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
BVest
Posts: 5682
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

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

Postby BVest » Mon May 12, 2014 12:39 am

emarxnj wrote:What's the functional difference between summary judgment (R.56) and judgement as a matter of law (R.50)?

MSJ: Before Trial (e.g. after discovery)
JMOL: During Trial (e.g. after plaintiff's case)

Here's more if you want it:


JMOL:
Soonest: When opponent “has been fully heard with respect to an issue” (e.g. in negligence case, after P presents negligence case but before they go into damages)
Latests: party must move for JMOL before case goes to jury
Standard: must be “no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for” the nonmoving party

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

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

Postby iworkforlsac » Mon May 12, 2014 12:50 am

BVest wrote:
iworkforlsac wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:
iworkforlsac wrote:Question w/r/t Subject Matter Jx. for civ pro:

I was working through one of my prof's past exams and in it I saw:

A plaintiff bringing both state law + fed law claims, with no indication of the amount-in-controversy.
Also, there is complete diversity between the P and D.

Could this be a claim based on 1332 jx (assuming $$ req was met)? 1331? Both? Would appreciate help from someone who knows the answer to this. Thxxx


It doesn't really look like there is a whole lot of info to go off of. Did you abridge the question? It probably satisfies 1332, but that's because you assume complete diversity in the question.

For 1331 you need to go go through a constitutional and statutory inquiry, e.g., through each arises under test (Well-pleaded complaint; Holmes Creation: Grable and Sons). There's no other way t parse the state and federal law claims unless you go through each test but you have no info to really do that here.


OIC.
In the fact pattern, there is no indication whether P brought the Fed claim pursuant to the "well-pleaded complaint" rule; neither does it give enough to go through the Grable factors for the fed law claim.
It just says P sued D1 and D2 for "conspiracy in violation of federal antitrust law and a MA antitrust statute that provides a parallel cause of action under state law."
(again, assume complete diversity between P and D1/D2)

Enough to elicit a different response?


Not sure if this is what the question is looking for, but with a claim for conspiracy in violation of fed antitrust law it seems like it's begging for you to at least mention Twombly, even if it's just one sentence that if there's not a sufficient A-i-C to uphold the diversity aspect then you'll have to consider whether the complain alleges sufficient specificity of facts to present a plausible claim. I mean, at its non-procedural core, Twombly was a federal antitrust conspiracy claim, no?


I see. That does make sense, since a whole chunk of the fact pattern also begs for Erie analysis where there is a conflict between state & fed standard of pleading.
On that note, w/r/t that conflict of pleading standards, how would you go about Erie? Would you do Hanna/REA saying FRCP 8(a)(2) is on point and so go with the FRCP, or do Erie/RDA arguing FRCP 8 is not really on point (because of Twombly/Iqbal)?

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5693
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Mon May 12, 2014 12:55 am

BVest wrote:
emarxnj wrote:What's the functional difference between summary judgment (R.56) and judgement as a matter of law (R.50)?

MSJ: Before Trial (e.g. after discovery)
JMOL: During Trial (e.g. after plaintiff's case)

Here's more if you want it:


JMOL:
Soonest: When opponent “has been fully heard with respect to an issue” (e.g. in negligence case, after P presents negligence case but before they go into damages)
Latests: party must move for JMOL before case goes to jury
Standard: must be “no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for” the nonmoving party


So as far as JMOL timing, I thought D can motion after P rests, then after D rests either P or D could motion for it. But it can be after any ISSUE has been fully heard, so D could just do it right in the middle of P's presentation.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5693
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Mon May 12, 2014 1:50 am

is this state/federal law analysis complete? We only covered Erie, Guaranty, and Hanna


1. Is there FRCP on point?
-If YES go to #2
-If NO go to #3

2. Is there a conflict between the state law and FRCP?
-If NO, apply both (one could accommodate the other)
-If YES, continue
2a. Is it Constitutional/within the REA (it almost always is)?
-If YES, use FRCP
-If NO, use the state rule (this isn't going to happen though)

3. Is there a conflict between federal common law practice and state law?
-If NO, apply both
-If YES, continue
3a. Does it go against the twin aims of "Erie" and Harlan's concurrence? (my professor wants this as well)
-If YES, use state law
-If NO, use federal law

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5682
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

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

Postby BVest » Mon May 12, 2014 1:55 am

emarxnj wrote:
BVest wrote:
emarxnj wrote:What's the functional difference between summary judgment (R.56) and judgement as a matter of law (R.50)?

MSJ: Before Trial (e.g. after discovery)
JMOL: During Trial (e.g. after plaintiff's case)

Here's more if you want it:


JMOL:
Soonest: When opponent “has been fully heard with respect to an issue” (e.g. in negligence case, after P presents negligence case but before they go into damages)
Latests: party must move for JMOL before case goes to jury
Standard: must be “no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for” the nonmoving party


So as far as JMOL timing, I thought D can motion after P rests, then after D rests either P or D could motion for it. But it can be after any ISSUE has been fully heard, so D could just do it right in the middle of P's presentation.


Right. That's what this part is all about: "on a claim [... that ... ]can be maintained ... only with a favorable finding on that issue." For example, in a negligence or strict liability case is being tried where the P has been left disabled and will not be able to work in his previous lucrative career field, if the P fails to put forward any evidence that a reasonable jury could find proves causation, there is no need for the court' to hear experts testify for a couple of days about how he would have made $xx a year for yy years and now he'll never make more than $zz dollars a year and will die at a younger age.

User avatar
Easy-E
Posts: 5693
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 pm

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

Postby Easy-E » Mon May 12, 2014 1:58 am

BVest wrote:
emarxnj wrote:
BVest wrote:
emarxnj wrote:What's the functional difference between summary judgment (R.56) and judgement as a matter of law (R.50)?

MSJ: Before Trial (e.g. after discovery)
JMOL: During Trial (e.g. after plaintiff's case)

Here's more if you want it:


JMOL:
Soonest: When opponent “has been fully heard with respect to an issue” (e.g. in negligence case, after P presents negligence case but before they go into damages)
Latests: party must move for JMOL before case goes to jury
Standard: must be “no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for” the nonmoving party


So as far as JMOL timing, I thought D can motion after P rests, then after D rests either P or D could motion for it. But it can be after any ISSUE has been fully heard, so D could just do it right in the middle of P's presentation.


Right. That's what this part is all about: "on a claim [... that ... ]can be maintained ... only with a favorable finding on that issue." For example, in a negligence or strict liability case is being tried where the P has been left disabled and will not be able to work in his previous lucrative career field, if the P fails to put forward any evidence that a reasonable jury could find proves causation, there is no need for the court' to hear experts testify for a couple of days about how he would have made $xx a year for yy years and now he'll never make more than $zz dollars a year and will die at a younger age.


Makes perfect sense, thank you. I just posted my Erie analysis, its the last thing I can do tonight before I collapse. I just want to make sure it's complete. I feel like I'm missing a determination between substantive vs. procedural law in there, but maybe that came from a case we didn't read? Not clear on it.

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

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

Postby iworkforlsac » Mon May 12, 2014 2:37 am

Makes perfect sense, thank you. I just posted my Erie analysis, its the last thing I can do tonight before I collapse. I just want to make sure it's complete. I feel like I'm missing a determination between substantive vs. procedural law in there, but maybe that came from a case we didn't read? Not clear on it.[/quote]

Thanks, really appreciate it. Good luck w/ Civ Pro, seems like we're in the same boat as of now.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

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

Postby jbagelboy » Wed May 14, 2014 5:28 pm

Can anyone explain MPC 2.02(9) to me? I don't really understand what it's trying to say, and what it's relationship is to mistake of law. Thanks!

User avatar
jumpin munkey
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:03 pm

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

Postby jumpin munkey » Wed May 14, 2014 6:46 pm

I think 2.02(9) is just setting down the general rule that the prosecutor doesn't need to prove a mens rea with regard to the existence of the law. (And then the unstated exceptions are unless it negates actual mens rea for the offense or if the offense requires a mens rea as to the existence of the law.)

kcam1991
Posts: 152
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 11:26 am

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

Postby kcam1991 » Wed May 14, 2014 10:23 pm

Is there any jurisdiction that recognizes attempted involuntary manslaughter?

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 21880
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

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

Postby Nebby » Thu May 15, 2014 10:27 am

kcam1991 wrote:Is there any jurisdiction that recognizes attempted involuntary manslaughter?


Colorado has a case on this.

People v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Colorado, 1986
729 P.2d 972

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

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

Postby Rahviveh » Sat May 24, 2014 10:48 pm

Is this thread still alive?

Did anyone find the crim and contracts Barbri lectures useful? My contracts class does not use the UCC, and my crim class does a mix of the MPC/CL.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15409
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Sat May 24, 2014 10:49 pm

..

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 » Fri May 30, 2014 5:19 pm

Thanks for all the help everyone. I found this thread personally pretty useful this past year and for future TLSers I would recommend it.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15409
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Fri May 30, 2014 6:28 pm

..

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3898
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

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

Postby pancakes3 » Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:50 am

Bump tag?

SowhatsNU
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm

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

Postby SowhatsNU » Wed Apr 15, 2015 10:21 am

.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: santoki and 6 guests