1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:58 pm

ph14 wrote:Civ pro Q: For venue under where the D resides if they all reside in the same state. How does that work for corporations? If it's 1 corporation, and they are subject to PJ in 2 states, then are they really "residing in the same state"? And if it's multiple corporations with completely different INC/PPB but they happen to both be subject to PJ in a different state, would they both reside there?


let me know if this is what you are talking about: P sues d1 and d2. p is domiciled in TN as an individual. D1 is domiciled as an individual in NC. d2 is a corporation domiciled in NC as a state of incorporation and TN as a principle place of business. Technically P can sue in TN because its a district where any defendant resides (d2) if all defendants reside in the same state (they all reside in the same state, it just so happens that he also resides in two). It's a literal way of reading the venue statute and it may be done. But just to completely ruin everything that I said, it cannot be done anymore because of legislation that passed last Wednesday. Federal jurisdiction and venue clarification act.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11724
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:59 pm

$peppercorn wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:If A makes says hes going to donate 5,000 to a charity and that charity has plans for that money, but doesn't actually act on it, is A held to the promise or can he claim there was no reliance?


gratuitous promise. Usually not enforceable. If they said they would use him name on something they built with the money then that would be sufficient consideration. If youre trying to use the Promissory estoppel reliance then they may have relied on it but I doubt the court will find they need to use promissory estoppel because its only to prevent injustice. Im sure everyone has plans for gifts people promise them but that doesnt make them enforceable. To the extent that they act on the promise may be a different story. But this doesnt say they acted on it in any way.



Be careful with the gratuitous promise to charities. I think they are binding under the Restatement without proof of reliance. Check somewhere in the 80's or 90's, I can't recall the exact provision.

There is a difference between a promise of a gift to a person and a promise of a gift to a charity.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:03 pm

$peppercorn wrote:
ph14 wrote:Civ pro Q: For venue under where the D resides if they all reside in the same state. How does that work for corporations? If it's 1 corporation, and they are subject to PJ in 2 states, then are they really "residing in the same state"? And if it's multiple corporations with completely different INC/PPB but they happen to both be subject to PJ in a different state, would they both reside there?


let me know if this is what you are talking about: P sues d1 and d2. p is domiciled in TN as an individual. D1 is domiciled as an individual in NC. d2 is a corporation domiciled in NC as a state of incorporation and TN as a principle place of business. Technically P can sue in TN because its a district where any defendant resides (d2) if all defendants reside in the same state (they all reside in the same state, it just so happens that he also resides in two). It's a literal way of reading the venue statute and it may be done. But just to completely ruin everything that I said, it cannot be done anymore because of legislation that passed last Wednesday. Federal jurisdiction and venue clarification act.


You've got to be kidding me.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:04 pm

Oh god.

-- It completely rewrites Chapter 87 on venue, finally abolishing the hairsplitting distinction between backup venue in diversity and federal-question cases and also doing away with § 1392’s separate provision dealing with “local” as opposed to “transitory” actions. The JVCA further abrogates the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960), by authorizing transfer of venue to a district where the action could not have been brought initially, as long as all parties consent.

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:04 pm

kalvano wrote:
$peppercorn wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:If A makes says hes going to donate 5,000 to a charity and that charity has plans for that money, but doesn't actually act on it, is A held to the promise or can he claim there was no reliance?


gratuitous promise. Usually not enforceable. If they said they would use him name on something they built with the money then that would be sufficient consideration. If youre trying to use the Promissory estoppel reliance then they may have relied on it but I doubt the court will find they need to use promissory estoppel because its only to prevent injustice. Im sure everyone has plans for gifts people promise them but that doesnt make them enforceable. To the extent that they act on the promise may be a different story. But this doesnt say they acted on it in any way.



Be careful with the gratuitous promise to charities. I think they are binding under the Restatement without proof of reliance. Check somewhere in the 80's or 90's, I can't recall the exact provision.

There is a difference between a promise of a gift to a person and a promise of a gift to a charity.


Yeah true. I think we did cover something about charities being different.

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:06 pm

ph14 wrote:Oh god.

-- It completely rewrites Chapter 87 on venue, finally abolishing the hairsplitting distinction between backup venue in diversity and federal-question cases and also doing away with § 1392’s separate provision dealing with “local” as opposed to “transitory” actions. The JVCA further abrogates the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960), by authorizing transfer of venue to a district where the action could not have been brought initially, as long as all parties consent.


yeah, our professor took venue out of our exam. But I would just keep doing what you learn unless your professor says otherwise. Hope it doesnt completely mess up your motivation for studying venue.

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:07 pm

$peppercorn wrote:
ph14 wrote:Oh god.

-- It completely rewrites Chapter 87 on venue, finally abolishing the hairsplitting distinction between backup venue in diversity and federal-question cases and also doing away with § 1392’s separate provision dealing with “local” as opposed to “transitory” actions. The JVCA further abrogates the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960), by authorizing transfer of venue to a district where the action could not have been brought initially, as long as all parties consent.


yeah, our professor took venue out of our exam. But I would just keep doing what you learn unless your professor says otherwise. Hope it doesnt completely mess up your motivation for studying venue.


Haha. Maybe I can throw it in 1 sentence and get some brownie points :P.

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:07 pm

$peppercorn wrote:
kalvano wrote:
$peppercorn wrote:
Extension_Cord wrote:If A makes says hes going to donate 5,000 to a charity and that charity has plans for that money, but doesn't actually act on it, is A held to the promise or can he claim there was no reliance?


gratuitous promise. Usually not enforceable. If they said they would use him name on something they built with the money then that would be sufficient consideration. If youre trying to use the Promissory estoppel reliance then they may have relied on it but I doubt the court will find they need to use promissory estoppel because its only to prevent injustice. Im sure everyone has plans for gifts people promise them but that doesnt make them enforceable. To the extent that they act on the promise may be a different story. But this doesnt say they acted on it in any way.



Be careful with the gratuitous promise to charities. I think they are binding under the Restatement without proof of reliance. Check somewhere in the 80's or 90's, I can't recall the exact provision.

There is a difference between a promise of a gift to a person and a promise of a gift to a charity.


Yeah true. I think we did cover something about charities being different.


I believe its R 90(2) promissory estoppel, our teacher said its not enforced, but courts will hunt for detrimental reliance.

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:09 pm

ph14 wrote:
$peppercorn wrote:
ph14 wrote:Oh god.

-- It completely rewrites Chapter 87 on venue, finally abolishing the hairsplitting distinction between backup venue in diversity and federal-question cases and also doing away with § 1392’s separate provision dealing with “local” as opposed to “transitory” actions. The JVCA further abrogates the Supreme Court decision in Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960), by authorizing transfer of venue to a district where the action could not have been brought initially, as long as all parties consent.


yeah, our professor took venue out of our exam. But I would just keep doing what you learn unless your professor says otherwise. Hope it doesnt completely mess up your motivation for studying venue.


Haha. Maybe I can throw it in 1 sentence and get some brownie points :P.


Worth a shot. haha

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11724
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby kalvano » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:09 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:I believe its R 90(2) promissory estoppel, our teacher said its not enforced, but courts will hunt for detrimental reliance.



That sounds right. Whether it's enforced in practice or not, you'd want to make sure to point it out on a exam.

SwampRat88
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SwampRat88 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:14 pm

Rule 11(a) Signature Requirement: may a senior official of an organization meet the signature requirement for a complaint filed on behalf of the organization? I assume they can because who else would do it, but where is the rule regarding this?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3225
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:57 pm

Civ pro gurus, help me out here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=172800&start=50#p4999732

sknight323
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:39 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sknight323 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:57 pm

Going to fail Ks tomorrow. I gave law school a shot.




Wouldn't that charity scenario fall under 87(2)?

thesteelers
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 6:06 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thesteelers » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:00 pm

sknight323 wrote:Going to fail Ks tomorrow. I gave law school a shot.


I feel you. Ks = hell.

User avatar
acrossthelake
Posts: 4432
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby acrossthelake » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:01 pm

Oh god. Doing practice torts exam. It's way more difficult than I expected.

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:11 pm

SwampRat88 wrote:Rule 11(a) Signature Requirement: may a senior official of an organization meet the signature requirement for a complaint filed on behalf of the organization? I assume they can because who else would do it, but where is the rule regarding this?


Filed on behalf of the organization as in on behalf of the law firm or as in behalf of the organization as a self-represented party?

As far as I know Rule 11 states that any written document filed with the court must be signed by an attorney on behalf of the party or by the party if they are unrepresented.

User avatar
AlexanderSupertramp
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby AlexanderSupertramp » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:19 pm

two down; two to go

burnt as all get out.

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:40 pm

AlexanderSupertramp wrote:two down; two to go

burnt as all get out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jK-NcRmVcw

!!!!!

SwampRat88
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SwampRat88 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:46 pm

theavrock wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Rule 11(a) Signature Requirement: may a senior official of an organization meet the signature requirement for a complaint filed on behalf of the organization? I assume they can because who else would do it, but where is the rule regarding this?


Filed on behalf of the organization as in on behalf of the law firm or as in behalf of the organization as a self-represented party?

As far as I know Rule 11 states that any written document filed with the court must be signed by an attorney on behalf of the party or by the party if they are unrepresented.


Filed on behalf of an organization, as in representing the organization's interests.

User avatar
TheFutureLawyer
Posts: 3879
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 2:28 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby TheFutureLawyer » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:57 pm

thesteelers wrote:
sknight323 wrote:Going to fail Ks tomorrow. I gave law school a shot.


I feel you. Ks = hell.


+1. Mind if I ask how unprepared you are exactly?

User avatar
Extension_Cord
Posts: 592
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Extension_Cord » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:57 pm

sknight323 wrote:Going to fail Ks tomorrow. I gave law school a shot.




Wouldn't that charity scenario fall under 87(2)?


87(2) is only used for construction bids.

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:02 pm

SwampRat88 wrote:
theavrock wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Rule 11(a) Signature Requirement: may a senior official of an organization meet the signature requirement for a complaint filed on behalf of the organization? I assume they can because who else would do it, but where is the rule regarding this?


Filed on behalf of the organization as in on behalf of the law firm or as in behalf of the organization as a self-represented party?

As far as I know Rule 11 states that any written document filed with the court must be signed by an attorney on behalf of the party or by the party if they are unrepresented.


Filed on behalf of an organization, as in representing the organization's interests.


Then it needs to be signed by the attorney filing it with the court.

SwampRat88
Posts: 113
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:23 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SwampRat88 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:03 pm

theavrock wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:
theavrock wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Rule 11(a) Signature Requirement: may a senior official of an organization meet the signature requirement for a complaint filed on behalf of the organization? I assume they can because who else would do it, but where is the rule regarding this?


Filed on behalf of the organization as in on behalf of the law firm or as in behalf of the organization as a self-represented party?

As far as I know Rule 11 states that any written document filed with the court must be signed by an attorney on behalf of the party or by the party if they are unrepresented.


Filed on behalf of an organization, as in representing the organization's interests.


Then it needs to be signed by the attorney filing it with the court.


Where does it say that in Rule 11(a)????

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11776
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ilovesf » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:18 pm

Civpro is on wednesday. After reading the entire e&e, the entire crunch time book, and doing a practice exam, I'm actually feeling good. I feel like my class didn't do nearly as much as any of you guys have, I don't actually know what you guys are talking about half of the time when it comes to civ pro. We didn't even really talk about Venue at all (even though I read up on it in the e&e in case there is a curve ball). We focused A LOT on discovery. Probably because my prof specializes in e-discovery and was once sanctioned and disbarred from his clients lying and hiding things from him in discovery (the court later realized he was not at fault and was reinstated to the bar)

User avatar
theavrock
Posts: 601
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby theavrock » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:21 pm

SwampRat88 wrote:
theavrock wrote:
Then it needs to be signed by the attorney filing it with the court.


Where does it say that in Rule 11(a)????


"Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name—or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented."

Its in the first sentence. If the party is represented the attorney needs to sign it. If not the unrepresented party needs to sign it.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Clearly, LawHammer, MSNbot Media and 6 guests