1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[gdane]

Can someone please help me with a bluebook citation question?

Is this even a way of citing?

Like the D eating chicken in church in Sanders illustrated that he was a fatty, Sanders at 100, the D in this case should also be a fatty because he was eating in a convent.

I cited in between sentences. Can I do this? Am I doing it right?

The reason Im even doing this is because my professor wants us to cite to anything that isnt our own writing or to anything that was said by a court, no matter how well we paraphrase it.

Thanks!!!

[071816]

Can someone please help me with a bluebook citation question?

Is this even a way of citing?

Like the D eating chicken in church in Sanders illustrated that he was a fatty, Sanders at 100, the D in this case should also be a fatty because he was eating in a convent.

I cited in between sentences. Can I do this? Am I doing it right?

The reason Im even doing this is because my professor wants us to cite to anything that isnt our own writing or to anything that was said by a court, no matter how well we paraphrase it.

Thanks!!!

I've done this before and and I'm pretty sure it's correct.

[ilovesf]

Can someone please help me with a bluebook citation question?

Is this even a way of citing?

Like the D eating chicken in church in Sanders illustrated that he was a fatty, Sanders at 100, the D in this case should also be a fatty because he was eating in a convent.

I cited in between sentences. Can I do this? Am I doing it right?

The reason Im even doing this is because my professor wants us to cite to anything that isnt our own writing or to anything that was said by a court, no matter how well we paraphrase it.

Thanks!!!

What you wrote isn't citing between sentences, that's citing in the middle of a sentence. If you meant to make that two sentences, then yeah, that's how you cite.

[gdane]

I misspoke. Yea Im citing in the middle of a sentence.

Thanks guys!

[ilovesf]

I misspoke. Yea Im citing in the middle of a sentence.

Thanks guys!

I'd put the page numbers at the end of the sentence. I'd also make what you wrote two sentences.

[gdane]

I misspoke. Yea Im citing in the middle of a sentence.

Thanks guys!

I'd put the page numbers at the end of the sentence. I'd also make what you wrote two sentences.

Yes Ma'am! Will do.

Thank you very much!

[071816]

I misspoke. Yea Im citing in the middle of a sentence.

Thanks guys!

I'd put the page numbers at the end of the sentence. I'd also make what you wrote two sentences.

Wait, why does he need two sentences? You can cite mid-sentence as long as the citation is correct and it's set off by serial commas. Never thought I'd be discussing bluebooking on here lol. I hate myself.

[ilovesf]

I misspoke. Yea Im citing in the middle of a sentence.

Thanks guys!

I'd put the page numbers at the end of the sentence. I'd also make what you wrote two sentences.

Wait, why does he need two sentences? You can cite mid-sentence as long as the citation is correct and it's set off by serial commas. Never thought I'd be discussing bluebooking on here lol. I hate myself.

Personal style, I guess. Both my LWR and moot court profs didn't like it and said we shouldn't do it. I also think that sentence should be two because they incorporate separate ideas. From everything that we've been in lwr/mc, shorter sentences are preferable to longer sentences in legal writing. If you guys are being told something different though, go with that.

[071816]

I misspoke. Yea Im citing in the middle of a sentence.

Thanks guys!

I'd put the page numbers at the end of the sentence. I'd also make what you wrote two sentences.

Wait, why does he need two sentences? You can cite mid-sentence as long as the citation is correct and it's set off by serial commas. Never thought I'd be discussing bluebooking on here lol. I hate myself.

Personal style, I guess. Both my LWR and moot court profs didn't like it and said we shouldn't do it. I also think that sentence should be two because they incorporate separate ideas. From everything that we've been in lwr/mc, shorter sentences are preferable to longer sentences in legal writing. If you guys are being told something different though, go with that.

Gotcha. I actually agree. I was just saying that it isn't incorrect to cite mid sentence, although it should probably be avoided if possible.

[LeDique]

FWIW, we were told to keep that as one sentence and always have the citation at the end of the sentence because that's how it's done in practice.

[Lyonsoccer87]

the talk of citations scared everyone away. Does anyone have any good advice for multiple choice strategies? do you read the question prompt first then read the fact pattern? i have an all multiple choice exam this semester...

[thegrayman]

Oral argument done! Judge hated me, but who cares, I'm done

Whew, that exercise sucked!

[Guchster]

can someone classify Bs future interest, and tell me why. because of the lack of "and his heirs..." i'm getting stuck between two future interests right now

(note: let's say B is unmarried as of now)
"to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B marries C."

dis is what I think right now, but read it afterwards cuz I want your insights first executory interest or contingent remainder, because technically Bs interest could spring after A dies and interrupt the grantor's reversion; yet it logically is a contingent remainder--particularly hinted by the "then to B" which implies patience. Would this depend on the jurisdiction--or have all jurisdictions abolished the rule of destructibility

someone smart plz answer my damn question. i would hate to have to make human contact with my professor.

[ilovesf]

can someone classify Bs future interest, and tell me why. because of the lack of "and his heirs..." i'm getting stuck between two future interests right now

(note: let's say B is unmarried as of now)
"to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B marries C."

dis is what I think right now, but read it afterwards cuz I want your insights first executory interest or contingent remainder, because technically Bs interest could spring after A dies and interrupt the grantor's reversion; yet it logically is a contingent remainder--particularly hinted by the "then to B" which implies patience. Would this depend on the jurisdiction--or have all jurisdictions abolished the rule of destructibility

someone smart plz answer my damn question. i would hate to have to make human contact with my professor.

just because you asked again, I'll answer, but I have no idea if this is right. I think it is a contingent remainder condition precedent. This is the blind leading the blind.

[ilovesf]

I have changed my mind and I think it is an executory interest.

[FeelTheHeat]

I have changed my mind and I think it is an executory interest.

It's a contingent remainder. I don't have my property notes on me, but I'll come back and edit the post with my authority.

[ilovesf]

I have changed my mind and I think it is an executory interest.

It's a contingent remainder.

Damnit. I changed my answer because I googled it and this thread came up
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=133399

[SilverE2]

can someone classify Bs future interest, and tell me why. because of the lack of "and his heirs..." i'm getting stuck between two future interests right now

(note: let's say B is unmarried as of now)
"to A for life, then to B and her heirs if B marries C."

dis is what I think right now, but read it afterwards cuz I want your insights first executory interest or contingent remainder, because technically Bs interest could spring after A dies and interrupt the grantor's reversion; yet it logically is a contingent remainder--particularly hinted by the "then to B" which implies patience. Would this depend on the jurisdiction--or have all jurisdictions abolished the rule of destructibility

someone smart plz answer my damn question. i would hate to have to make human contact with my professor.

B's interest is a contingent remainder because it is subject to a condition precedent. To answer ilovesf, it's not an executory interest because it occurs at the natural end of the prior estate (A's life estate) and does not shift out of it.

*edit*

Oops, someone else got to it first.

[Guchster]

I have changed my mind and I think it is an executory interest.

It's a contingent remainder. I don't have my property notes on me, but I'll come back and edit the post with my authority.

This is what I figured.

When a remainder is subject to a condition precedent on eligibility to take, it is always a contingent remainder. But what confused me, is that techincally, after A dies ( ) B could still marry C, which would then cause seisin to spring from the grantor (and hence an executory interest). But, I believe most places would say that once a contingent is destroyed, it is gone forever and void. So if B marries C after A dies the property has already reverted to the grantor, and nothing comes of Bs marriage because its too late.

Would it be possible in some jurisdictions for the condition precedent to survive (i.e., B marries C and gets the fee simple after A dies)? In that case, B's interest would become an executory one, right--cuz it's interrupting O's fee simple absolute?

[ilovesf]

I have changed my mind and I think it is an executory interest.

It's a contingent remainder. I don't have my property notes on me, but I'll come back and edit the post with my authority.

This is what I figured.

When a remainder is subject to a condition precedent on eligibility to take, it is always a contingent remainder. But what confused me, is that techincally, after A dies (:() B could still marry C, which would then cause seisin to spring from the grantor (and hence an executory interest). But, I believe most places would say that once a contingent is destroyed, it is gone forever and void. So if B marries C after A dies the property has already reverts to the grantor, and nothing comes of it.

Would it be possible in some jurisdictions for the condition precedent to survive (i.e., B marries C and gets the fee simple after A dies)? In that case, B's interest would become an executory one, right--cuz it's interrupting O's fee simple absolute?

That is what the person said in the post I linked to. Because B isn't married and could maybe never be married, it will revert back to the original estate. B's taking title of it upon the marriage will interfere with O's ownership. Anyway I have no idea. I thought it was contingent remainder until something on TLS said it wasn't, and now I have no idea.

[Guchster]

also, for those having trouble with this, like me, there is a 100 question future interest and estates review on cali. IT IS SO FUCKING AWESOME.

[Guchster]

TIL 15/100 = 15%

[FeelTheHeat]

also, for those having trouble with this, like me, there is a 100 question future interest and estates review on cali. IT IS SO FUCKING AWESOME.

We had a midterm on present estates and future interests that was 25% of our grade, so while I've forgotten the rules behind everything I still know it when I see it lol

[ilovesf]

TIL 15/100 = 15%

[dabomb75]

Oral argument done! Judge hated me, but who cares, I'm done

Whew, that exercise sucked!

+1 to both parts