He’s not jaded at all…
Legal Writing Prof: “So you have to deal with idiots in the real world. Have fun.”
Watch em’ squirm
Professor C: “I love looking at the faces you guys make when I call on you.”
(Professors mimics shock)
FRCP
Professor V: “Dying people and dying cows are largely the limits of rule 27.”
You know it’s late in the day when you hear…
Saundra: “Hey Jill, want to hear a good roofie story?”
Jack doesn’t like Professor C…
Professor T: “So, Professor C and I go out to the wilderness to canoe on the river. Professor C is a city slicker, so when he catches a small fish he gets so excited that he stands up. (And you never stand up in a canoe – it’s a rule) And Professor C promptly falls out of the canoe. Do I have a duty to save Professor C?”
Jack: “Well, I’d like to say no…but…”
The Hypo Continues…
Professor T: “So after I pull Professor C out and stick him on the rocks…do I have any further duty? What if he gets hypothermic?”
(Jill starts laughing)
Professor T: “What?”
Jill: “The mental picture. It’s great.”
Professor T: “Why?”
Jill: “Because you’re going to need to provide him with your body heat!”
Professor T: “So I have to crawl into the sleeping bag with him?”
Jill: “Maybe. Or stick your dog in there with him!”
Jack: “Or you can just throw him back in water!”
The ice has arrived. It legitimately snowed early last week, but for the rest of the week we got sparse, gnat-like snow.
I’m so horribly amused…
Professor C: “So, Daniel…”
Dan: “Oh, you can call me Dan. The only people who call me Daniel are my parents. Or you can call me JD-Baby.”
Professor C: “What? What did you say? JD…baby?”
Dan: “Yeah, you can call me either Dan or JD-Baby.”
Professor C: “Do you actually expect me to call you that?”
Dan: “I’m just giving you options.”
Today’s reading was pretty ripe with “the funny.” Here are the top three quotes:
“If there is a hell to which disputatious, uncivil, vituperative lawyers go, let it be one in which the damned are eternally locked in discovery disputes with other lawyers of equally repugnant attributes.”
– Judge Bright from Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363 (9th Cir. Cal. 1996)
“If he would be a great lawyer, he must first consent to become a great drudge.”
– Daniel Webster (quoted in my CivPro book)
And from some “for fun” reading I did today, a quote that is pertinent to law school…
“It takes confidence and good will to day, “I didn’t understand so-and-so,” rather than, belligerently, “So-and-so makes no sense.” It is the nature of stupid people to hide their perplexity and attack what they cannot grasp.”
– John Gardner, from On Becoming a Novelist
When I tell a stranger that I’m a law student I generally hear a variant of, “gasp that must be so hard and boring.” I’ve even received that reaction from Engineering students. Which, uh…yeah…I’m going to respectfully disagree with.
A case to prove my point?
Corso v. Crawford Dog & Cat Hospital, Inc., 415 N.Y.S.2d 182 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 1979).
So I almost spit out my coffee because of this little nugget* (no pun, I swear) from 1928…
Where a petition alleged that the plaintiff was an unmarried white lady, and that while in attendance as a guest of the defendant at a circus performance given by the defendant, and while seated in one of the seats provided by the defendant for the defendant’s guests at the circus, a horse, which was going through a dancing performance immediately in front of where the plaintiff was sitting, was by the defendant’s servant, who was riding upon the horse, caused to back towards the plaintiff, and while in this situation the horse evacuated his bowels into her lap, that this occurred in full view of many people, some of whom were the defendant’s employees, and all of whom laughed at the occurrence, that as a result thereof the plaintiff was caused much embarrassment, mortification, and mental pain and suffering, to her damage in a certain amount, that the damage alleged was due entirely to the defendant’s negligence and without any fault on the part of the plaintiff, the petition set out a cause of action and was good as against a general demurrer.
And yes, that’s one sentence…
*Christy Bros. Circus v. Turnage, 144 S.E. 680, 681 (Ga. Ct. App. 1928)
The humor in my torts book is all about understatements. I’m reading Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California. It’s about a psychologist who learns of his patient’s plans to kill a young woman “because she had spurned [his] romantic advances.”
The psychologist has the patient detained at the hospital. The patient was released shortly thereafter, “Despite disagreement among the psychiatrists the final decision was that no further action should be taken to confine Prosenjit Poddar (the patient).”
And sure enough, because this is Torts…
“This judgment proved to be mistaken; two months later Poddar shot and then repeatedly stabbed Tatiana.”
The Wikipedia entry fills in some holes…
Prosenjit Poddar was born into the Dalit (“untouchable”) caste in Bengal, India. He came to UC Berkeley as a graduate student in September 1967 and resided at the International House. In the fall of 1968 he attended folk dancing classes at the International House, and it was there he met Tatiana Tarasoff.
They saw each other weekly throughout the fall, and on New Year’s Eve she kissed Poddar. He interpreted the act to be a recognition of the existence of a serious relationship. This view was not shared by Tatiana who, upon learning of his feelings, told him that she was involved with other men and otherwise indicated that she was not interested in entering into an intimate relationship with him.
As a result of this rebuff Poddar underwent a severe emotional crisis. He became depressed and neglected his appearance, his studies and his health. He remained by himself, speaking disjointedly and often weeping. This condition persisted, with steady deterioration, throughout the spring and into the summer of 1969. Defendant did have occasional meetings with Tatiana during this period and tape recorded various of their conversations in an attempt to ascertain why she did not love him.
During the summer of 1969 Tatiana went to South America. After her departure Poddar began to improve and at the suggestion of a friend sought psychological assistance. Prosenjit Poddar was a patient of Dr. Lawrence Moore, a psychologist at UC Berkeley’s Cowell Memorial Hospital in 1969. Poddar confided his intent to kill Tatiana. Dr. Moore requested that the campus police detain Poddar, writing that, in his opinion, Poddar was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, acute and severe. The psychologist recommended that defendant be civilly committed as a dangerous person. Poddar was detained, but shortly thereafter released, as he appeared rational. Dr. Moore’s supervisor, Dr. Harvey Powelson, then ordered that Poddar not be subject to further detention.
In October, after Tatiana had returned, Poddar stopped seeing his psychologist. Neither Tatiana nor her parents received any warning of the threat. Poddar then befriended Tatiana’s brother, even moving in with him. Several months later, on October 27, 1969, Poddar carried out the plan he had confided to his psychologist, killing Tarasoff. Tarasoff’s parents then sued Moore and various other employees of the University.
Poddar was convicted of second-degree murder, but the conviction was later appealed and overturned on the grounds that the jury was inadequately informed. A second trial was not held, and Poddar was released on the condition that he return to India.
My Lexis points are out of control because I keep doing these completely random searches. For example: today, I wondered “Hm. I wonder how many times my undergraduate university has been sued.”
One quick trip to Lexis brought up a few interesting cases. My favorite: Montalvo v. University of Miami*
The case brings up the same issues that dissuaded me from writing a senior thesis at the University of Miami. I was told by members in two different departments that the success of my senior thesis would depend on how well by faculty advisors got along. If I accidentally picked two warring professors I’d be screwed, because each would try to fashion my work in their own style.
I don’t know if a “internal war” was truly going on in the case above, but it wouldn’t be a surprise. I suppose that research into the nature of your professors and the subsequent ability to reconcile their differences is a significant (if unspoken) requirement in the process.
* 705 So. 2d 1042
*********** edit,
Another interesting case is Johnston v. Meredith (840 So. 2d 315). The case involves a wrongful death that happened the year before my first year at Miami. A fraternity pledge drowned in the school lake. His estate sued several of his would-be fraternity brothers. The case made it to the appellate level but Lexis doesn’t carry the (more informative) trial court records.
Law school discussion. Memba that site? Well, there is (as always) an active gunner thread. Here is the first post:
PSA: How to Avoid Being “That” Guy by Another Chicago 1L
You shouldn’t:
1. Raise your hand more than once per class period. I know the rule sounds harsh, but, when you have 90 others and a professor with a plan, there’s no need for your novice input.
Most of the LR people at my school, I’ve been told, were quiet in class.
2. Approach anyone at the library and begin a long conversation. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been sitting at a desk, trying to work, when someone comes over to me like they’re ready to shoot the breeze for an hour. The library isn’t a social scene. It’s a library. Acknowledgements should be as limited as a funeral’s.
3. Speak in publishable sentences. Some people think that law school gives them license to throw out clunkers like “egregious recourse to deregulation.” Guess what? Nobody thinks that you’re intelligent because you can string together polysyllabic words.
4. Talk about how much or how little work you’re doing. Please, please, please don’t do this. Someone bragged to me about how they’re working at least 8 hours a day, if not more. Oh, really? Well, none of the rest of us are studying at all, so that makes you very special. Conversely, talking about your slacker tendencies is okay, but not as good as talking about something else.
Justice Fortas* brought me so much joy:
And an insurance company whose maximum interest in the case cannot exceed $20,000 and who in fact asserts that it has no interest at all, should not be allowed to determine that dozens of tort plaintiffs must be compelled to press their claims-even those claims which are not against the insured and which in no event could be satisfied out of the meager insurance fund-in a single forum of the insurance company’s choosing.
There is nothing in the statutory scheme, and very little in the judicial and academic commentary upon that scheme, which requires that the tail be allowed to wag the dog in this fashion.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire. 386 U.S. 523
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)
There is a note in my Torts book* about Novelty Co. v. Daniels, 42 So.2d 395 (Miss. 1949)
8. Defendant, under an obligation to furnish a safe place to work, set plaintiff, its employee, at cleaning a coin-operated vending machine with gasoline in a small room in which there was a lighted gas heater with an open flame.
While he was working, a rat escaped from the vending machine and ran to take refuge under the heater, where its fur, impregnated with gasoline fumes, caught fire from the flame. The rat “returned in haste and flames to its original hideout,” and exploded the gasoline vapor inside the machine, injuring the plaintiff. Is the defendant liable?
*Prosser, Wade and Schwartz’s “Torts: Cases and Materials.” 11th ed. p328, note #8
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
The past two weeks couldn’t have been more different.
Week 8 was the most academically engaging week so far because of a contracts midterm and a legal writing memo.
The contracts midterm was an opportunity for me to outline my contracts class and synthesize my notes.
So I opened the exam feeling prepared and read the instructions. There are three parts to the exam. I breeze through the short answer questions, have a lot of fun on the long issue spotter…and then get to the last question:
Some doctrines of contract law are best characterized as standards, whereas others are better characterized as rules. Identify one doctrine of contract law that is closer to a rule than a standard, but that you feel ought to be closer to a standard than a rule. Explain. Then, identify one doctrine of contract law that is closer to a standard than a rule, but that you feel ought to be closer to a rule than a standard. Again, explain you reasoning. (Please do not use the doctrine of restitution in answering this question).
I stopped. Reread the question, exhaled, and then silently thought, “What. The. Fuck.”
Doctrines of contract law? Huh? What?
I scribbled a random, (probably incoherent) answer, and then printed the exam out. I decided there was no point in worrying about my (butchering) of the last question since this was only a practice exam…but needless to say that my subsequent class notes always have a “THIS IS A POLICY/RULE VS. STANDARD ARGUMENT!!!! MEMBA DIS FOR THE EXAM!” section.
Researching for the legal writing memo was a lot of fun. I did most of the work at cafes downtown. I love walking downtown from the law school because it’s a nice walk (and break) before I start work. Downtown Minneapolis is gorgeous too…
Studying off campus is also super-efficient. The nice thing about being the unshaven guy in the corner of the café, (intensely staring at his computer, mumbling to himself…) is that people assume you’re crazy and leave you alone.
Whereas in the law school the harder you concentrate the more likely you are to be approached by a classmate… “Hey! How about that one case…” And you know it’s true. We all become that distracting person at least a few times a week…
Apparently my work on the memo paid off – I met with my legal writing instructors to review my memo and they said,
“Your open memo was so thoroughly researched and bluebooked! Good job! We were pleasantly surprised because your closed memo was so terrible! What changed? Really…what happened!?”
Gulp.
I didn’t know whether to be happy or not. I didn’t think my closed memo was THAT bad… Hmmf.
The open memo was a lot easier to write because I was able to refer to statutes, restatements, and cases from other jurisdictions to get an idea of what I needed to write about. During the closed memo we could only use the excerpts from the 5 or so cases we were given…
Basically – with the open memo I could research myself into competence instead of scratching around a few select cases.
The contracts outline, midterm, and open memo created an unique time pressure for week 8. I loved it. I think that’s why it was the most academically rewarding week of the semester…
I also added a new study spot to my (sprawling) list during week 8: The Hennepin Public Library!
It’s like Ikea: the Library. Brand new and amazing.
Week 9 was Halloween week – and therefore “The Week of the Boomkats.”
The Week of the Boomkats ended on Saturday when we went to the 19 Bar and Saloon. The 19 Bar is a laid back place in Loring Park with a semi-awkward crowd, whereas Saloon was strangely annoying on Saturday. Hm.
November is the beginning of finals season which is exciting. I hope to knock out one class outline per week (and of course, add this month’s material towards the end.) We’ll see how it goes…
Today’s contracts reading involved “gap-filling” provisions of article II of the UCC that supply terms left out of contracts.
I realize this may mean that I’m officially a legal nerd, but this sentence in my textbook brought me so much joy:
“Off-the-rack” terms, like ready-made suits, are less costly than custom-tailored ones.
Excerpt from Justice Buckley’s opinion (retrieved from Westlaw)
Williams v. Foster
281 Ill.App.3d 203, 666 N.E.2d 678
Ill.App. 1 Dist.,1996.
March 29, 1996 (Approx. 6 pages)
Mr. and Mrs. Foster each testified that in 1983, they purchased a new water heater, which was manufactured by State and installed by Sears. The installer never provided any warnings or safety information, and the heater was installed in a utility closet which was lined with insulation along its three walls.
On March 30, 1988, while the Fosters were asleep, a fire broke out on the ground floor of their house. When they awoke, they were trapped on the second floor by the flames and smoke. At about that time, plaintiff was driving home when he noticed smoke coming from the side of the Fosters’ house. He exited his car and approached the house to help the Fosters evacuate.
Mr. Foster broke the glass out of his bedroom window, helped Stacie climb outside, and lowered her down to plaintiff. Mr. Foster then began breaking more glass out of the window so he and plaintiff could do the same thing with Mrs. Foster, who was larger than Stacie. Plaintiff testified that he yelled to Mrs. Foster not to jump so that Mr. Foster could finish clearing out the glass and lower her down slowly, but she pushed Mr. Foster aside and jumped out head first. Plaintiff stated that he was standing directly beneath the window, and that he caught Mrs. Foster to break her fall and prevent her head from hitting the ground. The force of the collision broke plaintiff’s ankle. He testified that his foot was at a 90 degree angle with his leg.
(Plaintiff sued installer of water heater and wife. The wife was not held liable because court found that she was not negligent in jumping from a burning building.)
Last night the Gamma House threw a party, and I promised pictures:
