I spent some time in Little Havana today.
I fly to Minneapolis in a few hours. It was a fun weekend but I’m ready to go back.
I spent some time in Little Havana today.
I fly to Minneapolis in a few hours. It was a fun weekend but I’m ready to go back.
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.
In Minneapolis the temperature drops as finals approach.
Solution? A trip to Miami.
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…”
Last night I took a break Civil Procedure and checked on some blogs.
I pull up the Moon Goon blog and see that the Moon Goons were OPENING FOR FEDDE LE GRAND! And for only $10! Gasp!
I had a little over four hours to finish CivPro, ConLaw, Torts, walk home (I was downtown), and do laundry… oh, the motivation power of good house music…
Jamie and I arrived at Spin early and watched the nerds.
It was like watching the revenge of Erkle: there about six guys were skipping around the club wearing highwater khakis, suspenders, and thick glasses.
The dance floor was dead except for the Erkles and a pair of awkward Forever-21 rejects…an hour later the dance floor is packed. The nerds are break dancing and a rotation of gogo dancers starts. It was a hilarious night. Boomkats abound. Pictures!
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?!”
We received this email today:
University Police are re-issuing to campus the following crime alert from the Minneapolis Police Department. Over the weekend there were four robberies of person in southeast Minneapolis. In three of those cases, University of Minnesota students were victims. These are Minneapolis investigations, however University Police in cooperation with Minneapolis are directing patrol resources into those neighborhoods.
*Minneapolis Police Department Crime Alert:*
*Facts:*
Over the weekend, the 2nd Precinct had six armed robberies. The
victims have been females who have had their purse or possessions
taken. They occurred at:
. 14th Ave NE and 3rd St NE — 11/15/2008 7:55 p.m.
. 20th Ave NE and 4th St NE — 11/16/2008 1:15 a.m.
. 2500 block of University Ave SE — 11/16/2008 2:53 a.m.
. 12 Ave SE and 7th St SE — 11/16/2008 3:07 a.m.
. 10 Ave SE and 7th St SE — 11/16/2008 9:25 p.m.
. 12 Ave SE and 4th St SE — 11/17/2008 12:52 a.m.
And no, the University of Minnesota isn’t some decrepit, dangerous place. The main campus is less than a mile from downtown. The list essentially includes all the muggings that happened in downtown Minneapolis and surrounding neighborhoods this weekend. It’s a city. People get mugged.
The University of Minnesota also has over 50,000 students. So if a 20-something gets robbed in Minneapolis there’s a fair chance she goes to the U…especially if she’s skipping around the streets from 1-3am on a weekend in 30 degree weather.
I spend a lot of time studying in the business school and the surrounding cafes. That part of campus is overshadowed by multicolored project towers that we affectionately call the Stacks.
I live in a different neighborhood, on other side of the river from the Stacks.
Law students make jokes about the Stacks and the supposedly seedy neighborhood that surrounds them…but the irony is that the last location on crime email’s mugging list is literally one street from the Gamma house.
The mugging didn’t happen by the Stacks, but in cutesy-little “oh so collegiate” Dinkytown, where all the Fraternities, Sororities, dorms and student orgs are.
Dinkytown is a pretty high crime area because it’s essentially a student-town (read: easy targets). Our fraternity house was already broken into this semester, and a housemate’s car has been robbed twice.
And yet we make fun of the Stacks.
I haven’t convinced the housemates to let me get a pitbull yet, but one more robbery might do the trick…
Rush v. Commercial Realty Co. is an example of why I love law school: I just finished having a laughing fit at the Wilde Roast Café.
And yes, I cried.
The case for the plaintiffs was that they were tenants of the defendant, which controlled the house wherein they lived and also the adjoining house, and provided a detached privy (outhouse/toilet) for the use of both houses; that Mrs. Rush having occasion to use this privy, went into it and fell through the floor, or through some sort of trap door therein, descended about nine feet into the accumulation at the bottom, and had to be extricated by use of a ladder.
Now, it turns out that Mrs. Rush didn’t actually fall through the toilet. That’s how I read it the first time – and believe me the visual was pure hilarity. It appears Mrs. Rush fell through the floor of the outhouse, not the actual potty.
And the judge blamed the property owner, because:
In dealing with these, it should be observed that Mrs. Rush had no choice, when impelled by the calls of nature, but to use the facilities placed at her disposal by the landlord, to wit, a privy with a trap door in the floor, poorly maintained.
Mrs. Rush wins. Whether or not the fall was the only accident that happened is unclear.
* Rush v. Commercial Realty Co., 145 A. 476 (N.J. Sup. Ct. 1929)
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…
Thursday night, Paige and I find ourselves staring at an old brick building on a side street near downtown. We are trying to find the Lavender Bar networking event at Clubhouse Jäger.
Me: “Is that Clubhouse Jäger?”
Paige: “I don’t think so…WAIT IS THAT A HAND?”
I look up and see a hand reaching out of the second floor window. It looks like the hand from the Crypt Keeper.
After stepping back into the street we see that it’s an iron statue of a wizard crawling out of a fake second-floor window. What the…
The entrance of the building was behind a stone wall that had a large onion dome…it looked like an abandoned Disney exhibit…and was definitely not Clubhouse Jäger.
After calling 411 I realized our mistake: Clubhouse Jäger is at 921 North Washington Avenue. We were at 921 South Washington Avenue… about two miles away.
So Paige and I started our adventure through downtown Minneapolis – first to the Metro station, then on foot, past a seedy strip club district, and onward to North Loop, a swank gentrification/overpriced condo neighborhood.
We finally got to Clubhouse Jäger….although we were so late that there were only a few (somewhat tipsy) lawyers left. It was fun though. The bartender freaked both of us out. He started annoying me by the end of the night…
Me: “May I have a Diet Coke?”
Bartender-Jester: “And what? Vodka? Rum?”
Me: “No. Just a Diet please.”
Bartender-Jester: “Just Diet? South Beach? Adkins? Trimspa Baby?”
Me (With the hissy glare): “Diet Coca-Cola. Thanks.”
Just give me my damn beverage. No one asked you to be entertaining. And even if we did… fail whale fail.
Paige and I ran into a law student from another law school that we remembered from the Outlaw Pub crawl. He was plastered, and didn’t remember us from the last event, (which he was plastered at too).
Good thing he won’t remember us bringing it up. Yikes. I met another 1L (from a section I have no contact with), a recent UMN Law grad, and a hilarious (fiery!) judge/former prosecutor. This networking thing is fun…
Went to the 19 Bar on Friday and Saturday night. Good times. Although the pool players were ridiculous on Saturday. One in particular sorely needed a belt…
People were pretty sloppy on Saturday. I think it’s because Jamie and I got there so late. I opened the bathroom door and the door accidentally hit someone. At first I thought someone was standing in front of the door, but I was wrong – there was a guy sitting on the floor. Of the bathroom. That pee soaked floor.
Ew. Ew. Ew. Ew – for real.
His friend was giving him the tsk-tsk look and said, “I’m going to get some water and then we are going to try to stand up okay?”
He nods. I judge.
Saturday was bizarrely productive. I did all of my contracts reading for the week at the Hennepin Library. Although my first spot was distracting – there was a guy watching a football game on a laptop and providing running commentary to the entire library, “RUN! RUN! RUN! SHITFUCK! FUMBLE!”
Indeed.
I moved to another section when the guy behind him started snoring loudly…
Stella and I were at the Hennepin Library earlier this week. And yes, the library has flickr.
The first thing I did today was go to the movies. I saw Quantum of Solace. Afterwards I went to Mrs. Fields and got what was a small bucket of oily pretzels. Delicious. I swear.
I got back to campus and realized that I had no highlighters in my locker. I went to the school bookstore on the other side of the river.
It was closed.
I then walked throughout stadium village and there wasn’t a single store that sold highlighters. Every other store sells beer, but I can’t get a single highlighter. Great.
I read torts at the new Dunn Brothers Café…underling instead of highlighting… I went home when they started playing Copa Copacabana on repeat.
So, Minneapolis has the best local bands. Ever.
Proof?
The Moon Goons posted a song called “Chubby Banger.” It’s 110% hilarity and totally getting me through my contracts reading today.
And they have a blog. Yessir.
Hill v. Jones* was assigned for contracts. The key question is whether a seller of a house has an obligation to tell the buyers about previous termite infestations.
At one point the sellers argue, essentially, “But we thought the termites were dead!”
The court responds:
“Although sellers have attempted to draw a distinction between live termites and past infestation, the concept of materiality is an elastic one which is not limited by the termites’ health.”
Pwned. The whole misrepresentation/non-disclosure doctrine appears similar to the “lies of omission” that gets so many of us in trouble in elementary school…
Parent: “I thought you did your homework!”
Child: “I only said that I did my English homework.”
Parent: “You’re so grounded. Shoo.”
* Hill v. Jones, 725 P.2d 1115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986)
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!”
Yesterday was the Asylum Law Project silent auction. Here are some pictures:
We were assigned a hilarious case for Civil Procedure starring the one (and only) Diana Ross.
“You want to take me on? Briiiiing it!”
Diana Ross was sued by Gail Davis, a former personal-assistant for libel based on this letter from Ross:
To whom it may concern:
The following people are no longer in my employment:
If I let an employee go, it’s because either their work or their personal habits are not acceptable to me. I do not recommend these people. In fact, if you hear from these people, and they use my name as a reference, I wish to be contacted.
/s/ Diana Ross
Davis is suing for one million dollars in compensatory damages and one million dollars in punitive damages.
The district court granted Ross’s motion to dismiss on the ground that, as a matter of law, the text of the letter was not libelous because it only expressed Ross’s personal dissatisfaction with her former employees.
The appeals court reversed this decision because it found that the letter was susceptible to several interpretations.
The case came before the current court over discovery battle.
The assistant wants three things: 1) information about Ross’s net worth and annual income, 2) documents reflecting billings and payments Ross made to her lawyers, and 3) the names of other employees who have complained about the defendant, and the nature of their complaints.
The court gave a big-fat “DENIED” to each of the requests.
On the financial records:
Davis argues that the rule of Rupert v. Sellers should not govern this case because she entered into a confidentiality order which, she says, should eliminate any concern for privacy on defendant’s part. Defendant responds, quite rightly, that the existence of a confidentiality order does not undermine the rationale of Rupert v. Sellers. Ross should not be compelled to disclose private facts to anyone -even to someone who has agreed to keep the information confidential-until it is found that plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.
“I’m not being shady (despite having 2 pairs)… my money’s just none of yo’business okay?”
On the attorneys fees:
Even where a witness’ entire livelihood derives from employment by the party for whom he testifies, courts have declined to infer bias from the mere fact of employment. In this case, the court is especially reluctant to pry into the details of the attorney-client relationship or to order burdensome discovery. Consequently, plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery of legal fees is denied.
On the employee records:
Whether Ross is a “good” or “bad” employer, popular or unpopular with employees, is not probative of whether Davis’ personal or work habits were objectively satisfactory. Even if other employees have complained about Ross, that would not affect a jury’s assessment of Davis’ personal or work habits one way or the other. The issue in this case is whether Ross libeled Davis, and the material plaintiff seeks to discover does not bear on that.
So Davis is 0-3. Now Ross pulls out her own discovery request: Ross wants Davis’s mental health records!
Davis saw a shrink during her employment, and is now asking for millions in pain and suffering. So Ross says (essentially), “Okay, you put your mental state out there, I want to see your crazy papers!”
“You want CRAZY? I’LL SHOW YOU CRAZY!”
And the court says:
Moreover, the amount of damages will always be in issue; plaintiff seeks one million dollars in compensatory damages, and evidence must be introduced to demonstrate that the award should be more than nominal. [cites a case] (it is assumed that defamation causes some damage though it be nominal). Plaintiff may not sue to recover for mental pain and anguish, only to deny the defendant the evidence she needs to argue that there was no damage, or that the amount of compensation sought is excessive. …
Accordingly, defendant’s motion to compel discovery of plaintiff’s treatment by a psychiatrist is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PWNED. Ross 4-0.
“Now I shall destroy, bring her to me! I’ll will demolish her instantly!”
* Davis v. Ross, 107 F.R.D. 326 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)