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
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sundance95 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:09 pm

@ahduth

Right, and they cite Walker immediately following that sentence. I think that is the approach I'll take, thanks for the response.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:12 pm

Judge Philip Banks wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
ilovesf wrote:for those of you taking con law now - which e&e did you buy? I see that there are two, I wanted to buy them before the next semester starts so I can scope it out a bit, but I'm not sure which one to buy.


I think that the ConLaw E&E is universally seen as the absolute worst E&E of the series and generally pretty worthless. FWIW.

It's worse than the Crim Law one?


Probably close, but I'll side with yes.

jd20132013
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 4:41 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby jd20132013 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:13 pm

crim law's examples werent terrible

User avatar
Judge Philip Banks
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:21 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Judge Philip Banks » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:15 pm

Well, the crim E&E compared to the torts, civ pro, property, and contracts ones is definitely the worst of that bunch. I don't have the con law one, so I can't say. But if con law one is worse than crim, it must be pretty bad...

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Hannibal » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:21 pm

ahduth wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
Hannibal wrote:There was actually no rule you could take away from Shady Grove in that way. Four votes said you only have to look at the federal rule in the test, while the concurrence said you have to look at whether the state rule of procedure is bound up with substantive rights.

Hmm. I was reading II-A which I thought is the majority opinion? I'll have to think about this some more, but it seems to me that if II-A has five votes then Rule 23 could not be abridged by any state law.


Ya, II-A has five votes, and is riddled with FRCP-supremacy language:

Rule 23 unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal civil proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rule's prerequisites are met. We cannot contort its text, even to avert a collision with state law that might render it invalid.


at 130 S.Ct. 1431, 1442 (their emphasis).


I don't read that as supremacy language, I read that as language emphasizing the difference between FRCP 23 and the state law.

sherpaorlawschool
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sherpaorlawschool » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:31 pm

Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

Assume that the event that happened was because of one of the products that the plant produced and it ended up injuring the plaintiff..not that something actually happened at the plant itself.

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sundance95 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:33 pm

sherpaorlawschool wrote:Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

My understanding is that Perkins made clear that the substantial and continuous contacts are only satisfied by actual or de facto HQ level activity.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:39 pm

sherpaorlawschool wrote:Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

Assume that the event that happened was because of one of the products that the plant produced and it ended up injuring the plaintiff..not that something actually happened at the plant itself.


Correct me if i'm wrong here, but I still think you need the long arm statute to authorize it if it's general jurisdiction (unless you are basing it on incorporation/PPB, in which case there is personal jurisdiction without the long arm statute), since you're pulling them out of state (since they are considered at home in the states of their Inc./PPB).

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:41 pm

sundance95 wrote:
sherpaorlawschool wrote:Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

My understanding is that Perkins made clear that the substantial and continuous contacts are only satisfied by actual or de facto HQ level activity.


I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ahduth » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:44 pm

sherpaorlawschool wrote:Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state.


I stopped here. If the plaintiff sues in the state the plant is located in, they get them under presence, or Shoe, or whatever you want, don't they?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:47 pm

ahduth wrote:
sherpaorlawschool wrote:Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state.


I stopped here. If the plaintiff sues in the state the plant is located in, they get them under presence, or Shoe, or whatever you want, don't they?


It matters who specifically you're suing. It's usually easy to get jurisdiction over the company in these cases, but harder to get it over specific people/employees if they're not physically at that location. (I think it's Calder.)

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sundance95 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:50 pm

ph14 wrote:I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I wouldn't argue that unless you didn't read Perkins in your class.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:52 pm

sundance95 wrote:
ph14 wrote:I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I wouldn't argue that unless you didn't read Perkins in your class.


We didn't.

Sandro
Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Sandro » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:53 pm

Does everyone else have 5 or so people go to the bathroom / leave the classroom every exam ? I cant help but wonder how in preparing for a timed exam you couldnt do it before the exam. On closed notes tests it kind of seems odd, considering 1 minutes spent looking at your phone or something could really help......

Not that I'm accusing or think it actually happens. I just noticed it because the door would slam unbelievably loud each time. It just seems odd when 8 people go to the bathroom during a 2 hour exam. I can see towards the end if you're almost done/finished, but 30 minutes in ? okay......

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ahduth » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:53 pm

ph14 wrote:I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)


I'll agree with this as to specific jurisdiction, as the inverse of Volkswagen - the car manufacturer had business presence in all 50 states, there was no reason to contest the Woodson filing. Does that really give them general jurisdictional presence though? I'm a little unclear on this (obviously).

swissalps007
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby swissalps007 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:54 pm

Hey guys,
Got a quick question regarding Torts, specifically proving the element of breach. In doing my practice exams, I noticed I have some trouble in assessing when to use which rule. For example, are there certain red flags that should tell me this case calls for res ipsa rather than using the reasonable person standard, etc.? This is probably an easy question, but I am just getting stuck on it. My gut instinct is it depends on the fact pattern, but sometimes it's just not that clear.

Thanks

User avatar
sundance95
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:44 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sundance95 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:54 pm

How about Helicopteros?

sherpaorlawschool
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sherpaorlawschool » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:54 pm

sundance95 wrote:
sherpaorlawschool wrote:Civ Pro hypo that I'm having trouble with: Suppose a corporation is incorporated in one state, has its nerve center in a second state, and a single manufacturing plant in a third state. Now suppose there is a situation where something happens involving the plant and the plaintiff wants to sue in the state the plant is located in. Now suppose that the plant doesn't meet the requirements to put it under the long arm statute of that state. Is there enough to establish general jurisdiction in that state? The rule is that there is general jurisdiction where the corporation is domiciled or where it has the substantial and continuous contacts or seeks to do business in the state. But there is a twist, the manufacturing plant only produces products that are sold in foreign countries but the party that is affected by that product wants to sue in the state the plant is located in for some reason. So is this enough to count as substantial and continuous contacts? The plant presumably employs people in the state and has property in the state even though it doesn't technically do business in the state because the products are all shipped out of the country. I may be over-thinking it and it's actually easy that they can be sued there since part of the company is physically located there, but I wasn't sure.

My understanding is that Perkins made clear that the substantial and continuous contacts are only satisfied by actual or de facto HQ level activity.


My only problem with Perkins is that the Goodyear case decided earlier this year stated that the paradigm is where the defendant is essentially at home but gives no more guidance than that. I suppose I should just take Ginsburg to mean that where a corporation is essentially at home is where inc./ppb.

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ahduth » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:56 pm

ph14 wrote:
sundance95 wrote:
ph14 wrote:I don't know, i'd think that Target or another large retailer would be subject to general jurisdiction in every single state, even though they are only headquartered in 2 (PPB/Inc.)

I wouldn't argue that unless you didn't read Perkins in your class.


We didn't.


Ah, okay, you should read Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining (1952). Did you read Helicopteros or any of the general jurisdiction cases?

edit: I'm a just a tad bit behind sundance apparently lol.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby r6_philly » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:57 pm

If they have a plant in state, why doesn't P just use tag service to establish general jurisdiction? It's not like the plant is going anywhere.

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:57 pm

Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?

User avatar
ahduth
Posts: 2468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:55 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ahduth » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:01 pm

Eugenie Danglars wrote:Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?


Per comment (a), you have to look to 162(1) to see if it's fraudulent. But it need not be fraudulent per 159.

Also how do you make that cool section mark?

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

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:03 pm

ahduth wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?


Per comment (a), you have to look to 162(1) to see if it's fraudulent. But it need not be fraudulent per 159.

Also how do you make that cool section mark?


Ok, just checking. Thx.

I have a text expander on my computer, and I put it in there to autocorrect from "sec." But I originally got it from Word's special characters.

paulinaporizkova
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby paulinaporizkova » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:06 pm

r6_philly wrote:If they have a plant in state, why doesn't P just use tag service to establish general jurisdiction? It's not like the plant is going anywhere.

tag jrx is harder to use against corporations because it isn't clear who you can serve and have it be proper

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Hannibal » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:17 pm

ahduth wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:Quick K's question: Under restatement § 159, a misrepresentation can theoretically be made in good faith, right?


Per comment (a), you have to look to 162(1) to see if it's fraudulent. But it need not be fraudulent per 159.

Also how do you make that cool section mark?


Option 6 if you're on a mac bro.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: shineoncrazydiamond and 9 guests