akili wrote:I have no motivation. Exam on Tuesday.
Currently I'm stressed about not being stressed.
I feel the same...it's so weird. COMPLETELY different from last semester.
akili wrote:I have no motivation. Exam on Tuesday.
Currently I'm stressed about not being stressed.
lifestooquick wrote:Also, BarBri really needs to design a website that works with Chrome. Having to use IE is freaking annoying.
Jessuf wrote:O conveys to P and his heirs provided the land continues to be used for farming.
Why is this a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and not fee simple determinable?
SilverE2 wrote:lifestooquick wrote:Also, BarBri really needs to design a website that works with Chrome. Having to use IE is freaking annoying.
Try this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... mmjbdenadd
Jessuf wrote:O conveys to P and his heirs provided the land continues to be used for farming.
Why is this a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and not fee simple determinable?
dabomb75 wrote:I know this may make me sound like a crazy person, but I miss property. I so wish I was doing RAP and conveyances rather than stupid boring MPC provisions and criminal law theory
LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Civ Pro Question:
Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?
Metaread wrote:Con Law question: Is Wickard still good law, or did Lopez and Morrison essentially overrule it?
Flips88 wrote:Metaread wrote:Con Law question: Is Wickard still good law, or did Lopez and Morrison essentially overrule it?
Nah Wickard is still good law, though it's unclear if it would come out the same way if heard today.
BlueDiamond wrote:LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Civ Pro Question:
Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?
i read freer like a week ago so i think the answer is yes.. however, i read free like a WEEK ago and have been drinking
it passes (a) because its got the common nucleus and passes Gibbs test
then it passes (b) because the that only excepts claims that have diverse parties
Edit: just looked and its a gray area according to Freer
page 631 of his supp - he says literally read it should allow it to join but basically the drafters of the statutes messed up because the result renders complete diversity meaningless
BlueDiamond wrote:LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Civ Pro Question:
Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?
i read freer like a week ago so i think the answer is yes.. however, i read free like a WEEK ago and have been drinking
it passes (a) because its got the common nucleus and passes Gibbs test
then it passes (b) because the that only excepts claims that have diverse parties
Edit: just looked and its a gray area according to Freer
page 631 of his supp - he says literally read it should allow it to join but basically the drafters of the statutes messed up because the result renders complete diversity meaningless
Bildungsroman wrote:According to my class notes and my reading of 28 U.S.C. §1367: in a lawsuit in which the court's jurisdiction is derived entirely from §1332 (diversity jurisdiction) between the original plaintiff and defendant, the defendant adding a plaintiff under Rule 20 doesn't defeat jurisdiction even if it destroys complete diversity.
lifestooquick wrote:akili wrote:I have no motivation. Exam on Tuesday.
Currently I'm stressed about not being stressed.
I feel the same...it's so weird. COMPLETELY different from last semester.
LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Okay, I was confused at first because it seems like after the Exxon case, you need to have complete diversity between the parties because Exxon didn't want to overrule Strawbridge, and since the two plaintiffs are joining together, it destroys complete diversity and allowing that would override Strawbridge?
That was a horribly formulated question, but you get the idea.
JenDarby wrote:LSATmakesMeNeurotic wrote:Okay, I was confused at first because it seems like after the Exxon case, you need to have complete diversity between the parties because Exxon didn't want to overrule Strawbridge, and since the two plaintiffs are joining together, it destroys complete diversity and allowing that would override Strawbridge?
That was a horribly formulated question, but you get the idea.
My outline says this for Exxon: "When P1 meets the amount and P2 does not, P2 CAN bootstrap to P1 under supplemental jurisdiction (Exxon Mobil Corp.)"
Exxon Mobile v Allapattah Services (US 2005) enactment of §1367 overruled Zahn.
a. When the complaint includes at least one that satisfies the amount in controversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the DC has original jurisdiction over that claim and the court can then turn to whether it has a constitutional and statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction
b. When the named representative satisfied the amount-in-controversy req, a fed court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ps whose claims do not meet the req, provided their claims are part of the same case/controversy as those who do
Exxon allows for supplemental jurisdiction, despite the fact that it would destroy diversity by failing the amount in controversy requirement. I think it's that Strawbridge doesn't apply to the SJ portion of your question for a P brought in under Rule 20, as its constitutional and doesn't defy 1367(b).
hijodehombre wrote:That's basically what Glannon says in the E&E, p.98, but only as long as there is only one D.
bk1 wrote:So burnt out.
Return to “Forum for Law School Students�
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests