1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum

[Cellar-door]

rule against perpetuities plz....

Basically will all of the interests vest within 21 years of the end of the last measuring life (that is all people involved or specified who are alive at the time of formation). Taking into consideration the possibility of more children for example if the class is open.

[Homelandsagreatshow]

rule against perpetuities plz....

Dolphine why the hell are you asking about the RaP...our teacher went vehemently out of the way to say not to bring it up lol

[Dolphine]

.

[sublime]

..

[desiballa21]

Read and re-read notes, watched Freer, read EEs.. something about mutual estoppel I don't think I'm getting. grrrr.

[Easy-E]

Read and re-read notes, watched Freer, read EEs.. something about mutual estoppel I don't think I'm getting. grrrr.

Whats this?

[06102016]

..

[desiballa21]

P v. D and P wins in federal court. D appeals, and while D appeals.. new plaintiff sues D in state court hoping to get preclusive effect from case 1.

The state court does:

A) Follow fed law of issue preclusion and give preclusive effect
B) follow fed law of claim preclusion and give preclusive effect
C) give no res judicata b/c first judgment is not yet final
D) Follow NY law regarding res judicata b/c forum may apply its own choice-of-law rules -- then do w/e the state law requires
E) Follow the state law from where the previous case's federal court sat (Klaxon) -- the do w/e that state law requires.

[Audeamus]

anybody else have Con Law this semester?

[BigZuck]

anybody else have Con Law this semester?

Some UT bros and some Duke bros do at least.

[desiballa21]

anybody else have Con Law this semester?

Some UT bros and some Duke bros do at least.

I've got it.

[06102016]

..

[BPLawl]

So to move the discussion towards con law here's my stream of consciousness thing:

Does anyone here on that fall con law grind understand scrutiny levels well? If so, please tear my analysis to threads.

My understanding:
Rational Basis ( Carolene/Wickard) - general deference to the legislature

Awkward middle child: Rational basis plus (Lawrence v. Texas) Is it heightened or not? No one's really sure.

Heightened:
Intermediate: Sex discrimination- effectively different justices treat differently, ( Ginsburg-closer to strict, Scalia- closer to rational)
Strict: Race distinctions (pro- or anti- minority post-Adarand), violations of fundamental right
Abortion/Privacy: strict scrutiny in name only, Casey actually applies a standard closer to Intermediate (???)

Also W/r/t Race distinctions: If facially discriminatory ---> strict scrutiny probably fails
if not facially discriminatory----> disparate impact + Arlington Heights factors (historical background of law + history of legislation + sequence of events + procedural departures + inconsistency )

^ Is that correct? Also, big ups for any help memorizing those factors. Like is there a pneumonic device somewhere? Holy mackarole, what a hot mess mouthful!


Also K's does promise for moral obligation/benefit received occasion restitution measure of damages? (RSC S86)
Is the measure of damages for an option contract typically expectancy? (RSC S87)

[BigZuck]

So to move the discussion towards con law here's my stream of consciousness thing:

Does anyone here on that fall con law grind understand scrutiny levels well? If so, please tear my analysis to threads.

My understanding:
Rational Basis ( Carolene/Wickard) - general deference to the legislature

Awkward middle child: Rational basis plus (Lawrence v. Texas) Is it heightened or not? No one's really sure.

Heightened:
Intermediate: Sex discrimination- effectively different justices treat differently, ( Ginsburg-closer to strict, Scalia- closer to rational)
Strict: Race distinctions (pro- or anti- minority post-Adarand), violations of fundamental right
Abortion/Privacy: strict scrutiny in name only, Casey actually applies a standard closer to Intermediate (???)

Also W/r/t Race distinctions: If facially discriminatory ---> strict scrutiny probably fails
if not facially discriminatory----> disparate impact + Arlington Heights factors (historical background of law + history of legislation + sequence of events + procedural departures + inconsistency )

^ Is that correct? Also, big ups for any help memorizing those factors. Like is there a pneumonic device somewhere? Holy mackarole, what a hot mess mouthful!


Also K's does promise for moral obligation/benefit received occasion restitution measure of damages? (RSC S86)
Is the measure of damages for an option contract typically expectancy? (RSC S87)

I think that's basically right. Our con law prof says strict is only for classifications based on race, national origin, and alienage. Intermediate is sex. Rational is everything else.

*disclaimer- haven't got to the gay rights cases yet, that's this week. Also I don't think I really figured out where abortion fits into all that. Is it intermediate?

[Swimp]

P v. D and P wins in federal court. D appeals, and while D appeals.. new plaintiff sues D in state court hoping to get preclusive effect from case 1.

The state court does:

A) Follow fed law of issue preclusion and give preclusive effect
B) follow fed law of claim preclusion and give preclusive effect
C) give no res judicata b/c first judgment is not yet final
D) Follow NY law regarding res judicata b/c forum may apply its own choice-of-law rules -- then do w/e the state law requires
E) Follow the state law from where the previous case's federal court sat (Klaxon) -- the do w/e that state law requires.

Someone else feel free to weigh in here, but here's my take: the issue has not been fully adjudicated until the appeal process is complete, so issue preclusion wouldn't kick in until afterward.

Assuming that the appeal went through and the judgment was affirmed, you're talking about non mutual offensive collateral estoppel, which is something courts are often reluctant to enforce because it encourages such devious strategic behavior on the part of plaintiffs' lawyers. Strictly speaking, there is issue preclusion in the second plaintiff's case, and there is no claim preclusion. However, if a court wasn't comfortable leaving the defendant vulnerable to potentially innumerable lawsuits going forward, it could claim that the second plaintiff was required to have intervened in the first suit if it wanted its piece of the pie and it opted not to, so it's not precluded from bringing this claim.

[BPLawl]

So to move the discussion towards con law here's my stream of consciousness thing:

Does anyone here on that fall con law grind understand scrutiny levels well? If so, please tear my analysis to threads.

My understanding:
Rational Basis ( Carolene/Wickard) - general deference to the legislature

Awkward middle child: Rational basis plus (Lawrence v. Texas) Is it heightened or not? No one's really sure.

Heightened:
Intermediate: Sex discrimination- effectively different justices treat differently, ( Ginsburg-closer to strict, Scalia- closer to rational)
Strict: Race distinctions (pro- or anti- minority post-Adarand), violations of fundamental right
Abortion/Privacy: strict scrutiny in name only, Casey actually applies a standard closer to Intermediate (???)

Also W/r/t Race distinctions: If facially discriminatory ---> strict scrutiny probably fails
if not facially discriminatory----> disparate impact + Arlington Heights factors (historical background of law + history of legislation + sequence of events + procedural departures + inconsistency )

^ Is that correct? Also, big ups for any help memorizing those factors. Like is there a pneumonic device somewhere? Holy mackarole, what a hot mess mouthful!


Also K's does promise for moral obligation/benefit received occasion restitution measure of damages? (RSC S86)
Is the measure of damages for an option contract typically expectancy? (RSC S87)

I think that's basically right. Our con law prof says strict is only for classifications based on race, national origin, and alienage. Intermediate is sex. Rational is everything else.

*disclaimer- haven't got to the gay rights cases yet, that's this week. Also I don't think I really figured out where abortion fits into all that. Is it intermediate?

I don't understand where abortion is. My understand is that explicitly it's strict, but implicitly it tends closer to intermediate because we're balancing other policy objectives...maybe? Bump on that question

[BigZuck]

P v. D and P wins in federal court. D appeals, and while D appeals.. new plaintiff sues D in state court hoping to get preclusive effect from case 1.

The state court does:

A) Follow fed law of issue preclusion and give preclusive effect
B) follow fed law of claim preclusion and give preclusive effect
C) give no res judicata b/c first judgment is not yet final
D) Follow NY law regarding res judicata b/c forum may apply its own choice-of-law rules -- then do w/e the state law requires
E) Follow the state law from where the previous case's federal court sat (Klaxon) -- the do w/e that state law requires.

Someone else feel free to weigh in here, but here's my take: the issue has not been fully adjudicated until the appeal process is complete, so issue preclusion wouldn't kick in until afterward.

Assuming that the appeal went through and the judgment was affirmed, you're talking about non mutual offensive collateral estoppel, which is something courts are often reluctant to enforce because it encourages such devious strategic behavior on the part of plaintiffs' lawyers. Strictly speaking, there is issue preclusion in the second plaintiff's case, and there is no claim preclusion. However, if a court wasn't comfortable leaving the defendant vulnerable to potentially innumerable lawsuits going forward, it could claim that the second plaintiff was required to have intervened in the first suit if it wanted its piece of the pie and it opted not to, so it's not precluded from bringing this claim.

Haven't got to issue preclusion yet but I'm pretty sure that for claim preclusion, a judgment is "final" even if the appeal process hasn't finished yet.

But maybe issue preclusion is different? If so, disregard.

[First Offense]

P v. D and P wins in federal court. D appeals, and while D appeals.. new plaintiff sues D in state court hoping to get preclusive effect from case 1.

The state court does:

A) Follow fed law of issue preclusion and give preclusive effect
B) follow fed law of claim preclusion and give preclusive effect
C) give no res judicata b/c first judgment is not yet final
D) Follow NY law regarding res judicata b/c forum may apply its own choice-of-law rules -- then do w/e the state law requires
E) Follow the state law from where the previous case's federal court sat (Klaxon) -- the do w/e that state law requires.

Someone else feel free to weigh in here, but here's my take: the issue has not been fully adjudicated until the appeal process is complete, so issue preclusion wouldn't kick in until afterward.

Assuming that the appeal went through and the judgment was affirmed, you're talking about non mutual offensive collateral estoppel, which is something courts are often reluctant to enforce because it encourages such devious strategic behavior on the part of plaintiffs' lawyers. Strictly speaking, there is issue preclusion in the second plaintiff's case, and there is no claim preclusion. However, if a court wasn't comfortable leaving the defendant vulnerable to potentially innumerable lawsuits going forward, it could claim that the second plaintiff was required to have intervened in the first suit if it wanted its piece of the pie and it opted not to, so it's not precluded from bringing this claim.

Haven't got to issue preclusion yet but I'm pretty sure that for claim preclusion, a judgment is "final" even if the appeal process hasn't finished yet.

But maybe issue preclusion is different? If so, disregard.

Issue Preclusion is. You have to have the opportunity to fully litigate the issue to a final judgment, including appeals if they decide to pursue it. If I recall, default judgments aren't given Issue Preclusion either (while they are given claim preclusion).

[justgottabezen]

rule against perpetuities plz....

Barbri lectures by professor Franzese break it down really well. And then do lots of practice Qs if your prof is super into RAP like mine is Makdisi's estates book is great because it had tons of examples and answers.

[justgottabezen]

I know I'm just a lowly 1L but to all the other 1Ls out there struggling: watch the Barbri lectures, especially for Property and CivPro. For Civpro, the E and E and the Glannon Guide are fantastic. My prof has a PJ "big picture" lecture he posted on youtube too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzqkZgk06a8
For Property, if you have that shitty Dukeminier book use a commercial outline like Emanuels, and Makdisi's estates book. It may be more in depth than your prof will go but if you know the hard stuff when you get to the exam it's gonna be a cake walk. RAP is explained really well in Barbri lectures. Cali lessons are great for practice. Contracts BLL has a lot of practice q's which are helpful.

Good luck on finals!

[Zensack]

Is malpractice its own separate tort, or just a special type of negligence? If it's separate, what are the elements a plaintiff needs to satisfy? How exactly does a violation of informed consent fit in (assuming battery is off the table)?

[chem!]

Is malpractice its own separate tort, or just a special type of negligence? If it's separate, what are the elements a plaintiff needs to satisfy? How exactly does a violation of informed consent fit in (assuming battery is off the table)?

I understand it to be a specific type of negligence, and the lack of informed consent goes to establish breach.

[sublime]

..

[Easy-E]

This might be too broad of question for anyone to feel like answering, but can anyone explain when notice of acceptance is required in contracts? Does it depend on Restatment/UCC/CL, or is it based on whether acceptance is invited by performance or a promise? My notes are kinda weak on this.

[lhanvt13]

For attempt, do I have to commit all the relevant mens rea elements in order to be convicted of attempt? Like, say a crime of pooping is having the desire to poop and the knowledge of poop coming out and pooping in the toilet. desire to poop and knowledge of poop would have to be met without the actus reus of pooping and the circumstance of in a toilet be met. is that right?

I need sleep

Never mind.