Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=169861
Dany wrote:Stop thinking about exams after you turn them in!
A-freaking-men.Dany wrote:Dany wrote:Stop thinking about exams after you turn them in!
lol. I was hoping someone might say they did something as bad as I did to make me feel better, but I don't think that's going to happen. It just fucking kills me to know I forgot to do something so basic. I think part of the problem was that I started studying way late and never did a practice exam. To clarify, I outlined a bunch, torts was the one that I did the most for actually, but I never wrote it all down. I would have been way better off doing one full practice exam than outlining a whole bunch. It also sucks to memorize a whole shit ton of minute rules and then not get tested on them (mostly anyway, a couple popped up). Maybe others will learn from my stupidity.lifestooquick wrote:A-freaking-men.Dany wrote:Dany wrote:Stop thinking about exams after you turn them in!
I'm pretty sure I completely contravened my Torts professor's express instructions on the exam, and spent all my time writing about something which we should not have. D'oh.TheFutureLawyer wrote:lol. I was hoping someone might say they did something as bad as I did to make me feel better, but I don't think that's going to happen. It just fucking kills me to know I forgot to do something so basic. I think part of the problem was that I started studying way late and never did a practice exam. To clarify, I outlined a bunch, torts was the one that I did the most for actually, but I never wrote it all down. I would have been way better off doing one full practice exam than outlining a whole bunch. It also sucks to memorize a whole shit ton of minute rules and then not get tested on them (mostly anyway, a couple popped up). Maybe others will learn from my stupidity.lifestooquick wrote:A-freaking-men.Dany wrote:Dany wrote:Stop thinking about exams after you turn them in!
A-... no that quote is an A at leastlifestooquick wrote:A-freaking-men.Dany wrote:Dany wrote:Stop thinking about exams after you turn them in!
thegrayman wrote:you know it's finals when you go to the bathroom and there is someone taking a crap while on their laptop.
that was a new one...
Addy wrote:Did not take today's exam. Heard it was +25 pages! Would know more but they are all commiserating, probably somewhere where they serve liquids brewed in Kentucky! It was that bad, eh?dabomb75 wrote:lol yea. You?Addy wrote:Let me guess. U go 2 Penn?dabomb75 wrote:done with exam #2. Everyone walked out feeling awful so I guess that's a good sign that I wasn't the only one.
At my school, it tends to be grades lower than B+, especially where those students don't earn any grades above a B+.rocon7383 wrote:i'm very curious as to what differentiates a median student and a below median student.
87(2) is an imposed option contract by law where there IS consideration (usually in a situation where there is an offer and offeror revokes when performance has begun, or offeree relied on the offer). Drennan fits with 87(2), not sure about Baird. Promissory estoppel is where the is NO consideration (a promise, hence "promissory"). It also goes the extra step by barring promisor from denying enforceability. IMO, the analysis for both is almost the same (reliance, for the sake of justice, etc.). Don't take my word for it because I know contracts is one of those courses where the analysis/explanation can be different in any given course.BlueDiamond wrote:been asked before but i cant find it.. whats the difference between 87(2) and promissory estoppel? and to which one or both do baird and drennan fit in?
Canterbury v. Spence? Material and reasonable disclosure; magnitude*probability (don't need to disclose the obvious or truly extraordinary).Gemini wrote:Can someone PLEASE tell me the professional standard used in Lack of Informed Consent cases for torts? I got the prudent patient down on lock, but just can't seem to understand professional standard very well.
My professor taught us a general view: Doctor's duty in disclosing material risks to patient under professional standard of care is to disclose what a reasonable doctor would have told their patient in a similar situation, as long as whatever you're NOT disclosing is acceptable by at least a reasonable minority of doctors.PinkCow wrote:Canterbury v. Spence? Material and reasonable disclosure; magnitude*probability (don't need to disclose the obvious or truly extraordinary).Gemini wrote:Can someone PLEASE tell me the professional standard used in Lack of Informed Consent cases for torts? I got the prudent patient down on lock, but just can't seem to understand professional standard very well.
Not really sure if that's what you were looking for.
I actually was able to figure it out last night, but this is beautiful, thanks!sundance95 wrote:Two standards for lack of informed consent: reasonable patient and reasonable physician.
a) Reasonable-Patient Standard [Majority Rule]
i) Sounds in negligence; employs ordinary negligence standard
ii) Requires docs to disclose information re risks and benefits to patients that a reasonable patient in what the physician knows to be the patient's situation would want to know.
A. Objective std in that patient idiosyncrasies that physician is unaware of are not taken into account; but if physicians becomes aware of any she must disclose relevant information.
B. professional stds re disclosures are relevant but not dispositive
1. experts will be req'd to establish what the risks and benefits are, but not req'd as to whether D violated the std of care (although they would be permitted)
b) Reasonable-Physician Standard [Minority Rule]
i) Sounds in malpractice; employs professional standard
ii) Requires docs to comport with standards of profession in providing information as to risks and benefits of treatment.
A. experts req'd to establish relevant risks and benefits as well as applicable medical stds
NYC Law wrote:My last exam (torts) is tomorrow, bright and early. Trying to decide on my last meal.
Whiskey with a side of cigarettes.NYC Law wrote:My last exam (torts) is tomorrow, bright and early. Trying to decide on my last meal.