During orientation we heard about a semi-scandalous publication called “Bar Review.” UMN law school’s answer to the Onion I guess…
And apparently last year’s publication crossed the line from satire to…personal attacks. Sending a few crying students and angry alumni to the dean will do wonders to your Character & Fitness recommendation…
But some brave souls have moved Bar Review online.
We’ll see how this goes…
Truism…
Professor L: Politicians aren’t know as shrinking violets who will shy away from upsetting people and telling them “oh no this isn’t my fault.”
Basically…
Professor L: “The basic argument from the Scalia side is ‘the US Constitution is the US Constitution.’”
Don’t you dare…
(Students phone goes off)
Professor L: “I’d resist the temptation to answer that…”
Respondeat Superior
Professor V: “So for example, if I’m beaten up by a Minneapolis police officer – actually, in light of recent events let’s make it a St. Paul police officer…”
Yay Latin!
Professor V: “Right! And the court states this rule in latin! This is so exciting…”
Oh fudge…
Professor V: “Sometimes they grant a 12(b) or a 9(g) motion anyway. So the answer is that judges just fudge it...”
We had a Gamma potluck. Pictures!
One month down! The theme of the past two weeks was figuring out the best schedule.
I tested two extremes: library rat vs. undergrad.
During week three I arrived at school around 5am (or a coffee shop at 6am), read before class, and then didn’t work at all in the evenings…thorough briefs with cross-references to restatements. Lights out at 8pm.
During week four I went to the gym around 6am, then read between classes and after school. The reading was usually day-before if not day-of…25-minute assignments, book briefing, bars and clubs. Hm.
This week I’m going to mesh the library rat with the undergrad. I think this is called balance. We’ll see.
People are definitely less polite around the Gamma house and things are getting filthy. Example? While de-molding our shower I found a little treat.
Bleh. I know. It was so disgusting I sat on the floor laughing out of pure horror. Good times. BUT! The shower is no longer clogged. I am the bleach warrior. Hah.
I was also nasty-sick this weekend and therefore slept a lot…erm…at least when my housemate’s bass wasn’t blaring. The music was so loud that at one point I slept in the basement. Problem solved!
My cold gave me a smoker’s voice. Cigarette baritone.Yes.
Month 2 of law school started today. This week is sparse though – contracts and torts are canceled for tomorrow for Rosh Hashanah. The conference monster is also in town, so two out of our three CivPro classes are knocked out.
The only class I have tomorrow is a special “intro to legal research” session at…8am.
Bright-and-early! It should be hilarious. I expect full undercaffeinated glares from the commuters.
It may necessary for you but…
Professor C: “So in this situation?”
Student: “Well, in this case it’s not clear that the medical attention was a necessity –“
Professor C: “Well, the kid does die!”
It’s quite serious…
(Professor draws stick figures on the board)
Professor C: “So Webb is really hurt, his heel is ripped off…”
(Class chuckles)
Professor C: “What?! That’s not funny! Getting your heel ripped off is quite serious.”
(Professor scratches out the heel of his stick figure)
The dean fumbles while addressing the 1L class:
Dean: “If I sound like Sarah Palin I apologize.”
Close enough…
Professor T: “The plaintiff’s car went through the guardrail of the bridge. So what is the county going to do?”
Student: “Nothing really. It’s not their problem. But I guess they’ll repair the little hole the plaintiff’s car caused?”
Professor T: “So this is the “it’s close enough’ government work” response to people falling off our bridges?”
Love for Menlove
Professor T: “I’m really enamored of Menlove: His name. His ability to deal with the world. And just to put Menlove in context, he does not have the gifts that we do. Menlove is gift-challenged. What’s his argument?”
Student: “Menlove is arguing that he should be held to the standard that “he acted to the best of his judgment.” Basically, ‘don’t blame me. I’m stupid.”
Professor T: “Exactly! He’s gift-challenged! Be all you can be! Menlove is being the best he can be. In his case, he just doesn’t have a lot to work with.”
Student: “Menlove should have listened to his neighbor’s warning.”
Professor T: “Well, your neighbors are always telling you how to run your life. And most of the time they are wrong because they are just vicious intermeddlers telling you how to run your life…”
Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. (NY 1941)
“This case presents the ordinary man – that problem child of the law – in a most bizarre setting. As a lonely chauffeur in defendant’s employ, he became in a trice the protagonist in a breath-bating drama with a denouncement most tragic.”
I think I just read the worst written opinion ever. The language is so ridiculous that it’s awesomely bad. The case itself is hilarious. Here is a rundown with quotes from the court’s opinion.
1. A man was mugged by two men at gunpoint.
“[a man] was feloniously relieved of his portable goods by two nondescript highwaymen…they induced him to relinquish his possessions by a strong argument ad hominem couched in the convincing cant of the criminal and pressed at the point of a most persuasive pistol.”
2. Man chases the muggers, and the muggers split up. The man (of course) follows the mugger with the gun.
“…and he, shuffling off the coil of that discretion which enmeshed him in the alley, quickly gave chase…”
3. The armed mugger jumps into a waiting cab,
“…[the driver] states that his uninvited guest boarded the cab…while it was at a standstill waiting for a less colorful fare…”
4. Mugger tells the cabby to step on the gas or “I will cap thine ass.” The cab starts moving, but then the cabby hears the mugger’s chaser,
“The chauffeur in reluctant acquiescence proceeded about fifteen feet when his hair, like unto the quills of the fretful porcupine, was made to stand on end by the hue and cry of the man despoiled…”
5. Mugger senses drama, so he presses the gun against the cabby,
“The hold-up man, sensing [the driver’s] insecurity, suggested to the chauffeur that in the event there was the slightest lapse in obedience to his curt command that he, the chauffeur, would suffer the loss of his brains, a prospect as horrible to a humble chauffeur as it undoubtedly would be to one of the intelligentsia…”
6. Cabby says, “F-this!” and jumps out of the cab.
“The chauffeur, apprehensive of certain dissolution from either Scylla, the pursuers, or Charybdis, the pursued, quickly threw his car out of first speed in which, he was proceeding, pulled on the emergency, jammed on his brakes, and, although he thinks the motor was still running, swung open the door to his left and jumped out of his car.”
7. The mugger jumps out of the cab too.
8. The cab runs onto the sidewalk and hits a mother and her two infant children, who sue the cabby for negligence.
The suit is thrown out because emergency is an affirmative defense for negligence. The language of the opinion keeps getting worse. Examples:
“To hold thus under the facts adduced herein would be tantamount to a repeal by implication of the primal law of nature written in indelible characters upon the fleshly tablets of sentient creation by the Almighty Law-giver, “the supernal Judge who sits on high.” There are those who stem the turbulent current for bubble fame, or who bridge the yawning chasm with a leap for leap’s sake…”
And,
“Returning to our chauffeur. If the philosophic Horatio and the martial companions of his watch were “distilled almost to jelly with the act of fear” when they beheld “in the dead vast and middle of the night” the disembodied spirit of Hamlet’s father stalk majestically by “with a countenance more in sorrow than in anger,” was not the chauffeur…”
Um. Yeah.
Luckily this opinion is the exception (rather than the rule) for my textbooks.
**** edit *********
Can you tell I got behind in my blawg reading? L wrote about this very case last week!
So a dog walks into a bar…
A bartender allows an Akita to remain in a bar and the dog bites one of the customers in the face. Was the bar negligent? (Rowland v. Log Cabin Inc. 2003) Issue is “Whether a reasonable person would have realized that a large, unknown dog roaming free in a small bar with drunken patrons involved an unreasonable risk of harm is a question for a jury.”
Standard of care for the duller light bulbs…
“If, for instance, a man is born hasty and awkward, is always hurting himself or his neighbors, no doubt his congenital defects will be allowed for in the courts of Heaven, but his slips are no less troublesome to his neighbors than if they sprang from guilty neglect.”
And if he’s drunk…
“A drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it.”
Mommy, why is the snow red?
“Billy Anderson, age 13 years, was driving a snowmobile belonging to defendant Lindsay, pulling plaintiff Kelly Robinson on an innertube attached to the snowmobile. Plaintiff’s thumb was severed when it was caught in the tow rope. The thumb was reattached, but not still fully functional at time of trial…”
– FYI: In this case the court held that children who operate motorized vehicles are held to an adult standard of care.
Professor V: The Supreme Court basically says in dicta, “don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Professional Misconduct:
Professor V: I don’t know if it is widespread or if I’m living on a peculiar block, but three doors down is a guy who is imprisoned for stealing from orphans and right around the street is a woman whose brother is in prison for a federal conduct violation…
Professor T: “It was the coldest day of the year and the pipes of my house burst. Trying to get a plumber to come to your house when the Vikings are playing the Superbowl? That’s a cold day in hell…”
Professor T: “Do you have a swimming pool?”
Student: “Yes.”
Professor T: “Do you have a fence around the pool?”
Student: “Well, we do now. We didn’t have a fence around our yard until we built the swimming pool.”
Professor T: “And why did you build a fence around the yard when you built the swimming pool?”
Student: “Because my dad’s a lawyer.”
When students point out an error on the board:
Professor C: “This was just like that moment in Legally Blonde, “SO YOU COULDN’T HAVE GOTTEN A PERM ON THAT DAY!”
But, I thought you liked me!
Professor C: “Only two people visited me from this class this week. Just when I thought we had a rapport, I find out I’m not actually the cool kid on the block. We can remedy this by more people visiting me…”
Uh…what?
Professor C: “Let me try this one more time, because I’m pretty sure that the argument I’m trying to articulate is making sense…”
Wait, no, he’s still crazy…
Student: “…and Pelo is no longer crazy enough to commit to a hospital and…”
Professor C: “Wait, it’s not that Pelo wasn’t ‘crazy enough’, but “no longer a harm to himself or others”…he might still be very crazy.”
Professor L: *HACK* “Sorry, I have a cough drop in my mouth and the pieces are going everywhere…it’s actually pretty disgusting...So if I slur you know why…”
Professor L: “Why is my overhead font doing that?”
(the text on the overhead has gray highlighting)
Professor L: “Hm. Maybe this is signaling that dark economic days are here...And, I was joking earlier that I might cancel class until congress passes the bailout bill…”
Professor L: “Sometimes you have a concurring opinion which seems to differ entirely from the majority opinion. It’s like they’re saying, “I think the majority is a bunch of boneheads who somehow, in the dark, they stumbled upon the right answer.”
So we have two stoners…
Jack: “I think we could say that California is the state that has the most people who smoke pot right?”
Professor L: “I don’t know, I think Oregon can give them a run for their money…”
Ken: “Well, I’d like to differ from my colleague here…”
(Debate about the legality of pot ensues between Jack and Ken. An amused class listens.)
Jill: “So we have two stoners…”
What were we talking about again?
Student: “…and therefore, you can argue that marijuana, in aggregate, has a large impact on productivity and therefore affects interstate commerce.”
Professor L: “First thing to remember is always read your statute, because you’re talking about smoking pot and I asked you about handgun regulations… you guys don’t want to stop thinking about the pot…”
Professor C: “Let’s play a game. I’m the Judge. Pat, you are the lawyer for the plaintiffs, and Sarah, you are the lawyer for big evil Gateway Corporation who won’t pick up my telephone calls...”
Professor T: “So do we blow up his house and say, “Congratulations you just won the honor of being the good soldier on the march towards a better society?”
Professor T: “Jill, what about our natural, inalienable rights? Where do they come from?”
Jill: “I don’t know, I was a business major.”
Professor T: “Sovereign immunity! Why can’t you sue the state? Because you can’t sue the state. That’s why. The king does no wrong.”
Professor T: “It’s the same reason why we put toxic chemical plants in poor neighborhoods: It’s cheaper!”
Professor T: “God didn’t blow up the plaintiff’s house! The defendant did! And he did it on purpose…like you know when you stick a piece of dynamite in the side?”
Professor T on Snowmobilers:
Professor T: “I have a river on my property. It’s winter. Snowmobilers love to ride on frozen rivers during the winter. It’s like a highway. I have a white water rapid on my property too. The rapid doesn’t freeze as much. And snowmobilers love to see if they can jump the water. So one evening I get a knock on the door and we had to rescue a snowmobiler…”
Snowmobilers & Necessity Privilege:
Professor T: “Necessity? Even for snowmobilers who don’t have the brains that god gave geese?”
Professor T: “I gave the snowmobiler food, brandy, a sauna… And he never even gave me a thank you card! So I’ve resolved that anyone who falls through the ice on the river is in the state of nature…”
Professor T: “Or this snowmobiler, I nominated him for the Darwin award…you know, he shouldn’t be in the gene pool…”
All about Cool Whip Bowls:
Professor C: “We’ll see how coherent I can be…”
Professor C: “This case is about a machine that makes Cool Whip bowls. I was going to bring in a Cool Whip bowl, but I wasn’t done with my Cool Whip and I wasn’t willing to sacrifice it…”
Professor C: “So you have a machine that makes these Cool Whip bowls…and someone as injured. And now you have a hand that comes out looking like a Cool Whip bowl…which is not a good look.”
Professor C: “Indemnity clause: our machine turns your hands into Cool Whip bowls.”
Professor C: “Idiot! Who ever heard of a Cool Whip bowl without a reverse trim?! Come on!”
Why we hate this statute:
Professor C: “Let’s look at the comments…erm…well it turns out that this statute is so complicated that even the drafters get it wrong.”
Professor C: “If you want my nitpicky academic analysis I’d say…”
Professor C: “I think any sense that this does make is overwhelmed by the confusion the statute creates…”
Are you sure?
Professor C: “Well?”
Student: “No.”
Professor C: “Try again.”
Student: “Yes.”
Professor C: “Good. Don’t worry. This is hard material. You’ll look back at this one day and understand it… nor not...”
The Lumberjack Returns:
Professor T: “and I go to my house, and five minutes later, who shows up?”
Student: “The one legged lumberjack?”
Professor T: “Right! So the one legged lumberjack is coming in the front door brandishing his beer bottle… I have five exits and a shotgun…”
Home Improvement:
Professor T: “The virtue of living in a dome is that we have a lot exits.”
Professor T: “You know what opens a glass door? A rock.”
Deadly Mantrap Liability.
Student: “But in the Iowa case they had a “No Trespassing” sign!”
Professor T: “But in the Iowa case they didn’t have a sign that said, “BEWARE DEADLY MANTRAP”
Retail Loss Prevention:
Professor T: “I like all these back rooms. The back rooms with handcuffs…who had a back room?”
Student: “Well, I don’t know if they actually USED the handcuffs…”
Professor T: “Yeah, they just dangled them in front of people to intimidate them?”
Student: “Heck, I just sold coffee. I dunno.”
Today’s Contracts reading included a Kentucky Court of Appeals case, Walker v. Keith. Here are some of Judge Clay’s remarks translated from legalese.
Clay: “The terminology is not only confusing but inherently unworkable as a formula…”
Translated: “Wtf were you thinking?”
Clay: “The law has become woefully complicated.”
Translated: “Hold up, we need to find our Nutshell…”
Clay: “This reasoning seems to overlook the fact that a party must have an enforceable contract before he has a right to enforce it.”
Translated: “Epic legal reasoning fail.”
Clay: “All rents tend to be reasonable. When parties are trying to reach an agreement, however, their ideas or claims about reasonableness may widely differ.”
Translated: “Welcome to the garage sale. State your price.”
Clay: “…This seems to us as no more than a grammatical means of sweeping the problem under the rug.”
Translated: “Legal writing fail.”
Clay: “As a practical matter, courts sometimes must assert their right not be imposed upon.”
Translated: “Leave us alone foo.”
Professor T: “This was a dark and stormy night! We are going to have dark and stormy nights in a lot of our cases. Dark and stormy nights are when torts happen!”
Professor T: “I happen to be a doctor of sociology. Can I be sued if I go down to the Hennepin county operate on people?”
Student: “Yeah they can sue! They are not consenting to a sociology PhD person playing with their body…”
Professor T: “What happens if you tell someone ‘I’m the world’s greatest lover!’ and you’re not. Does that invalidate consent?”
Student: “Do they have any reason to think that’s true?”
Professor T: “Well, it’s a performance test, like a lot of things in life…”
Professor T: “The thing about loggers and cowboys is that they are judgment proof.”
Professor T: “And what if I’m gravely offended?”
Student: “I don’t think the law is concerned with protecting your street rep…”
Professor T: “Don’t we learn “I” messages when raising kids? You don’t tell people how to behave, you tell people how you feel…”
Professor T: “Well in Minnesota we are all owners of guns, and I can conclude from the NRA stickers on his car that he’s likely packing. I mean he does have a bulge in his pocket…”
Professor T: “…and after I shoot him, we roll him over and I discover he didn’t have a gun. Am in trouble now?”
Professor T: “So they have to pay when they shoot my dog, but I don’t have to pay for shooting the logger?”
Professor C: “Special rules? Does this have anything to do with the collapse of our economy?”
Professor C: “And how do you get full credit if this was an exam question? You write exactly what I just said.”
Professor C: “…you can frame your answer either way, and if you do, POINTS POINTS POINTS! IT’S A POINTS BONANZA!”
Last night at the clubhouse the drag queen MC found a victim…
Drag Queen: “Birthdays? Do we have any birthdays? Oh shit nevermind, we have someone with a tiara. Hi. What’s your name?”
Girl: “Chelsey.”
Drag Queen: “Chelsey. Look at her. Cute as a button. Why are you wearing a tiara? Don’t tell me it’s your birthday!”
Chesley: “It is my birthday!”
Drag Queen: “Oh lord. This is what they are doing for birthday nowadays? Don’t tell me you got that for your birthday… How old are you turning Chelsey?”
Chelsey: “Nineteen!”
Drag Queen: “Awe. Adorable. And did you get good presents?”
Chelsey: “Yes.”
Drag Queen: “…like what?”
Chelsey: “Uh, like this tiara!”
Drag Queen: “Christ. I knew it. Chelsey, let me give you some advice: Get better friends. They have you walking around here wearing a lame ass tiara...Have a happy birthday Chelsey, without drinks.”
And she wasn’t done yet…
Drag Queen: “Who do we have here in the front row? All these lovely ladies. Why don’t you have drinks? Wait, no one has a wristband…are you all too young?”
(they all nod, except one)
Drag Queen: “You’re the only one old enough and you’re not drinking? SHOOT, I’d rub their faces in it! But I guess you do need to have money to buy cocktails. Hm. That’s probably the problem…”
Housemate #1 stumbles in, screams “Wee!” and collapses onto the couch.
Housemate #1: “I’m going to f-up everyone in this house. I’m going to kill everyone and use their skin for my book covers. I like book covers…especially when they are made of people’s skin. Can I kill you now?
She then goes upstairs. A few minutes later another housemate comes down…
Housemate #2: Apparently we need to lock our doors tonight because [housemate #1] is on a murderous rampage. Especially you guys. You have balls.
Yesterday at the Freighthouse, my housemate and I ran into a group of nursing students.
Future nurse: “Are you guys studying law or something?”
Housemate and I: “Yep! We are first years.”
Future nurse: “Ouch. Law School must be rough…”
Me: “No, law school is hilarious, actually.”
The nursing student looked at me like I was the most sarcastic asshole in the world.
Me: “No, seriously. Law school is hilarium. Really. Like, for example our assignments…”
I stopped because I realized it was useless to explain.
But, the reading, (aside from last Thursday’s contracts assignment) is actually interesting and frequently funny.
For example, the question in today’s reading involved a blowing up someone’s house on Christmas Eve…
MURRAY, CHIEF JUSTICE. This was an action, commenced in the court below, to recover damages for blowing up and destroying the plaintiff’s house and property, during the fire of the 24th of December, 1849.
And the biggest understatement of 1849…
… “The necessity of blowing up a house may not exist, or be as apparent to the owner, whose judgment is clouded by interest, and hope of saving his property…[but] the evidence in this case clearly establishes that the blowing up the house was necessary…”
Ie, “You may not thing think blowing up your house was necessary, but we do. Thou art the fail whale, and can’t recover. Goodbye.”