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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:00 am

SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?


Well, this would be a potential specific jx case, so we look to purposeful availment. This kind of reminds me of Calder, your actions in one jurisdiction causing a harmful effect in another. If the action arises out of those contacts (ie, the animal), I think you have a good argument for PJ. Then look at the 5 factors of fair play and substantial justice, they don't look very substantial as D won't have to litigate too far from home in this case. Venue is met under the "substantial acts" prong of 1391, since the substantial acts ("fucking" with A's crops occurred in WI).

Edit: Assuming the long arm statute of WI is to the full extent of the Constitution or is enumerated and includes causing tortious harm (or something to that effect) in the state.

Also, you would have PJ over B in Illinois by virtue of his domicile (gives you general jurisdiction over them), or if he is not actually domiciled there for whatever reason (his stay is temporary), then you most likely have general jurisdiction and if not, surely have specific jurisdiction. Venue would be proper there because all Ds reside in one state so the judicial district where D resides would be proper. If not, a strong case can be made that substantial omissions (ie, keeping control of the animals) occurred in IL so venue is proper in that district where he has the farm.
Last edited by ph14 on Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SwampRat88 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:02 am

ph14 wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?


Well, this would be a potential specific jx case, so we look to purposeful availment. This kind of reminds me of Calder, your actions in one jurisdiction causing a harmful effect in another. If the action arises out of those contacts (ie, the animal), I think you have a good argument for PJ. Then look at the 5 factors of fair play and substantial justice, they don't look very substantial as D won't have to litigate too far from home in this case.


I was thinking of using the Calder test, but I thought that applied to intentional torts only? This hypo appears to contain negligence.

Plus, where is the purposeful availment here?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:09 am

SwampRat88 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?


Well, this would be a potential specific jx case, so we look to purposeful availment. This kind of reminds me of Calder, your actions in one jurisdiction causing a harmful effect in another. If the action arises out of those contacts (ie, the animal), I think you have a good argument for PJ. Then look at the 5 factors of fair play and substantial justice, they don't look very substantial as D won't have to litigate too far from home in this case.


I was thinking of using the Calder test, but I thought that applied to intentional torts only? This hypo appears to contain negligence.

Plus, where is the purposeful availment here?


I mean, you could argue they purposefully availed by not keeping control of the animals. Presumably if the animals went to the other state he would still be able to get them back, so he is benefiting from that state's laws. You could also make an argument it was a deliberate choice on D's part to not train and contain the animals.

Calder may have been in an intentional tort situation but if you don't have any other cases on point I assume you have to extrapolate from what you have.

Voltaire
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:03 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Voltaire » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:26 am

SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?

I'm just spit-ballin' here, but would this fall under the local action rule? That deals mainly with damage to property, and I'm not sure that an animal eating crops would suffice.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:27 am

ph14 wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?


Well, this would be a potential specific jx case, so we look to purposeful availment. This kind of reminds me of Calder, your actions in one jurisdiction causing a harmful effect in another. If the action arises out of those contacts (ie, the animal), I think you have a good argument for PJ. Then look at the 5 factors of fair play and substantial justice, they don't look very substantial as D won't have to litigate too far from home in this case.


I was thinking of using the Calder test, but I thought that applied to intentional torts only? This hypo appears to contain negligence.

Plus, where is the purposeful availment here?


I mean, you could argue they purposefully availed by not keeping control of the animals. Presumably if the animals went to the other state he would still be able to get them back, so he is benefiting from that state's laws. You could also make an argument it was a deliberate choice on D's part to not train and contain the animals.

Calder may have been in an intentional tort situation but if you don't have any other cases on point I assume you have to extrapolate from what you have.

For what it's worth my professor always threw in little comments about arguing how Calder should be expanded to negligence if it's reasonable. So might get a point there but could also just be my professor

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:34 am

Dumb question but is any decision in a 4-4-1 SC split controlling, i'm guessing not? But what about a 4-3-2, wold the 4 be controlling? Or do you always need that 5th vote?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby acrossthelake » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:37 am

SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?


We were taught that you still need minimal contacts even for quasi-in-rem. (Schaffer). Quasi-in-rem doesn't really exist anymore, considering that it's just the normal minimal contacts analysis.
For WI, this one will be difficult for minimal contacts. The Calder Effects test is also a stretch --I guess you could try to construe it as an intentional act. It will also probably fail under the fair play & substantial justice analysis. However, if B is domiciled in MN, then it should be easily brought there.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby SwampRat88 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:57 am

ph14 wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:
ph14 wrote:
SwampRat88 wrote:Civ Pro Hypo: A wants to sue B. The dispute is between two farmers: A from WI, B from Illinois. They live just across the border from one another. B breeds a certain type of animal which can be trained and contained (but he fails to do so), and every once in a while the animals cross the state line and fuck with A's crops. Assume SMJ is not an issue, and A wants to know if she can establish PJX and venue in either her federal district in WI, or B's in MN. Assume A owns the farm in WI, and B resides at his farm in Illinois.

Would A want to bring quasi-in-rem type I action to sue B in her state federal district?


Well, this would be a potential specific jx case, so we look to purposeful availment. This kind of reminds me of Calder, your actions in one jurisdiction causing a harmful effect in another. If the action arises out of those contacts (ie, the animal), I think you have a good argument for PJ. Then look at the 5 factors of fair play and substantial justice, they don't look very substantial as D won't have to litigate too far from home in this case.


I was thinking of using the Calder test, but I thought that applied to intentional torts only? This hypo appears to contain negligence.

Plus, where is the purposeful availment here?


I mean, you could argue they purposefully availed by not keeping control of the animals. Presumably if the animals went to the other state he would still be able to get them back, so he is benefiting from that state's laws. You could also make an argument it was a deliberate choice on D's part to not train and contain the animals.

Calder may have been in an intentional tort situation but if you don't have any other cases on point I assume you have to extrapolate from what you have.


I think there is an argument to be made that the defendant is benefiting from the state laws because he does not have to pay for the costs of feeding his animals, because they're presumably eating A's.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:25 pm

ph14 wrote:Dumb question but is any decision in a 4-4-1 SC split controlling, i'm guessing not? But what about a 4-3-2, wold the 4 be controlling? Or do you always need that 5th vote?


Pluralities are not binding and are considered dicta, I believe.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:27 pm

Eugenie Danglars wrote:
ph14 wrote:Dumb question but is any decision in a 4-4-1 SC split controlling, i'm guessing not? But what about a 4-3-2, wold the 4 be controlling? Or do you always need that 5th vote?


Pluralities are not binding and are considered dicta, I believe.


What if it's like a 9-0 vote on the outcome but a 3-3-3 split on the reasoning?

How could the outcome be binding but not the reasoning?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:27 pm

Eugenie Danglars wrote:
ph14 wrote:Dumb question but is any decision in a 4-4-1 SC split controlling, i'm guessing not? But what about a 4-3-2, wold the 4 be controlling? Or do you always need that 5th vote?


Pluralities are not binding and are considered dicta, I believe.


What if it's like a 9-0 vote on the outcome but a 3-3-3 split on the reasoning?

How could the outcome be binding but not the reasoning?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby acrossthelake » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:29 pm

ph14 wrote:
I mean, you could argue they purposefully availed by not keeping control of the animals. Presumably if the animals went to the other state he would still be able to get them back, so he is benefiting from that state's laws. You could also make an argument it was a deliberate choice on D's part to not train and contain the animals.

Calder may have been in an intentional tort situation but if you don't have any other cases on point I assume you have to extrapolate from what you have.


This falls considerably short of Steven's test for purposeful availment, though I guess that was more for products.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:31 pm

acrossthelake wrote:
ph14 wrote:
I mean, you could argue they purposefully availed by not keeping control of the animals. Presumably if the animals went to the other state he would still be able to get them back, so he is benefiting from that state's laws. You could also make an argument it was a deliberate choice on D's part to not train and contain the animals.

Calder may have been in an intentional tort situation but if you don't have any other cases on point I assume you have to extrapolate from what you have.


This falls considerably short of Steven's test for purposeful availment, though I guess that was more for products.


Yeah, you're probably right. Might be worth the discussion though on the exam and then say why it doesn't quite get you there, but you can get them back in IL under domicile.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:34 pm

ph14 wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:
ph14 wrote:Dumb question but is any decision in a 4-4-1 SC split controlling, i'm guessing not? But what about a 4-3-2, wold the 4 be controlling? Or do you always need that 5th vote?


Pluralities are not binding and are considered dicta, I believe.


What if it's like a 9-0 vote on the outcome but a 3-3-3 split on the reasoning?

How could the outcome be binding but not the reasoning?


Usually there is one section of the opinion that has a majority and other sections that don't. I think it's Asahi that's a good example of that. It's tricky cause you have to read and count up the justices for each section.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:34 pm

Eugenie Danglars wrote:
ph14 wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:
ph14 wrote:Dumb question but is any decision in a 4-4-1 SC split controlling, i'm guessing not? But what about a 4-3-2, wold the 4 be controlling? Or do you always need that 5th vote?


Pluralities are not binding and are considered dicta, I believe.


What if it's like a 9-0 vote on the outcome but a 3-3-3 split on the reasoning?

How could the outcome be binding but not the reasoning?


Usually there is one section of the opinion that has a majority and other sections that don't. I think it's Asahi that's a good example of that. It's tricky cause you have to read and count up the justices for each section.


Makes sense, thanks.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beachbum » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:37 pm

So I took my first final yesterday, and I'm just not feeling very confident about it. Trying not to dwell on it, but yikes. Can't wait til exams are finished.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:39 pm

beachbum wrote:So I took my first final yesterday, and I'm just not feeling very confident about it. Trying not to dwell on it, but yikes. Can't wait til exams are finished.


What class? I'm sure you did fine unless in retrospect you saw something HUGE that you missed.

User avatar
beachbum
Posts: 2766
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 9:35 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby beachbum » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:50 pm

johansantana21 wrote:
beachbum wrote:So I took my first final yesterday, and I'm just not feeling very confident about it. Trying not to dwell on it, but yikes. Can't wait til exams are finished.


What class? I'm sure you did fine unless in retrospect you saw something HUGE that you missed.


Contracts. It was an 8-hour take-home, so I still have my answer saved to my computer. I don't see any glaring issues, I just think my analysis is a little thin, and I probably could've said more in certain spots. I dunno, just kinda feeling iffy about it. But I've gotta put it behind me, because it's on to the next one.

User avatar
dabomb75
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby dabomb75 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:23 pm

Extension_Cord wrote:
johansantana21 wrote:I'm so glad our K class doesn't have 2-207 on the final. That shit's a bitch.


I like 2-207!

I think the parol evidence rule is the bitch. I dont understand the exceptions, especially the subsequent agreement. If anyone wants to summarize what, when, how and why a subsequent agreement comes in or not under the PER I would be greatful.


Just went over Parol Evidence Rule yesterday in class, and wrote this up just now in 15 minutes. Kind of barebones at the moment, will fill it in a little more later, but I think this is the gist of it:


1) Legally characterize the integration
a. Common Law:
i. Merger clause, four corners rule, natural omission test
b. UCC 2-202
i. Merger clause
ii. Certain inclusion test
iii. Rejects four corners rule
2) No integration?
a. Then don’t use the Parol Evidence Rule
3) Partial Integration:
a. Consistent additional terms may be brought in under 2-202(b)
b. Course of dealing (1-205), usage of trade (1-205), and course of performance (2-208) may be brought in as explanation of terms already in the contract as well as explanation of consistent additional terms under 2-202(a)
4) Full Integration:
a. No additional terms may be brought in, even if consistent with the writing under 2-202(a)
b. Course of dealing (1-205), usage of trade (1-205), and course of performance (2-208) may be brought in as explanation of terms already in the contract under 2-202(a)
c. 2-202(a) provides a backdoor into 2-202(b) by giving the party a chance to reclassify a document that has additional terms on it as simply an explanation of already written terms.


TLS sucks with formatting so I just uploaded it to scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74918901/Cont ... dence-Rule

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sknight323 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:36 pm

quick guys: Is breach of warranty a material breach?

shock259
Posts: 1737
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 2:30 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby shock259 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:54 pm

1 down, 3 to go. Went well, I thought. I was typing the whole time and only had to glance at my outline once or twice. Otherwise, I went nuts with the facts. I brought ear plugs, which were fucking awesome. I couldn't hear anyone else. I just focused in my zone for 3 hours. As soon as the timers went up on Examsoft, everyone started chatting about the test. I just kept my ear plugs in and left. No stress. Now going to mess around for a few hours, then start looking at next final.

Overall: this is quite bearable. Terrifying if you focus on all the ramifications, but quite bearable if you just focus on the now.

Best of luck to all.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:58 pm

sknight323 wrote:quick guys: Is breach of warranty a material breach?


Not automatically. It depends on the circumstance.

User avatar
alicrimson
Posts: 923
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby alicrimson » Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:05 pm

First exam down. I walked out feeling fairly confident only to realize that I missed one of the key elements in my essay. The big underlying issue was robbery and the bulk of everything else was applicable through some giant resevoir dog fact pattern. (Yes, there was Mr. Pink). There were a few principal issues;however, I blew the analysis of mens rea and decided for some God forsaken reason that robbery was general intent. Why? I don't know. We didn't do theft in class but its super easy. I realized a good hour and a half after the test this happened. Seriously hoping that I don't get x'd for every single issue because I messed up one mens rea term. If I do, I'm looking at a D. Sucks. My boyfriend thinks I'm being stupid because he doesn't think I'll get docked thousands of times for one problem but idk...I guess I shouldn't worry about it but I was feeling pretty good. Damn it. lol. Anywho, on to torts.

User avatar
johansantana21
Posts: 855
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:11 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby johansantana21 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:07 pm

alicrimson wrote:First exam down. I walked out feeling fairly confident only to realize that I missed one of the key elements in my essay. The big underlying issue was robbery and the bulk of everything else was applicable through some giant resevoir dog fact pattern. (Yes, there was Mr. Pink). There were a few principal issues;however, I blew the analysis of mens rea and decided for some God forsaken reason that robbery was general intent. Why? I don't know. We didn't do theft in class but its super easy. I realized a good hour and a half after the test this happened. Seriously hoping that I don't get x'd for every single issue because I messed up one mens rea term. If I do, I'm looking at a D. Sucks. My boyfriend thinks I'm being stupid because he doesn't think I'll get docked thousands of times for one problem but idk...I guess I shouldn't worry about it but I was feeling pretty good. Damn it. lol. Anywho, on to torts.


People get a D in law school?

Anyways best of luck.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Dany » Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:08 pm

I'm going to die.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Beercules, Downstairs_Mixup, j431e782, LawHammer and 13 guests