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

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:52 pm

iworkforlsac wrote:Nice, thanks. Also, any thoughts on whether there can be an "attempted conspiracy?" this part of the law is rather confusing to me..



My understanding is that there cannot be an "attempted conspiracy" but as soon as there is an agreement, there is a conspiracy (and sometimes even if the "agreement" is feigned by an undercover cop, that's still valid). So even if nothing else happens, there is a conspiracy.

But, someone probably knows with more certainty than I.

iworkforlsac
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:35 am

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

Postby iworkforlsac » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:08 pm

Thanks, that's close to what I was guessing!

User avatar
lhanvt13
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:59 am

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

Postby lhanvt13 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:13 am

kay2016 wrote:
iworkforlsac wrote:Nice, thanks. Also, any thoughts on whether there can be an "attempted conspiracy?" this part of the law is rather confusing to me..



My understanding is that there cannot be an "attempted conspiracy" but as soon as there is an agreement, there is a conspiracy (and sometimes even if the "agreement" is feigned by an undercover cop, that's still valid). So even if nothing else happens, there is a conspiracy.

But, someone probably knows with more certainty than I.

bolded: I learned that some states require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

I don't think there's such a thing as attempted conspiracy. Maybe solicitation

User avatar
BluePurgatory
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:43 pm

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

Postby BluePurgatory » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:33 am

Hey everyone, just doing some late night practice testing and I had a question. Can community property ever be created between non-married couples? Excluding gay marriage which can have complicated rules, can couples agree to create community property without marriage? On this practice test, the question states "Andrew and Julie agreed to arrange their finances and property 'just like we were married.'" The hypo takes place in California, which is a community property state. I'm assuming the court would just construe it as a tenancy in common, but I'm not sure now.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5690
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:10 am

Late one...incapacity. This right?

Old rule: Party lacks mental ability to understand consequences/nature of actions
Modern rule: Unable to action in reasonable manner to K and other party has reason to know


So under modern rule, if you honestly didn't know/had no reason to know if other party's mental infirmity, the court may seek an equitable solution rather than just voiding K?

Nyclawyer618
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 2:32 pm

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

Postby Nyclawyer618 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:40 am

Hi.
Last edited by Nyclawyer618 on Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cynthia rose
Posts: 203
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:42 pm

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

Postby cynthia rose » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:25 pm

lhanvt13 wrote:
kay2016 wrote:
iworkforlsac wrote:Nice, thanks. Also, any thoughts on whether there can be an "attempted conspiracy?" this part of the law is rather confusing to me..



My understanding is that there cannot be an "attempted conspiracy" but as soon as there is an agreement, there is a conspiracy (and sometimes even if the "agreement" is feigned by an undercover cop, that's still valid). So even if nothing else happens, there is a conspiracy.

But, someone probably knows with more certainty than I.

bolded: I learned that some states require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

I don't think there's such a thing as attempted conspiracy. Maybe solicitation

Yeah, for the purposes of our crim code we learned that conspiracy is 1) two or more persons 2) conspiring to commit any offense and 3) one or more of those persons performing an overt act to achieve the goal of the conspiracy. There is no 'attempted' conspiracy; the conspiracy in itself is the attempt, I guess.

A feigned agreement by an undercover cop is an interesting scenario. That would offshoot into an entrapment defense, I would think.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

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

Postby sinfiery » Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:57 pm

When can parol evidence admit unilateral consideration? (Like, only add an obligation to 1 side)
If the contract is partially integrated? or partially integrated + other stuff?


Can parol evidence ever be admitted when it is completely integrated to add consideration to one side only?

Or does completely integrated only allow parol evidence to clarify a specific term? (It can do this if its completely integrated right? Under the UCC and Rsc?)

Swimp
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

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

Postby Swimp » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:14 pm

sinfiery wrote:When can parol evidence admit unilateral consideration? (Like, only add an obligation to 1 side)
If the contract is partially integrated? or partially integrated + other stuff?

If the K isn't integrated at all, then add whatever you like. If it's partially integrated, then as long as the additional term doesn't contradict anything in the writing and it might naturally be omitted, you're probably good to add it.

sinfiery wrote:Can parol evidence ever be admitted when it is completely integrated to add consideration to one side only?

Or does completely integrated only allow parol evidence to clarify a specific term? (It can do this if its completely integrated right? Under the UCC and Rsc?)

If a K is completely integrated, it's totally locked in. No changes of any kind.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

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

Postby sinfiery » Mon Dec 09, 2013 4:51 pm

Swimp wrote:
sinfiery wrote:When can parol evidence admit unilateral consideration? (Like, only add an obligation to 1 side)
If the contract is partially integrated? or partially integrated + other stuff?

If the K isn't integrated at all, then add whatever you like. If it's partially integrated, then as long as the additional term doesn't contradict anything in the writing and it might naturally be omitted, you're probably good to add it.

sinfiery wrote:Can parol evidence ever be admitted when it is completely integrated to add consideration to one side only?

Or does completely integrated only allow parol evidence to clarify a specific term? (It can do this if its completely integrated right? Under the UCC and Rsc?)

If a K is completely integrated, it's totally locked in. No changes of any kind.


solid, ty


new question:
What kind of remedies are available for duress? Just reversal of the situation to before the particular duress occurred?

Swimp
Posts: 493
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 9:32 am

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

Postby Swimp » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:01 pm

sinfiery wrote:What kind of remedies are available for duress? Just reversal of the situation to before the particular duress occurred?

Depends on the nature of the threat to some extent. For instance, if a party were threatening to breach a contract unless the other party did X, and there was no opportunity to form a suitable replacement contract, a court could order specific performance.

mu13ski
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:43 pm

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

Postby mu13ski » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:04 pm

Struggling on the difference between impleader (FRCP 14) and permissive joinder (FRCP 20)

Is it more complicated than impleader is used by defendant's to bring in other parties that may be liable and permissive joinder is used by the original plaintiff in setting up the suit?

arklaw13
Posts: 1703
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 2:36 pm

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

Postby arklaw13 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:35 pm

mu13ski wrote:Struggling on the difference between impleader (FRCP 14) and permissive joinder (FRCP 20)

Is it more complicated than impleader is used by defendant's to bring in other parties that may be liable and permissive joinder is used by the original plaintiff in setting up the suit?


Rule 20 is used by plaintiffs.

Rule 14 is used by defendants in a select few situations. Basically, the defendant is alleging that the impleaded party is liable to them (the defendant) if they (the defendant) are liable to the plaintiff. This arises in two main situations:

1. Impleaded party is the defendant's insurance company
2. The lawsuit is a tort action in a state with joint and several liability where there is more than one possible defendant but the plaintiff only sues one. The defendant impleads the other party if the state is one which allows the defendant to sue the other defendant for half of what the plaintiff is owed. So basically defendant is saying if I'm liable for negligence, then you owe me half of the judgment because you were a part of it.

User avatar
desiballa21
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:33 pm

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

Postby desiballa21 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:54 pm

If a judge orders a separate trial and it is adjudicated, is it a final decision and therefore appealable or do you have to wait for the other claims it was separated from to be adjudicated?

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:38 pm

Not exactly a BLL question, but seems better than asking in the other thread.


Does anyone know anywhere online that has a copy of the FRCP that has NOT been updated with the 12/1/13 changes?

I need to type out all the relevant ones instead of flipping through my book for my exam and it would be easier to copy/paste.

TY!

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

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

Postby Br3v » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:28 pm

kay2016 wrote:Not exactly a BLL question, but seems better than asking in the other thread.


Does anyone know anywhere online that has a copy of the FRCP that has NOT been updated with the 12/1/13 changes?

I need to type out all the relevant ones instead of flipping through my book for my exam and it would be easier to copy/paste.

TY!


is Cornell's updated?

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:29 pm

Br3v wrote:
kay2016 wrote:Not exactly a BLL question, but seems better than asking in the other thread.


Does anyone know anywhere online that has a copy of the FRCP that has NOT been updated with the 12/1/13 changes?

I need to type out all the relevant ones instead of flipping through my book for my exam and it would be easier to copy/paste.

TY!


is Cornell's updated?


Unfortunately. Darn them. I'm just flipping through at this point. Maybe it'll help me learn them if I don't cheat and copy/paste for my outline. :lol:

User avatar
North
Posts: 4041
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 7:09 pm

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

Postby North » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:05 am

Guys. Statutory interpretation in Crim. How do you do it? There's got to be a system/checklist that I don't know about.

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

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

Postby kay2016 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:09 am

North wrote:Guys. Statutory interpretation in Crim. How do you do it? There's got to be a system/checklist that I don't know about.


I don't have a checklist... But I basically looked at

Is the statute unconstitutional (legality issues, vagueness, over breadth, ex post facto issues)

If not.. What is the actus reus?

What is the mens rea? Is there a mens rea? If not is it SL or can we infer a mens rea from another statute?

Then apply it to the facts, then address defenses.

HTH.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

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

Postby feralinfant » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:41 am

BluePurgatory wrote:Hey everyone, just doing some late night practice testing and I had a question. Can community property ever be created between non-married couples? Excluding gay marriage which can have complicated rules, can couples agree to create community property without marriage? On this practice test, the question states "Andrew and Julie agreed to arrange their finances and property 'just like we were married.'" The hypo takes place in California, which is a community property state. I'm assuming the court would just construe it as a tenancy in common, but I'm not sure now.


Pretty sure you're right about the TIC since tenancy in the entirety has been abolished in most states. It might be getting into the weeds but depending on how broadly worried some state constituion stuff is about gay marriage some places, it may actually affect unmarried straight couples ability to live as a married couple.

So here's what i have on equitable distribution regarding how courts handle unmarried couples just in case it helps you sort out what a court might do with some heathens living in sin:

There can be essentially three approaches to unmarried couples apparently according to my notes when it comes to equitable distribution at least. Either a court will refuse to treat it as a marriage no matter what because of a prohibition on common law marriage. I get the sense this is less common today. The middle ground is to enforce written or oral agreements to provide support in exchange for services. There's a question of how explicit this has to be. The third approach will do equitable distribution even without agreements and will just try to look at the intent of the parties and if they intended to live like a married couple.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5690
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:57 am

North wrote:Guys. Statutory interpretation in Crim. How do you do it? There's got to be a system/checklist that I don't know about.


Relevant to my interests...

User avatar
lhanvt13
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:59 am

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

Postby lhanvt13 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:19 pm

cynthia rose wrote:
lhanvt13 wrote:
kay2016 wrote:
iworkforlsac wrote:Nice, thanks. Also, any thoughts on whether there can be an "attempted conspiracy?" this part of the law is rather confusing to me..



My understanding is that there cannot be an "attempted conspiracy" but as soon as there is an agreement, there is a conspiracy (and sometimes even if the "agreement" is feigned by an undercover cop, that's still valid). So even if nothing else happens, there is a conspiracy.

But, someone probably knows with more certainty than I.

bolded: I learned that some states require an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

I don't think there's such a thing as attempted conspiracy. Maybe solicitation

Yeah, for the purposes of our crim code we learned that conspiracy is 1) two or more persons 2) conspiring to commit any offense and 3) one or more of those persons performing an overt act to achieve the goal of the conspiracy. There is no 'attempted' conspiracy; the conspiracy in itself is the attempt, I guess.

A feigned agreement by an undercover cop is an interesting scenario. That would offshoot into an entrapment defense, I would think.


I think that depends on whether the jurisdiction uses the unilateral or bilateral conspiracy theory. Your last line would still be conspiracy on the non-under cover cop under the unilateral theory

User avatar
lhanvt13
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:59 am

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

Postby lhanvt13 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:22 pm

mu13ski wrote:Struggling on the difference between impleader (FRCP 14) and permissive joinder (FRCP 20)

Is it more complicated than impleader is used by defendant's to bring in other parties that may be liable and permissive joinder is used by the original plaintiff in setting up the suit?


R14: P ------------> D ---------Impleader--------> TPD
Impleader is only for D where the D says "he's liable for at least part of this! Bring him in!"

R20: 2 different
Plaintiff joining multiple defendants
P --------------> D1, D2, D3, D4, ..., Dn

OR

Multiple plaintiffs joining together
P1, P2, P3, P4 -----------------> D

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

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

Postby Br3v » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:35 pm

Criminal law

We say negligence is when the actor should have known of the risk and acts anyways.
But in deciding whether the actor acted as a reaosnable person we look at the "nature and purpose of the actors conduct, and the circumstances known to him"

So we look at the circumstances known to D, and then factor in if he should have been aware of the risk?

User avatar
moonman157
Posts: 1039
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:26 pm

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

Postby moonman157 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:01 pm

Erie Question.

Defendant moved, after he rested his case, for JML solely on the grounds that plaintiff's claim "did not implicate any public policy that could give rise to a wrongful termination claim" (what the suit was about). He lost, and the jury awarded $1 million punitive damages. He filed a RJML, reiterating his earlier argument and raising a new one that the punitive damages should be overturned because plaintiff did not prove that defendant acted maliciously. Plaintiff says that motion should be denied because defendant didn't raise that argument during his JML at the close of evidence. How should the court rule?




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests