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.
Law school is ballin’outrageous and don’t let anyone tell you any different.
I’m working on my constitutional law outline at Starbucks. LexisNexus paid for my latte, and the stoner-esque Barista just gave me a free coffee and cookie. I think finals makes the law school gods smile down benignly, at least in Minnesota.
Outlining is an interesting process. It’s like a marathon runner training for a sprint – same basic skill set, different medium.
I’m creating my outline (at least for conlaw) in a deliberately slow way: hand writing an extensive outline, then condensing by half, then condensing it further to two pages, then typing.
If it’s not in my head by the end of that, then it’s not happening.
The past two weeks have been breezy. Last weekend I was in Miami. Cirque du Soleil, palms, heat, and chaos.
I spent 5 hours on public transit one day…rambled throughout downtown several times, and there was that boomkat-tastic Fedde Le Grand show…
Last night I traumatized Jamie and his friend with everyone’s favorite pair of girls (and their single cup.) Afterwards, instead of shanking me (which I’m sure he wanted to) Jamie took me to see Milk in uptown.
Milk is the Harvey Milk biopic. It was interesting and well done…although the hair was awful. I also have the biography (Mayor of Castro Street). I like reading the bios to supplement the movies. I did the same with Capote…although Capote’s biography was a brick of a book…
Naja. After Milk, we went to this diner and had the coolest waitress ever: she was about 6’2, 250lbs, piercings, full-sleeve tattoos, platinum blond hair, and this little layered denim get up. She was absolutely the business. She was like a voluptuous, female version of Rainblo…
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*
And yet another crime email from the U of M police…apparently this attack left someone partially blind:
In mid-October, a University of Minnesota student was the victim of an unprovoked attack just off campus that resulted in severe and permanent injury. Despite an extensive investigation by Minneapolis Police, no arrests have been made in the case. Now, Minneapolis Police Investigators are asking the University community for assistance or additional information that may help generate new leads. The facts are as follows:
On Sunday, October 12 between 2:15 and 2:30 a.m. a University of Minnesota student and a friend were walking westbound on University Avenue at 18th Avenue. They were on their way to get something to eat and neither had been consuming alcohol that night.
As they walked, the two passed a group of approximately five to 12 black males and black females. The students and the group did not speak to each other.
After passing the group, one of the males came up behind the student and punched him on the side of his head knocking him to the ground. While the student was on the ground, a second suspect from the group approached as if offering to help him up. Instead, the
second suspect punched or kicked the student in the head, again knocking him to the ground and into a lane of traffic on University Avenue. The large group then ran and two or three of the suspects got into a car that was parked southbound on 18th Avenue. The car
was described as a white Dodge Neon four-door, possibly a 1997 to 1999 model year.
Unfortunately, witness descriptions of the suspects are less than complete. One suspect is described as a black male wearing a white t-shirt and jeans. Another suspect is described as a black male, approximately five feet, ten inches tall with long dreadlocks and possibly wearing a baseball cap and jeans. One of the women in the group was described as heavyset. All of the suspects in the group were 18 to 21 years old.
The random nature of the assault and the brutality displayed is especially unsettling. As a result of the attack, the victim has permanently and completely lost vision in one of his eyes. Anyone with information about the assault is urged to contact Officer Bill Kenow of the Minneapolis Police Department Assault Unit. Officer Kenow can be reached at 612-919-9005 or William.kenow@ci.minneapolis.mn.us.
Crime Stoppers is offering a reward of up to $1,000 for information leading to an arrest in this case.
Thank you in advance for any assistance you can offer.
The theme is assumption of risk, and the most bizarre case was (as always) in the notes…
As part of an advertising campaign for wrinkle-resistant slacks, the defendant was promoting “the National Lap Sitting Contest” on college campuses. The object of the contest was to stack co-eds on a contestant’s lap, with the winner having the lap which holds the most co-eds for a 10 second period. The prize was three or four pairs of slacks and a night on the town. Such a contest was held at the University of Texas at El Paso where plaintiff was a student…
When the plaintiff’s turn came to participate, 14 co-eds were placed on his lap, which would have broken the existing record. But the pressure of the contest became too great and the chair collapsed injuring plaintiff. Shortly after the contest began, a different and supposedly less sturdy chair had collapsed under a previous contestant and fewer co-eds.
Now picture this:
The record contained testimony that when the plaintiff went to the Student Union Building the program had not started; that he was present during the entire program until his accident; that one chair broke under the weight of one man and some girls; that the chair that was used thereafter was a typical wood armless office chair; that plaintiff knew he weighed 240 pounds and intended to hold fourteen girls who weighed about 100 pounds each; that the girls were to be picked up and laid across each other, on his lap, and that the weight was unstable and was ill-distributed; and that he intended to hold the weight, with none of the girls touching the floor, for a period that would be timed.
And of course. The chair gave way. He was hurt. And the judge said, “Uh, assumption of risk. Fail whale fail.”
Wyly v. Burlington Industries, Inc., 452 F.2d 807, 809 (5th Cir. Tex. 1971)
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…