not gonna snitch but...

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

not gonna snitch but...

Postby bartleby » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:07 am

our prof. explicitly said no writing the personal jurisdiction case stuff in our rule book (only thing we're allowed to bring to the final exam) and some classmates were talking about writing them on random pages in the book.

i'd already spent a crap ton of time memorizing the shit out of the cases, dates, and buzzwords so i was a little annoyed. end rant. someone teach me erie. exam in a few days. imfucked.

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

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby sknight323 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:33 am

Basically, and I am studying for K's right now and my brain is mush, and somebody PLEASE correct me if (when) I'm wrong..


Is there a federal directive on point that conflicts with state law? If yes then you're in Hanna land. Is it promulgated under the REA (something like a FRCP)? If the answer is yes then you apply the federal rule. Any federal rule can be invalidated if it "enlarges, abridges, or modifies a substantive state right." If it fails this test (part of the REA) then you move on to Erie.

Erie part: Is it substantive or procedural? Substantive, obviously apply state law. But of course, you will probably get a question where it is a judges practice, or statute of limitations. So then it is procedural and we're now seeing if it is outcome determinative. If the answer is NO and it has no effect, apply federal law. If the answer is yes, move on to the "twin aims of Erie" - would this induce forum shopping (more ppl in federal courts) and inequitable administration of justice (giving people justice in federal court while others can't bring it in state court, etc). If the answer to this question is YES, then you want to look at countervailing federal interests: In the case on this (Byrd), it was about a federal practice: judge decided a fact in the state practice; jury in federal practice. Because the fed gov had an interest in jury trials (7th amendment), the federal law was applied.


So, basically
HANNA
Directive on point? If yes - Hannah land. If NO, then move to Erie. Is it consistent with the REA? If YES, apply federal law.

ERIE
If it ISN'T consistent with the REA, OR there is no federal directive on point (such as the constitution, statute, FRCP), then you are now in Erie land. Is the law "arguably" procedural? (if it is clearly substantive, then obviously, you go with state law). If yes, then is it outcome-determinative? If the answer is NO, apply federal law. If the answer is YES, then check the twin aims: will enforcing this federal practice/law increase forum shopping/inequitable administration of law? If your answer is no then apply the federal law. If the answer is YES then you see if there are countervailing federal interests (such as a jury trial). If there AREN'T then you apply state law. If there are, then federal law.


Erie part: outcome--->twins aims---->countervailing federal interests

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby bartleby » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:35 am

yo thanks, that was hot, if it isn't correct, i'll look for whats wrong later

lawnerd1
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby lawnerd1 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 10:17 am

--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
goosey
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 11:48 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby goosey » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:35 pm

bartleby wrote:our prof. explicitly said no writing the personal jurisdiction case stuff in our rule book (only thing we're allowed to bring to the final exam) and some classmates were talking about writing them on random pages in the book.

i'd already spent a crap ton of time memorizing the shit out of the cases, dates, and buzzwords so i was a little annoyed. end rant. someone teach me erie. exam in a few days. imfucked.



umm..call me a jerk, but I would probably send an anonymous email and request that we all be allowed to do this, just to level the playing field for those with a conscience. Look, you are competing w these ppl for grades...while I question how much this silly exercise will actually help them on the exam, if you feel you are at a disadvantage, then why sit back. I dont recommend naming names, but a simple "some classmates" will do.

CanadianWolf
Posts: 10439
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby CanadianWolf » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:46 pm

Don't worry about it. Don't snitch. Just do your own work & you should be fine.

User avatar
jk2011
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:29 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby jk2011 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:49 pm

sknight323 wrote:Basically, and I am studying for K's right now and my brain is mush, and somebody PLEASE correct me if (when) I'm wrong..


Is there a federal directive on point that conflicts with state law? If yes then you're in Hanna land. Is it promulgated under the REA (something like a FRCP)? If the answer is yes then you apply the federal rule. Any federal rule can be invalidated if it "enlarges, abridges, or modifies a substantive state right." If it fails this test (part of the REA) then you move on to Erie.

Erie part: Is it substantive or procedural? Substantive, obviously apply state law. But of course, you will probably get a question where it is a judges practice, or statute of limitations. So then it is procedural and we're now seeing if it is outcome determinative. If the answer is NO and it has no effect, apply federal law. If the answer is yes, move on to the "twin aims of Erie" - would this induce forum shopping (more ppl in federal courts) and inequitable administration of justice (giving people justice in federal court while others can't bring it in state court, etc). If the answer to this question is YES, then you want to look at countervailing federal interests: In the case on this (Byrd), it was about a federal practice: judge decided a fact in the state practice; jury in federal practice. Because the fed gov had an interest in jury trials (7th amendment), the federal law was applied.


So, basically
HANNA
Directive on point? If yes - Hannah land. If NO, then move to Erie. Is it consistent with the REA? If YES, apply federal law.

ERIE
If it ISN'T consistent with the REA, OR there is no federal directive on point (such as the constitution, statute, FRCP), then you are now in Erie land. Is the law "arguably" procedural? (if it is clearly substantive, then obviously, you go with state law). If yes, then is it outcome-determinative? If the answer is NO, apply federal law. If the answer is YES, then check the twin aims: will enforcing this federal practice/law increase forum shopping/inequitable administration of law? If your answer is no then apply the federal law. If the answer is YES then you see if there are countervailing federal interests (such as a jury trial). If there AREN'T then you apply state law. If there are, then federal law.


Erie part: outcome--->twins aims---->countervailing federal interests


SO this is what I should expect from law school next year?

Eco
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:37 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby Eco » Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:58 pm

Don't worry about it. First of all, you could always sneak in a few stuff too. But more importantly, you know how easy personal jurisdiction is compared to the rest of civ pro? Just know the requirements of international shoe and service of process and you're good to go.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18422
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby bk1 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 7:02 pm

sknight323 wrote:Basically, and I am studying for K's right now and my brain is mush, and somebody PLEASE correct me if (when) I'm wrong..


Is there a federal directive on point that conflicts with state law? If yes then you're in Hanna land. Is it promulgated under the REA (something like a FRCP)? If the answer is yes then you apply the federal rule. Any federal rule can be invalidated if it "enlarges, abridges, or modifies a substantive state right." If it fails this test (part of the REA) then you move on to Erie.

Erie part: Is it substantive or procedural? Substantive, obviously apply state law. But of course, you will probably get a question where it is a judges practice, or statute of limitations. So then it is procedural and we're now seeing if it is outcome determinative. If the answer is NO and it has no effect, apply federal law. If the answer is yes, move on to the "twin aims of Erie" - would this induce forum shopping (more ppl in federal courts) and inequitable administration of justice (giving people justice in federal court while others can't bring it in state court, etc). If the answer to this question is YES, then you want to look at countervailing federal interests: In the case on this (Byrd), it was about a federal practice: judge decided a fact in the state practice; jury in federal practice. Because the fed gov had an interest in jury trials (7th amendment), the federal law was applied.


So, basically
HANNA
Directive on point? If yes - Hannah land. If NO, then move to Erie. Is it consistent with the REA? If YES, apply federal law.

ERIE
If it ISN'T consistent with the REA, OR there is no federal directive on point (such as the constitution, statute, FRCP), then you are now in Erie land. Is the law "arguably" procedural? (if it is clearly substantive, then obviously, you go with state law). If yes, then is it outcome-determinative? If the answer is NO, apply federal law. If the answer is YES, then check the twin aims: will enforcing this federal practice/law increase forum shopping/inequitable administration of law? If your answer is no then apply the federal law. If the answer is YES then you see if there are countervailing federal interests (such as a jury trial). If there AREN'T then you apply state law. If there are, then federal law.


Erie part: outcome--->twins aims---->countervailing federal interests


Most people I talked to had semi-different Erie methods to get arguably the same result (just different ways of attacking the problem). Of course the other thing is that you should take anything your professor says/believes as the word from on high. Assuming you learned it in your class, the one thing thing I think is missing is the Gasperini/Shady Grove part where the court looks to either narrow the scope of the fed rule to either take away the conflict and thus apply state law (like Ginsburg did in Gasperini) or broaden the scope of the fed rule to create conflict and use REA/preemption to make the fed rule controlling (like Scalia did in Shady Grove). Personally my pattern was:

Hanna - Source of Fed Rule:
FRCP/Statute/Constitution --> Presumptively Valid --> REA Analysis/Sibbach Test --> Narrow? Then do the below tests.
Judge Made (or No Conflict) --> No Presumptive Validity --> RDA Analysis/Hanna+York Mod Outcome Det Test/Byrd Balancing Test --> Broaden? Then do above tests.

User avatar
mtothelissa
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 6:43 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby mtothelissa » Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:36 pm

Be careful with the Erie stuff. Different professors teach it differently and different supplements do too. That being said, this is how my professor approached it:

Erie says no fed comm. Law -> when it comes to state law, we’re gonna use state law.
After we put the law in either the state or fed law bucket (don’t put it in a bucket because it is one or the other), we generally put these labels:
-----State Law -> Substantive
-----Fed Law -> Procedural
• Where does state law leave off and fed law start?
-----Guaranty Trust -> better to know for historic reasons; outcome determinative test
----------If rule determines outcome then use state law
----------Seems to move everything over to the state law bucket
• Hanna-Byrd Test
-----(1) Is there a federal statute or rule on point? (Hanna)
----------Yes, is it valid?
---------------Yes, use it.
---------------No, it exceeds Constitution or REA (it’s regulating on something substantive or somehow unconst) -> use state law.
----------No, go to (2).
-----(2) Byrd -> Is the state law bound up in substantial rights and obligations of citizens?
----------Yes, use state law.
----------No, weigh interests of fed and state and go to (3)
-----(3) Hanna ->If we ignore the state law does it encourage forum shopping or result in inequitable administration of the law?
----------Yes, use state law.
----------No, use fed law!


Good luck on finals everyone!

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby bartleby » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:32 am

thanks a lot - read all the posts then read the confusing ass cases and statutes, then read glannons. feel pretty good for wednesday.

there's a saying where i come from (middle class suburbia): snitches get stitches. but in reality, they will cheat and write the names of the cases down - but if you can't even remember the case name - how are you going to remember the holding, buzz words, development, etc. they're just doing themselves a disfavor. additionally, the risk of getting caught and failing is a risk they have to take. it's like Rule 37 sanctions.

it's like when i kept trying to cheat on my high school chemistry exams by not memorizing that ion chart and writing it all down on a cheat sheet.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby Br3v » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:36 am

Eco wrote:Don't worry about it. First of all, you could always sneak in a few stuff too. But more importantly, you know how easy personal jurisdiction is compared to the rest of civ pro? Just know the requirements of international shoe and service of process and you're good to go.


Feel like thats bad advice. Just study.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby romothesavior » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:37 am

I think the snitches get stitches rule has to be set aside in law school. Maybe don't name names, but cheating in law school is a big deal and it hurts those around you. A friend of mine went to the dean with a blatant case of cheating last year, and pretty much everyone thought he did the right thing.

I wouldn't go crying to the prof or making a huge fuss, but maybe just send an anonymous email or drop by during office hours and voice your concerns.

Honestly though, personal jurisdiction is one of the easiest concepts to grasp though, so it may not even be a disadvantage.

User avatar
lbeezy
Posts: 2639
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:52 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby lbeezy » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:37 am

You can be brought before the honor council for not reporting stuff at my school.

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby ben4847 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:46 am

just snitch

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

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby johansantana21 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:49 am

Don't snitch.

1st. They were just talking about it. If you snitch and they haven't done anything, you might be alienated if anyone ever finds out who you are. After all it's only your word vs theirs and people know snitches be bitches.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby kalvano » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:53 am

Image

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

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby shock259 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:11 am

It's a judgment call on OP's part, but you are violating the honor code if you do not report other students' violations. And that's not even taking self-interest into account.

User avatar
quiver
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby quiver » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:12 am

ben4847 wrote:just snitch
johansantana21 wrote:Don't snitch.
I just wanted to say that I love how these are consecutive posts.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby bartleby » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:32 am

nah, not gonna snitch because it was just three of us talking. and two of them said they were going to do that. and my professor is notorious for mass mailing the entire class about situations so i'd be outted.

regardless, like others have said, personal jurisdiction is easy and if they want to risk getting kicked out or failing out, that's their thing. but our professor does want to know all the lame-o crap: not just int'l shoe.

basically: pennoyer, harris v. balk, hess, int'l shoe, mcgee, hanson, gray, volks, bk, asahi, pavlovich. come at me, too easy.

and all the buzz words that go with each case. i doubt they'll be able to fit all of it in their rule book and prof said he would randomly check it - but i doubt it.

i realize there is a curve and all and the moral arguments but it's like if i snitch now...what, am i going to whistle blow when i have a career? not talkin about penn st. crap here, just people who'll probably hurt themselves in the long run.

bartleby
Posts: 1315
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 am

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby bartleby » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:33 am

but seriously,what can i do in the next 24 hours to better prepare myself for this exam

i think i got it all down - not sure about erie/hanna in terms of application, especially since i won't have these great flow charts... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm (going crazy)

User avatar
Grizz
Posts: 10583
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:31 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby Grizz » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:44 am

Image

clseller
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:53 am

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby clseller » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:52 am

lbeezy wrote:You can be brought before the honor council for not reporting stuff at my school.


a duty to act?! forget that!

User avatar
ben4847
Posts: 789
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby ben4847 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:24 pm

Just want to mention that professor is a moron for not allowing notes.

User avatar
ilovesf
Posts: 11792
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:20 pm

Re: not gonna snitch but...

Postby ilovesf » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:46 pm

We had someone sort of cheat on our torts group project earlier this year. We had to write a paper on a real life scenario that dealt with UCSF's negligence of not equipping their passenger buses with seat belts, and an employee died in an accident while on the bus. We were just given a fact sheet and a couple news articles and had to write a paper on whether UCSF was negligent or not. Anyway, a student decided to call UCSF's legal department to try to see what they were going to argue and their thoughts about it. Apparently that student then told his/her friends, then one of the friends told our prof and he sent out an angry e-mail telling the whole class that he considered this cheating and the anonymous student was getting a zero on the project. I probably wouldn't have told him, just because I don't think the student actually got any useful information whatsoever from UCSF's legal department, but it was a pretty stupid move. I don't feel bad for that student whatsoever that someone snitched.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: electriklemon, peger, waterlogged72 and 9 guests