprints and I behave in an “ungentlemanly way”…can she sue the University?”
Professor T goes there…with Jill!
Professor T: “So Jill, what if I put the moves on you? Is the university liable for my intentional actions?”
(Jill makes heaving motion)
Professor T: “God, what a grotesque thought! It’s like an intentional infliction of emotional distress… are they liable?”
Jill: “I guess if you have a record of hitting on students…”
Besides that…
Professor T: “What’s the most dangerous part of running a newspaper business? I mean, besides getting your pressmen chopped up in the printing machines…”
Top chef:
Professor T: “What about a restaurant with a top chef? He runs the kitchen. No one controls him – If anyone even asks the chef a question he raises a knife. And let’s say he serves a salmonella salad…”
Supreme Court says NO.
Professor V: “Does protecting attorney-client privilege actually foster the communication? The Supreme Court’s answer is ‘we don’t know, we don’t care, we aren’t going to go there, and we don’t have to!”
Beware
Professor V: “Remember General Counsel is not your lawyer. They will sell you down the river!”
Conlaw is all about sex, scandal, and terrorism lately. We went from 9/11 Commissions, to Guantanamo, to Watergate, to Paula Jones…
And Professor L isn’t very charitable to the Nixons:
Professor L: “If you’re Nixon you’re like a fount of case law…”
Professor L: “…by pure coincidence, the federal judge impeached was also a Nixon. My guess is that if you’re born with the last name “Nixon” and you’re going into politics, it’s best just to change it.”
By the by…I wonder if Frost/Nixon will be any good…
Baby’s expensive:
Professor T: “Statistics say that to get your child from 0 to 18 costs about $200,000 – food, clothing, buying a larger house – every time your child looks at you it’s like looking at an endless money pit.”
Professor T & the Widow Makers:
Professor T: “I have the loggers clear trees on my property. The hanging limbs are dangerous. We call them Widow Makers. So I have the loggers sign a three page release. They sign it because they think “Professor T is crazy,” but I’m also the biggest target in the county because I’m the only one in the entire county that’s gainfully employed…”
Don’t piss off the officer:
Professor T: “the waiver form they have you sign before you get in a police car says: ‘not only are we not liable for any injuries that arise from a high speed chase, but our police officer can turn around and shoot you in the head and you can’t sue.’
Jill wants to know:
Jill: “Where do we draw the line?! Do I have to stay in bed for the rest of my life wearing a helmet in case I get in an accident or break a statute I’m unaware of?!”
Jill can tell.
Professor T: Are we going to let the kid sue mom?
Jill: I can tell the answer’s no, but I’m not sure why…
Professor T: How can you tell the answer is no?
Jill: I can tell because of the tone your voice…
Jill is suing regardless…
Professor T: “So you’re eating at Café X and you crunch into a crouton, which you find out is a roach. What do you do?”
Jill: “Sign up for Fear Factor!”
Professor T: “What’s that? I’m so disadvantaged for not watching TV…”
Jill: “Oh, it’s a show where they pay people to eat bugs.”
Professor T: “And can you get paid by Café X?”
Jill: “Sure.”
Professor T: “And why are they going to pay you?”
Jill: “Because they are scared of getting sued.”
Professor T: “And what if you just saw the roach in your salad and didn’t bite into it?”
Jill: “Well, then I bite into it and then sue.”
The fun in Constitutional Law continues…
Professor L: “Okay, Mr. Smith. We have the classic situation: you’re walking down the street and someone asks you to explain the doctrine of executive privilege in a nutshell. What do you say besides ‘get away from me’?”
Student: “Well, correct me if I’m wrong–“
Professor L: “Oh I will!”
He’s not jaded at all…
Legal Writing Prof: “So you have to deal with idiots in the real world. Have fun.”
Watch em’ squirm
Professor C: “I love looking at the faces you guys make when I call on you.”
(Professors mimics shock)
FRCP
Professor V: “Dying people and dying cows are largely the limits of rule 27.”
You know it’s late in the day when you hear…
Saundra: “Hey Jill, want to hear a good roofie story?”
Jack doesn’t like Professor C…
Professor T: “So, Professor C and I go out to the wilderness to canoe on the river. Professor C is a city slicker, so when he catches a small fish he gets so excited that he stands up. (And you never stand up in a canoe – it’s a rule) And Professor C promptly falls out of the canoe. Do I have a duty to save Professor C?”
Jack: “Well, I’d like to say no…but…”
The Hypo Continues…
Professor T: “So after I pull Professor C out and stick him on the rocks…do I have any further duty? What if he gets hypothermic?”
(Jill starts laughing)
Professor T: “What?”
Jill: “The mental picture. It’s great.”
Professor T: “Why?”
Jill: “Because you’re going to need to provide him with your body heat!”
Professor T: “So I have to crawl into the sleeping bag with him?”
Jill: “Maybe. Or stick your dog in there with him!”
Jack: “Or you can just throw him back in water!”
I’m so horribly amused…
Professor C: “So, Daniel…”
Dan: “Oh, you can call me Dan. The only people who call me Daniel are my parents. Or you can call me JD-Baby.”
Professor C: “What? What did you say? JD…baby?”
Dan: “Yeah, you can call me either Dan or JD-Baby.”
Professor C: “Do you actually expect me to call you that?”
Dan: “I’m just giving you options.”
Today’s reading was pretty ripe with “the funny.” Here are the top three quotes:
“If there is a hell to which disputatious, uncivil, vituperative lawyers go, let it be one in which the damned are eternally locked in discovery disputes with other lawyers of equally repugnant attributes.”
– Judge Bright from Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996)
“If he would be a great lawyer, he must first consent to become a great drudge.”
– Daniel Webster (quoted in my CivPro book)
And from some “for fun” reading I did today, a quote that is pertinent to law school…
“It takes confidence and good will to day, “I didn’t understand so-and-so,” rather than, belligerently, “So-and-so makes no sense.” It is the nature of stupid people to hide their perplexity and attack what they cannot grasp.”
– John Gardner, from On Becoming a Novelist