So, I forgot to mention that the day of my torts final there were several girls in my class who wore t-shirts that read (something like): “Whenever you feel like you’re drowning in shit remember Mrs. Rush.”
And it made my day. It really did. A summary of Rush v. Commercial Realty Co is here.
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.”
Whenever I get sick of outlining, my torts book shoots me a jewel like this:
“On the other hand there are other kinds of medical malpractice, as where a sponge is left in the plaintiff’s abdomen after an operation, where no expert is needed to tell the jury that such events do not usually occur in the absence negligence.”
Muhaha. I love it…
Anyhoot, almost done!
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…”
Law students during finals are as tense as a pack of ferrets in the back of a pickup truck.
A recent email from our head librarian is an example of why I avoid the law library:
“As we approach finals, the need for a quiet study environment increases. To help, the library designates an area on the first floor as “quiet study.” This is the area along the “zig-zag” between the entrance of the first floor reading room and computer lab 153. (See attached map) Signs are posted in those areas.
One year we received a complaint about a student who was wearing flip-flops and walking to and from his carrel a bit too frequently for his neighbors. While this example may seem extreme, it highlights the general tension level that finals inspire. You will be doing yourself and your colleagues a favor if you do your part to maintain a quiet study environment.
Here are some things you can do, to help ensure that you and your neighbor are able to concentrate. Each of these suggestions, believe it or not, is based on a real complaint.
As always, our goal is to provide the best environment possible for students to effectively complete or prepare for exams. Your help is greatly appreciated as are your suggestions. If you have any thoughts on how we can improve the library, be sure to let us know. Email lawlib@umn.edu to share your thoughts or ideas.
Good luck on your exams! (And watch for occasional treats in the Law Library lobby Dec 8-19)
– Heart, your head librarian.”
To designate a ‘quiet area’ of the library is ridiculous, especially since our library has the acoustics of an opera house – you can hear a roach’s thoughts from the other side of the library…well, maybe that’s the caffeine speaking…
The main point of a library is that it’s a quiet study area. People don’t just show up for the power outlets or the sometimes-wireless. Sure, there are books and uh, things in there too, but most law students don’t use the library for research unless Westlaw and Lexis forsake us. People go to the library for a quiet study spot.
‘That the librarian has to tell (pardon me) grown-ass-law-students to not talk in the library, to not blast music, and to silence their computers is almost as ridiculous as the fact that students actually do blast their music, talk, smack, fart, and do all the other inconsiderate things that bring out the crazy in their peers.
But ‘The Obnoxious’ were born without the ability to discern what habits bother their neighbors. An email isn’t going to help. Running and crying to the librarian isn’t going to help. The only thing that will fix these people is a good old fashioned throw down – “Hi, you are annoying and this is why” – which law students aren’t apt to do, because the first thing The Obnoxious is going to do is run around and tell everyone about that crazy kid in the library who clicked off on him.
So I avoid the library to avoid The Obnoxious.
I also avoid the library to avoid those rabid over-stressers. You know, those students who can’t focus on their textbook lest it interfere with their blind panic…
Actually, the over-stressers fall into four categories:
The Talkers make the Wallowers bust out into a long funeral wail, but are quickly side-tackled by a Twitcher…and as entertaining as that is to watch, I just avoid the whole circus and study at the Pelli library downtown.
Sure, there are whole new problems at the Pelli…like beggars and snorers, but it’s a pleasant walk, beautiful view, and miles away from the drammy that is the law library during finals.
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…”
Landauer v. State Industrial Acci. Com., 175 Ore. 418 (Or. 1944)
Lexis headnotes:
OVERVIEW: The claimant was employed in a poultry-processing plant. An allegedly dead turkey kicked the claimant in the breast as the claimant was processing the turkey.
The claimant filed an action for workmen’s compensation benefits seven months after the accident and alleged that the injury caused her to develop breast cancer.
The Commission refused to consider the claim on the merits because it was not filed within three months after the accident. The claimant alleged that the Commission abused its discretion in refusing to consider the merits of the action.
The court affirmed the trial court and held that the Commission did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the claimant permission to file her claim more than three months after the accident occurred.
The claimant should have filed her claim within three months of the accident or should have presented an affidavit by a qualified physician certifying that there was a casual connection between the accident and the development of cancer in the claimant’s breast. The Commission did not abuse its discretion in the absence of some corroboration of the claimant’s unverified petition.
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…”
Re: the barren cow case…you know my notes had to reflect the silliness.
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…
Textbook editors must assume that no one reads the notes after cases. The notes contain the most random tangents – for example, from the contracts book:
“Like many law students, you may sometimes wear a sweatshirt quoting Shakespeare’s famous line from Henry VI, Part II: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” You may be aware that in that speech, Shakespeare was not in fact damning lawyers; the line is spoken by one of a gang of villains, and was intended to express the idea that for evil to triumph, it would first be necessary to deprive society of the protection of the law. But most of your fellow citizens, sadly, probably take those words at face value—and perhaps agree with them.”*
I have never seen anyone wear this ‘sweatshirt’ at UMN. It may be Minnesota, but we aren’t that frumpy. The Shakespeare sweater would be the legal equivalent of Leslie Hall’s gem sweaters…or her octopus suit…
*(Problems in Contract Law, Knapp/Crystal/Prince, Aspen Publishers)
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.
It’s kind of like a scene from a Jackie Chan movie…except this fight happened at a Thai Restaurant*
