1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[FeelTheHeat]

Also, per the advice of one of the TLS guides, I made a sort of skeleton outline...it's closed book, but our professor gives an extra 10 minutes so I plan on furiously recreating this as fast as possible during that time...not the details but the topics and stuff...leews recommends it and I think having a basic reference like it will help

Nice outline, I'm going to make something like that soon, I'm allowed to bring it to the test with me though . I'm sure this is obvious, but it says your name on the side of the webpage.. just in case you care about that and didn't notice.

Thanks for the heads up, I'm totally outed for the most part so it's no big deal, but I definitely need better attention to detail lol

[pinkcamellia]

heat, is there a skeleton outline for property somewhere? property is beginning to scare the hell out of me.

[FeelTheHeat]

heat, is there a skeleton outline for property somewhere? property is beginning to scare the hell out of me.

I got the idea from a random tls guide (forgot which one), but the main thing was just to have a macro view of the class, which a few details and key-subelements...I find that once I see certain triggers it reminds me of far deeper detail (I'm not the smartest guy and can't recall things at a moment's notice)...torts and contracts are scaring the shit out of me because I still have no idea how to take a law school exam

[pinkcamellia]

heat, is there a skeleton outline for property somewhere? property is beginning to scare the hell out of me.

I got the idea from a random tls guide (forgot which one), but the main thing was just to have a macro view of the class, which a few details and key-subelements...I find that once I see certain triggers it reminds me of far deeper detail (I'm not the smartest guy and can't recall things at a moment's notice)...torts and contracts are scaring the shit out of me because I still have no idea how to take a law school exam

makes sense. mine is open book, and i've read all the supplements i can get my hands on. i'm hoping someone out there has a good property outline i can look at to make sure mine is thorough. should've joined jmba to look at theirs lol

[dabomb75]

not sure if I should be worried, but I'm almost done outlining for contracts up until where we are in the class and my outline's only 10 pages long....

[ilovesf]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

[ph14]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

Nope but we need to be familiar with it.

[dreakol]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

fair and equal housing act prohibits a landlord from discriminating based on race, sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation during any part of the application process. Any conduct that reasonably discourages a member of one of those groups from applying will violate this.

that's all i have to know

[ph14]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

fair and equal housing act prohibits a landlord from discriminating based on race, sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation during any part of the application process. Any conduct that reasonably discourages a member of one of those groups from applying will violate this.

that's all i have to know

I believe sexual orientation is not covered under the federal fair housing act, but some states cover it in their state fair housing act.

[ilovesf]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

fair and equal housing act prohibits a landlord from discriminating based on race, sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation during any part of the application process. Any conduct that reasonably discourages a member of one of those groups from applying will violate this.

that's all i have to know

I believe sexual orientation is not covered under the federal fair housing act, but some states cover it in their state fair housing act.

maybe you can answer this for me ph, for the exemptions it mentions single family households if the owner owns 3 or less houses, and doesn't use a real estate agent... does this exemption also include printing ads? my notes from class are kind of jumbled, and I actually think my professor maybe got it wrong.

[ph14]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

fair and equal housing act prohibits a landlord from discriminating based on race, sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation during any part of the application process. Any conduct that reasonably discourages a member of one of those groups from applying will violate this.

that's all i have to know

I believe sexual orientation is not covered under the federal fair housing act, but some states cover it in their state fair housing act.

maybe you can answer this for me ph, for the exemptions it mentions single family households if the owner owns 3 or less houses, and doesn't use a real estate agent... does this exemption also include printing ads? my notes from class are kind of jumbled, and I actually think my professor maybe got it wrong.

We didn't really touch on it much, but my professor mentioned in passing it would be illegal to post a discriminatory housing ad, even if you could legally discriminate.

Not sure if that helps at all.

[dreakol]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

fair and equal housing act prohibits a landlord from discriminating based on race, sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation during any part of the application process. Any conduct that reasonably discourages a member of one of those groups from applying will violate this.

that's all i have to know

I believe sexual orientation is not covered under the federal fair housing act, but some states cover it in their state fair housing act.

i'm sure that's correct

my professor is crazy and said an ad that shows only young people would violate the act since it discourages old people from applying

[ph14]

does anyone have to memorize the fair housing act for property? we barely went over it in class, but our professor said something elusive about being really familiar with section 3604. I haven't really seen that much about it in my study guides though.

fair and equal housing act prohibits a landlord from discriminating based on race, sex, color, religion, and sexual orientation during any part of the application process. Any conduct that reasonably discourages a member of one of those groups from applying will violate this.

that's all i have to know

I believe sexual orientation is not covered under the federal fair housing act, but some states cover it in their state fair housing act.

i'm sure that's correct

my professor is crazy and said an ad that shows only young people would violate the act since it discourages old people from applying

You're sure my statement is correct or your original statement?

[TatteredDignity]

Whats the effect of direct causation when you have two cause combine and either could have cause the damage itself? Generally direct causation is the same as the but-for test, but when you use the substantial factor the but-for test wouldn't work?

Also, if im writing a negligence IRAC. Where would be the best place to talk about defenses? between causation and damages or after damages?

For two causes, say two people each shoot a shot gun in the general direction of a person at the same time and a pellet hits him in the eye (Summers v. Tice, we hammered the case to death in class), you use the substantial factor cause. In that case the burden will shift to the two shooters to show that they werent negligent. Of course you will have to make a general showing that they were substantial factors (but you just cant tell which one). Technically you can say both of them are but for causes for the time being but you need to use substantial factor. If neither of them can prove they weren't negligent then they are both liable.

Im having a few issues organizing defenses also. Sometimes I feel like it is better to write about their defense after you talk about a reason they might be liable, like what their rebuttal would be. Other times, like when the defense will involve a bigger issue that also involves another party, I think it might be better to put it at the end of an argument for a certain party's negligence so it may kind of segway into this new party's case. I'm not sure whats better yet, but I dont think its a huge deal

I'm not sure that the scenario in Summers v. Tice is what this question was referring to. In that scenario, there was only ONE but-for cause, but it's impossible to tell which of the shooters it was. I think what this question was asking about is when there are two SUFFICIENT, simultaneous but-for causes: ie, the two negligently created fires that combine to burn a house down. This is a case where but-for causation fails: remove either of the fires and the house would still have burned down. So you resort to the substantial factor test - whoever negligently started a fire that played a significant part in the damage can be sued.

[Extension_Cord]

Whats the effect of direct causation when you have two cause combine and either could have cause the damage itself? Generally direct causation is the same as the but-for test, but when you use the substantial factor the but-for test wouldn't work?

Also, if im writing a negligence IRAC. Where would be the best place to talk about defenses? between causation and damages or after damages?

For two causes, say two people each shoot a shot gun in the general direction of a person at the same time and a pellet hits him in the eye (Summers v. Tice, we hammered the case to death in class), you use the substantial factor cause. In that case the burden will shift to the two shooters to show that they werent negligent. Of course you will have to make a general showing that they were substantial factors (but you just cant tell which one). Technically you can say both of them are but for causes for the time being but you need to use substantial factor. If neither of them can prove they weren't negligent then they are both liable.

Im having a few issues organizing defenses also. Sometimes I feel like it is better to write about their defense after you talk about a reason they might be liable, like what their rebuttal would be. Other times, like when the defense will involve a bigger issue that also involves another party, I think it might be better to put it at the end of an argument for a certain party's negligence so it may kind of segway into this new party's case. I'm not sure whats better yet, but I dont think its a huge deal

I'm not sure that the scenario in Summers v. Tice is what this question was referring to. In that scenario, there was only ONE but-for cause, but it's impossible to tell which of the shooters it was. I think what this question was asking about is when there are two SUFFICIENT, simultaneous but-for causes: ie, the two negligently created fires that combine to burn a house down. This is a case where but-for causation fails: remove either of the fires and the house would still have burned down. So you resort to the substantial factor test - whoever negligently started a fire that played a significant part in the damage can be sued.

Yes, but when you use the substantial factor test to show actual cause, how do you show direct causation. This is not a causation-in-fact question, this is a proximate cause question. Sorry for the vagueness.

EDIT: Direct causation is basically the but-for test. Im asking because the but-for test would fail. I want to know what happens when your in a jurisdiction that use a direct causation proximate cause test, not a foreseeability one.

[ph14]

Whats the effect of direct causation when you have two cause combine and either could have cause the damage itself? Generally direct causation is the same as the but-for test, but when you use the substantial factor the but-for test wouldn't work?

Also, if im writing a negligence IRAC. Where would be the best place to talk about defenses? between causation and damages or after damages?

For two causes, say two people each shoot a shot gun in the general direction of a person at the same time and a pellet hits him in the eye (Summers v. Tice, we hammered the case to death in class), you use the substantial factor cause. In that case the burden will shift to the two shooters to show that they werent negligent. Of course you will have to make a general showing that they were substantial factors (but you just cant tell which one). Technically you can say both of them are but for causes for the time being but you need to use substantial factor. If neither of them can prove they weren't negligent then they are both liable.

Im having a few issues organizing defenses also. Sometimes I feel like it is better to write about their defense after you talk about a reason they might be liable, like what their rebuttal would be. Other times, like when the defense will involve a bigger issue that also involves another party, I think it might be better to put it at the end of an argument for a certain party's negligence so it may kind of segway into this new party's case. I'm not sure whats better yet, but I dont think its a huge deal

I'm not sure that the scenario in Summers v. Tice is what this question was referring to. In that scenario, there was only ONE but-for cause, but it's impossible to tell which of the shooters it was. I think what this question was asking about is when there are two SUFFICIENT, simultaneous but-for causes: ie, the two negligently created fires that combine to burn a house down. This is a case where but-for causation fails: remove either of the fires and the house would still have burned down. So you resort to the substantial factor test - whoever negligently started a fire that played a significant part in the damage can be sued.

Yes, but when you use the substantial factor test to show actual cause, how do you show direct causation. This is not a causation-in-fact question, this is a proximate cause question. Sorry for the vagueness.

EDIT: Direct causation is basically the but-for test. Im asking because the but-for test would fail. I want to know what happens when your in a jurisdiction that use a direct causation proximate cause test, not a foreseeability one.

Was the fire directly caused by your negligence? If so, proximate cause met I'd think. Foreseeability is trickier.

[Extension_Cord]

Was the fire directly caused by your negligence? If so, proximate cause met I'd think. Foreseeability is trickier.

Concurrent cause. But-for couldn't work because there were two fires that either would have burned down the house.

[ph14]

Was the fire directly caused by your negligence? If so, proximate cause met I'd think. Foreseeability is trickier.

Concurrent cause. But-for couldn't work because there were two fires that either would have burned down the house.

That's a but-for cause issue though...I thought you wanted to talk primarily about proximate cause now.

[Extension_Cord]

Was the fire directly caused by your negligence? If so, proximate cause met I'd think. Foreseeability is trickier.

Concurrent cause. But-for couldn't work because there were two fires that either would have burned down the house.

That's a but-for cause issue though...I thought you wanted to talk primarily about proximate cause now.

Direct causation is a proximate cause rule where if P's injuries are a direct result of D's negligent conduct then D is liable.

This sounds like a but-for test, but its a form of proximate cause. Using the fire hypo, P's injuries would have happend w/o D's negligence, D could argue P's injuries were not a direct result of his negligence. Would P be SOL in a jurisdiction that uses a direct causation if his injuries were the result of concurrent negligence or will the courts consider concurrent negligence a direct cause?

[Gettingstarted1928]

Anyone want to share their attack outlines, specifically for Torts and Civ Pro?

[ph14]

Was the fire directly caused by your negligence? If so, proximate cause met I'd think. Foreseeability is trickier.

Concurrent cause. But-for couldn't work because there were two fires that either would have burned down the house.

That's a but-for cause issue though...I thought you wanted to talk primarily about proximate cause now.

Direct causation is a proximate cause rule where if P's injuries are a direct result of D's negligent conduct then D is liable.

This sounds like a but-for test, but its a form of proximate cause. Using the fire hypo, P's injuries would have happend w/o D's negligence, D could argue P's injuries were not a direct result of his negligence. Would P be SOL in a jurisdiction that uses a direct causation if his injuries were the result of concurrent negligence or will the courts consider concurrent negligence a direct cause?

Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Not sure. Guessing here, but since proximate cause is thought of as a policy limitation on unbounded liability, I don't think it would be improper to find the D liable here, since the house burned down as a direct cause of D's negligence.

[$peppercorn]

Whats the effect of direct causation when you have two cause combine and either could have cause the damage itself? Generally direct causation is the same as the but-for test, but when you use the substantial factor the but-for test wouldn't work?

Also, if im writing a negligence IRAC. Where would be the best place to talk about defenses? between causation and damages or after damages?

For two causes, say two people each shoot a shot gun in the general direction of a person at the same time and a pellet hits him in the eye (Summers v. Tice, we hammered the case to death in class), you use the substantial factor cause. In that case the burden will shift to the two shooters to show that they werent negligent. Of course you will have to make a general showing that they were substantial factors (but you just cant tell which one). Technically you can say both of them are but for causes for the time being but you need to use substantial factor. If neither of them can prove they weren't negligent then they are both liable.

Im having a few issues organizing defenses also. Sometimes I feel like it is better to write about their defense after you talk about a reason they might be liable, like what their rebuttal would be. Other times, like when the defense will involve a bigger issue that also involves another party, I think it might be better to put it at the end of an argument for a certain party's negligence so it may kind of segway into this new party's case. I'm not sure whats better yet, but I dont think its a huge deal

I'm not sure that the scenario in Summers v. Tice is what this question was referring to. In that scenario, there was only ONE but-for cause, but it's impossible to tell which of the shooters it was. I think what this question was asking about is when there are two SUFFICIENT, simultaneous but-for causes: ie, the two negligently created fires that combine to burn a house down. This is a case where but-for causation fails: remove either of the fires and the house would still have burned down. So you resort to the substantial factor test - whoever negligently started a fire that played a significant part in the damage can be sued.

Yeah that's right. I guess in the Tice case its more that you are having two people prove they arent "but for" causes. But the concept is the same. Both parties who could have caused the harm could be liable unless they show that they weren't negligent.

[$peppercorn]

Concurrent cause. But-for couldn't work because there were two fires that either would have burned down the house.[/quote]

That's a but-for cause issue though...I thought you wanted to talk primarily about proximate cause now.[/quote]

[/quote]Direct causation is a proximate cause rule where if P's injuries are a direct result of D's negligent conduct then D is liable.

This sounds like a but-for test, but its a form of proximate cause. Using the fire hypo, P's injuries would have happend w/o D's negligence, D could argue P's injuries were not a direct result of his negligence. Would P be SOL in a jurisdiction that uses a direct causation if his injuries were the result of concurrent negligence or will the courts consider concurrent negligence a direct cause?[/quote]

[/quote]Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Not sure. Guessing here, but since proximate cause is thought of as a policy limitation on unbounded liability, I don't think it would be improper to find the D liable here, since the house burned down as a direct cause of D's negligence.[/quote]

No idea. As far as I know if its not a direct (but-for) cause then there's no reason to worry about proximate cause. This concurrent negligence thing is something I dont know about but it still seems like the substantial factor test where if you proved it was a substantial factor and they cant prove they werent negligent then it would have directly caused. but you said it would have happened without D's negligence so I feel like you can stop there if D can prove that.

[thegrayman]

regarding the summers v tice case and the kingston v chicago RR case

We have the case of A and B being liable (kingston - multiple sufficient causes) and we have cases like Summers where A or B are liable (one cause but you don't know who did it). Do the cases have any impact on how joint and several liability is determined?

let me try to be more clear - my understanding is that there are the following possible scenarios for joint/several liability:

joint and several - each party liable for 100%, plaintiff can choose who to recover from
several - each party only responsible for their assigned share of responsibility

first question - are there more possible j/s scenarios?
second question - do the doctrines applied have any impact on which one is chosen? for example, does applying a Summers framework mean that joint and several will be imposed? or are they completely separate determinations, first figure out framework, then down the road figure out which liability scheme to apply?

[$peppercorn]

regarding the summers v tice case and the kingston v chicago RR case

We have the case of A and B being liable (kingston - multiple sufficient causes) and we have cases like Summers where A or B are liable (one cause but you don't know who did it). Do the cases have any impact on how joint and several liability is determined?

let me try to be more clear - my understanding is that there are the following possible scenarios for joint/several liability:

joint and several - each party liable for 100%, plaintiff can choose who to recover from
several - each party only responsible for their assigned share of responsibility

first question - are there more possible j/s scenarios?
second question - do the doctrines applied have any impact on which one is chosen? for example, does applying a Summers framework mean that joint and several will be imposed? or are they completely separate determinations, first figure out framework, then down the road figure out which liability scheme to apply?

pretty sure it depends on the jurisdiction on whether to use joint and several liabiltiy or several liability. Not on the rules for negligence that you apply