Nonhearsay vs Not Hearsay

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
portaprokoss
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: Nonhearsay vs Not Hearsay

Postby portaprokoss » Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:28 pm

Tanicius wrote:So we're in agreement this is a distinction the OP's professor made up, and not one really anyone else in the thread is qualified to answer


No. My professor recognizes it, and he's the general edition or the world's foremost treatise on evidence. Secondly, my casebook recognizes it. Third, 2/4 supplements I've used recognize it. Fourth, the Sum & Substance audio lectures recognize it. So it's not just made up; you just didn't learn about it. You should be thankful that an evidence baller like myself showed up to dispel your ignorance.

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Nonhearsay vs Not Hearsay

Postby Tanicius » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:19 pm

portaprokoss wrote:
Tanicius wrote:So we're in agreement this is a distinction the OP's professor made up, and not one really anyone else in the thread is qualified to answer


No. My professor recognizes it, and he's the general edition or the world's foremost treatise on evidence. Secondly, my casebook recognizes it. Third, 2/4 supplements I've used recognize it. Fourth, the Sum & Substance audio lectures recognize it. So it's not just made up; you just didn't learn about it. You should be thankful that an evidence baller like myself showed up to dispel your ignorance.



My evidence professor also wrote one of those widely circulated fancy-but-boringly designed casebooks, and his glasses are cooler than your professor's. He also taught concepts using phrases that appear nowhere in the federal rules, just like yours did. While I like your idea that one instructor's personally invented phrases should dominate and sometimes even contradict the concepts spelled out by cases and statutes, I'm seeing some problems that could arise when another authority figure differs.

portaprokoss
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:40 pm

Re: Nonhearsay vs Not Hearsay

Postby portaprokoss » Fri Apr 19, 2013 8:30 am

Tanicius wrote:
portaprokoss wrote:
Tanicius wrote:So we're in agreement this is a distinction the OP's professor made up, and not one really anyone else in the thread is qualified to answer


No. My professor recognizes it, and he's the general edition or the world's foremost treatise on evidence. Secondly, my casebook recognizes it. Third, 2/4 supplements I've used recognize it. Fourth, the Sum & Substance audio lectures recognize it. So it's not just made up; you just didn't learn about it. You should be thankful that an evidence baller like myself showed up to dispel your ignorance.



My evidence professor also wrote one of those widely circulated fancy-but-boringly designed casebooks, and his glasses are cooler than your professor's. He also taught concepts using phrases that appear nowhere in the federal rules, just like yours did. While I like your idea that one instructor's personally invented phrases should dominate and sometimes even contradict the concepts spelled out by cases and statutes, I'm seeing some problems that could arise when another authority figure differs.


We'll have to send our professors to thunderdome if we ever want to settle this.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Justtrying2help, TheSpanishMain and 8 guests