We discussed Diethylstilbestrol (DES) litigation…
Professor T: “Is the subsequent occupant of a uterus unforeseeable?”
And little Sally picks up a flower…
Professor T: “So what happened to the girl in this case?”
Mike: “I don’t know.”
Professor T: “Look at the date.”
(Date of the case is 1971)
Mike: “Oh, 1971. She must have become a hippie or something.”
Professor T: “And her parents are upset that they sent little Sally who is as pure as snow into this university…”
Professor V: Given that your open memo due today and the election was last night, I’ll assume that today is not a good day for class preparation. So, unless anyone wants to disabuse me of that idea, I am going to ask for volunteers instead of calling on people.
(Class erupts in applause)
Yun v. Ford Motor Co.
647 A.2d 841
*Estate of van passenger who died as result of being struck by automobile while crossing highway late at night to retrieve spare tire that had fallen off back of van brought products liability action against van manufacturer, installer which attached spare tire assembly to van, van dealership and manufacturer of spare tire carrier and negligence action against automobile service center.
Sarah: “I mean, it’s the Garden State Parkway! COME ON! You don’t run across it! People will speed up if they see you!”
Professor T: “Do they get extra points?”
Sarah: “Yeah! I mean, it’s New Jersey!”
Timmy: “Gotta love New Jersey!”
* Westlaw headnotes.
Jill gets paid.
Professor C: “Okay, Jill! I’m the court. You’re my clerk. Tell me what to do.”
Jill: “First off, pay me more money.”
Wood* can just stay at home!
Professor C: “The plaintiff doesn’t have to go out and market Lady Duff-Gordon’s designs. He can just sit at home, watch Project Runway, and eat Bon-Bons.”
Professor C: “So, Sarah…can the plaintiff sit at home, watch Project Runway, and eat Bon-Bons on his couch?”
* Refers to Otis F. Wood in Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon, 222 N.Y. 88, 118 N.E. 214
Yesterday in class:
Professor: “Rachael, are you with me?”
Rachael: “Does my face look like I’m with you?”
Redefining activism:
Professor T: “Judicial activism is a pejorative term people use to describe supreme court rulings they don’t like.”
Con Law began with this quote:
“Despite what Hollywood might have you believe, in situations like this you don’t call in the tough guys; you all in the lawyers.” – George Tenet
Haaa-CHO!
(There’s a boy in the back of the class that lets out these extra-loud sneeze-cough combos…)
Jill: “His sneezes are like an assault my senses every time…”
War Powers Resolution of 1973:
Jack: “It makes the president the commander-in-chief of a Cinderella army that disappears in 60 days.”
In SSG we had a panel of older students that gave advice on exams:
Panelist 1: “Don’t talk about the exam afterwards. Don’t. Seriously. Because you’ll think of all the things you did wrong and feel like CRAP.”
Panelist 2: “You’re kinda in a panic during your first exam and like what the fuck…”
On Contracts:
Professor C: “When you sign a contract you should read the damn thing.”
Professor C: “Why is it in capitals? That’s the insurer’s way of getting around the reasonable expectation policy. They’ll say, “What do you mean you didn’t know?! It’s in CAPITALS!” but of course the problem is that half the freakin’ document is in capitals…”
Professor T’s world:
Professor T: “Up where I live there are guns going off all the time. I have to put an orange vest on my dog when I let him out in the morning because hunters will shoot at anything that moves...”
Today in Civ Pro we picked apart a (extremely) poorly written answer to a complaint. Giant fail.
Professor V: We see that the complaint has a lot of problems, but it seems like the defendant wasn’t even trying to get it right. I asked the clerk of the court if this was typical, and she said that there was a deep divide: 90% of the pleadings were perfect, and 10% were absolutely dreadful. This obviously falls into the dreadful category, but that makes it an awfully good learning tool.
An example of the absurdity… the defendant, Southwestern Publishing Company, denied this part of the Plaintiff’s claim:
IV.
Defendant, The Southwestern Company, engages in the business of publishing and selling books to residential customers. Defendant contracts with college students to spend their summers selling its books from door to door in residential areas selected by Defendant.
Okay, now this is from Southwestern’s website:
Students who participate in the program represent approximately 350 colleges and universities from the United States, Canada, Europe, South Africa, and South America. Our products are sold to families in their homes by these students during their summer breaks. These students are independent contractors and have the opportunity to run their own businesses by purchasing products from Southwestern at wholesale and selling them to customers at retail.
Um…yeah.
* For you Westlaw people, the full case is at: Grewe v. Southwestern Co. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1593048 D.Minn.,2005. but the botched answer to the amended complaint is not among the Westlaw court docs on Westlaw. Hm..
Our school has a mandatory 1L lecture series. Today’s lecturers discussed stress and stress related issues:
Speaker 1: “Don’t forget you have a life. Do not use the word “allegedly” when asked if you took out the trash. And do not take your books to Chipotle and read them in line. Have you guys seen that? Yeah? Well it’s sad.”
Speaker 1: “The second year is better. I know you hear it all the time and think “LIAR!” but it’s true. If it wasn’t better then the attrition rate would be 98%. Your second year sucks for a whole different set of reasons.”
Speaker 2: “About 10% of lawyers have alcohol abuse problems. In this room, I’d say that’s the first two rows. Sorry, I’m sure you’re great but you’re drunks. You go to a great school but you’re not that special – you’re not going to buck the statistics.”
Jill’s computer starts speaking during Professor L’s class: “CONGRATULATIONS! YOU’VE WON!”
The entire class laughs.
Professor L: “I won’t even try to exercise discipline, because the embarrassment is enough. HOW EMBARRASSING!”
Jill: “Sorry…I had to buy these tickets…and…”
Professor L: “And apparently you’ve won something! I’m sure you’re not the only one who has done such a thing in class, you’re just the only one who has done it with the volume on!”
Some notes from class…
Professor C: “And by the way, I’m just responding to what you’re saying. If you were saying what I was saying, then I would say what you’re saying.”
The professor puts a slide of a statute up…
33 USC § 1321(f)(2) Liability for actual costs of removal
(1) Except where an owner or operator can prove that a discharge was caused solely by
Professor V: “Who has the burden of proof here? How do we know?”
Student: Uh… (tries for several minutes to explain.)
Professor V: “This one is actually so easy …that’s why you’re missing it! Let’s read the statute shall we? Except where an owner or operator can prove… hm. Seems like the statute is telling us who has the burden of proof…”
Professor T: “So, Ted, let’s say Kevin pushes you into a hole on the street. Is the creator of the hole liable?”
Ted: “Why would Kevin want to push me?”
Professor T: “Doesn’t matter. He does.”
Kevin: “And I pushed him hard too!”
Professor T: “Why is that?”
Kevin: “Cus If I get sued I’m going to make it count!”
It’s all downhill from here…
Professor C: “you can tell we are in the dog days of the semester because I’m no longer wearing a suit. By the end of the semester I’ll just come in a grubby t-shirt and scream “LEAVE ME ALONE!”
A demand of love
Professor C: “What about specific performance of personal services?”
Student: “You can’t force people do things like that. It’s like forcing a marriage. You can’t force someone to love someone else…”
Professor C: “DIDN’T YOU SEE FIDDLER ON THE ROOF?!”
Professor C: “what if the personal services contract was to be a masseuse? You court can’t say, YOU MUST MASSAGE!”
Why Jack is going to be a corporate lawyer…
(Jill gives an argument)
Professor C: “okay, Jack, argue in the alternative.”
Jack: “I don’t know… I really liked Jill’s argument.”
Professor C: “But you’re an advocate! Argue for your side!”
Jack: “I…well, I just don’t know. I just really liked her argument. My argument is just not strong…”
Professor C: “So you’re going to be a corporate lawyer, and not a litigator.”
When butter isn’t Kosher
Professor C: “In Jewish law we build a fence around the Torah. That’s why we can’t eat chicken and milk. The purpose of that law is so you don’t cook a dead baby in its mother’s milk. But chickens don’t produce milk. We still prohibit it because the value protected is so important that we prefer to have an over inclusive rule than an under-inclusive one.
Student: “Does this include butter?”
Professor C: “WE ARE AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE!… and yes it includes butter…”
Differences in determining Burden of Proof
Professor T: “Do we want to be sure? be very sure? Or be damned sure?”
Oops
Student: “Falling isn’t something that typically happens, well, unless you’re me.”
Professor T: Seven mothers get together and make a big salmonella salad…
Professor C: “My guess is, after you read the sample answers for the midterm exam almost every one of you will think you did really crappy.”
Professor T: “And who decides this?”
Student: “Well, I want to say the jury but I presume you’re going to tell me it’s a judge…”
Professor T: “I would never presume to tell you anything. I’ll just ask you three times until you tell me it’s a judge.”
Professor T: “As much as you want to prepare your witness, you know that on cross examination opposing counsel is going to have considerable latitude to push them off a cliff.”
Professor T: “And in the process of rehearsing them you record them, so you can play it back to them and show them how shift-eyed they are…”
Professor T: “…and one of his clients was a doctor who was ripped off, but he was the most arrogant, unpleasant… like you have to cut your wrists before you give him any money.”
Professor T: “Does anyone have any problems with manipulating juries? (silence from the class) Great! Because otherwise you’re in the wrong place!”
Well, this is going to be interesting…
Professor V: “Having just taken my codeine cough syrup, we will get a chance to see what hallucinations look like when imposed on Civil Procedure.”
Lawyers have a knack for understatements.
A defendant files an answer to a 32-count complaint: “We neither admit nor deny the allegations, but demand strict proof thereof.” The judge dismissed the answer and entered it as an admission – ie, the defendant was screwed.
Professor V’s analysis?
Professor V: “Pleading is not an area that permits creativity by lawyers.”
Watch them drown!
Professor T: “Like canoeists overturning in the river and drowning! We always take our picnics up by the rapids on sunny Saturday afternoons so we can watch the canoeists in the river tip over and drown. It’s one of favorite things to do. It’s like a sport.”
Why should you know?
Professor L: “Mpk? That means impact. I was in college debate so I have this bad experience using abbreviations that no one has any reason to know.”
There were some Native Americans in the casebook…
Students: “The language, about ‘going on the warpath.”
Professor T: “Yes?”
Students: “It bothers me.”
How to drive:
Professor T: “Thieves have 47-times higher risk of crash. Why?”
Student: “Because they are concerned about escape, not the car?”
Professor T: “And because car thieves like high speed chases! It’s part of the rush of being a car theft!”
Student (in the back): “Drive it like you stole it….”
Why?
Professor T: “Was it the right decision?”
Student: “No?”
Professor T: “Great! I want you to say no. Why is it no? Why did you say no?”
Student: “Uh, because you implied that it was no?”
Who’s next?!
Student: “…so they sued everyone.”
Professor T: “Great! Get your rolodex!”
Most of you won’t suck at life…
Professor C: “Most of you will do fine. The vast majority of you will do this fine. You’ll get a B or better. Even if you’re in the B minus range, that’s fine as long as that’s not your average. Now, you’re thinking “what if I’m not in that group?” Well… heh.”
(Professor shrugs and moves on)
Professor C: “No matter how hard some of you study you’re not going to get an A. You’re just not. It’s true.”
Had enough?
Professor V: “Is this allowed under rule 15(a)(2) even if 12(h)(1)(b)(ii) only allows amendments by 15(a)(1)? Is there an expressio unius argument here? Does anyone want to drop out of law school right now? Just checking…”
Why we love Car Accidents …
Professor T: “It’s the bread and butter of the business. It’s the McDonalds of the Tort business. It’s going to pay the overhead of the office, pay your Westlaw Subscription…”
Lucky Guesses don’t cut it in law school…
Professor C: “So how much can they recover?”
Student: “Fifty thousand?”
Professor C: “Great! How’d you get there?”
Student: “Aside from guessing?”
Professor C: “Well, that’s one way to do it…but it won’t work on the exam.”
Progress as measured by torts!
Professor T: “As medical technology changes there are new opportunities for things to go wrong!”
Bleak futures:
Professor T: “We say 60% of our students are practicing food law. Food law is anything that puts food on the table.”
(Class gasps….nervous chuckles…heh heh )
Student (in back): “That’s encouraging…”
Why we love the law:
Professor T: “I’m going to sue him at the drop of a hat! And so are you! That’s why we are in law school and why we love this stuff.”
From the Torts Reading: “Chief Justice Rugg’s famous distinctions among negligence, gross negligence and recklessness as being distinctions among a fool, a damned fool, and a God-damned fool.” (Harvard Law Record, April 16, 1959.)
Well, kinda?
Professor C: “The Court says, “Usually no, but sometimes yes, based on if we say so.”
What’s that smell?
Professor T: “What do you mean fishy? That’s a technical legal term?”
Professor T: “And when our kids were born we wanted to bury the placenta under the tree out front…”
Usually…
Professor V: “People who conspire to act against federal law don’t advertise that fact in the Wall Street Journal…”
Not so hypothetical hypo:
Professor T: “Suppose the 35W bridge collapses…”
Jill’s blunt summary:
Jill: “So the doctor operates on this woman and she starts leaking urine in places where urine is not supposed to be…”
Librarians aren’t all looks:
Research Librarian: “Use librarians! We are more than just eye candy: we are professionals.”
Asides:
Professor T: “This is an absolutely true story – sometimes I embellish the facts – but this is an absolutely true story…”
Professor L: “When you’re talking about a diseased cow, or a germ infected rag – I know it’s a bit early for this case – but the court says…”