Top Law Schools

Charger wrote:

musicfor18 wrote:

Charger wrote:Can someone clarify remittitur and additur and when each can be used in federal court and in CA?

Remittitur can be used in federal and state court. Additur can only be used in state court because it violates the 7th Amendment. The reason state courts can use it is because the 7th Amendment hasn't been incorporated to apply to the states. In terms of when they're used, I think remittitur is used when a D moves for a new trial on the ground that the jury awarded excessive damages. If the judge agrees, the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower judgment or having a new trial. Additur is the opposite. If it appears the jury's damage award was lower than any reasonable juror could have found, then the state judge can give the P a choice between accepting a higher damage award or getting a new trial.

I'm confused. Critical Pass cards say, "Federal court cannot reduce jury award (violates 7th Amendment) but judge can order a new trial or offer remittitur or additur if convinced award is too high or low."

So the CP cards are making it seem like both can be used, provided that the party making the motion is given the choice of adding/reducing award and a new trial. Are the cards just wrong?

Charger wrote: I'm confused. Critical Pass cards say, "Federal court cannot reduce jury award (violates 7th Amendment) but judge can order a new trial or offer remittitur or additur if convinced award is too high or low."

Charger wrote:

musicfor18 wrote:

Charger wrote:Can someone clarify remittitur and additur and when each can be used in federal court and in CA?

Remittitur can be used in federal and state court. Additur can only be used in state court because it violates the 7th Amendment. The reason state courts can use it is because the 7th Amendment hasn't been incorporated to apply to the states. In terms of when they're used, I think remittitur is used when a D moves for a new trial on the ground that the jury awarded excessive damages. If the judge agrees, the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower judgment or having a new trial. Additur is the opposite. If it appears the jury's damage award was lower than any reasonable juror could have found, then the state judge can give the P a choice between accepting a higher damage award or getting a new trial.

I'm confused. Critical Pass cards say, "Federal court cannot reduce jury award (violates 7th Amendment) but judge can order a new trial or offer remittitur or additur if convinced award is too high or low."

So the CP cards are making it seem like both can be used, provided that the party making the motion is given the choice of adding/reducing award and a new trial. Are the cards just wrong?

Edit: also, additur means adding to the jury award, right? Which you say can be used in state court only. But the critical pass cards say federal court cannot reduce award, which would be remittitur, right? I'm so confused.

musicfor18 wrote: The CP cards are mostly right. It's correct that the judge can't lower the damage award, but the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower damage award or having a new trial. If the CP cards say additur is permissible in federal court, they're wrong. The Supreme Court has held that it violates the 7th Amendment. The only reason it's allowed in state court is that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to states.

kyle010723 wrote:

musicfor18 wrote: The CP cards are mostly right. It's correct that the judge can't lower the damage award, but the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower damage award or having a new trial. If the CP cards say additur is permissible in federal court, they're wrong. The Supreme Court has held that it violates the 7th Amendment. The only reason it's allowed in state court is that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to states.

Are we sure about additur does not apply in Fed Court? It can apply if it is sitting in diversity right?

kyle010723 wrote:

musicfor18 wrote: The CP cards are mostly right. It's correct that the judge can't lower the damage award, but the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower damage award or having a new trial. If the CP cards say additur is permissible in federal court, they're wrong. The Supreme Court has held that it violates the 7th Amendment. The only reason it's allowed in state court is that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to states.

Are we sure about additur does not apply in Fed Court? It can apply if it is sitting in diversity right?

BVest wrote:

kyle010723 wrote:

musicfor18 wrote: The CP cards are mostly right. It's correct that the judge can't lower the damage award, but the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower damage award or having a new trial. If the CP cards say additur is permissible in federal court, they're wrong. The Supreme Court has held that it violates the 7th Amendment. The only reason it's allowed in state court is that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to states.

Are we sure about additur does not apply in Fed Court? It can apply if it is sitting in diversity right?

There's no case law either way, besides Erie. Since no one knows whether they could use additur for a state law case, it's not a testable question on an exam that's supposed to have right answers.

charlesxavier wrote:

kyle010723 wrote:

musicfor18 wrote: The CP cards are mostly right. It's correct that the judge can't lower the damage award, but the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower damage award or having a new trial. If the CP cards say additur is permissible in federal court, they're wrong. The Supreme Court has held that it violates the 7th Amendment. The only reason it's allowed in state court is that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to states.

Are we sure about additur does not apply in Fed Court? It can apply if it is sitting in diversity right?

This is mostly right but with remittitur judge gives the Plaintiff the choice between accepting less money and a new trial (not the D).

BVest wrote:

kyle010723 wrote:

musicfor18 wrote: The CP cards are mostly right. It's correct that the judge can't lower the damage award, but the judge can give the D a choice of accepting a lower damage award or having a new trial. If the CP cards say additur is permissible in federal court, they're wrong. The Supreme Court has held that it violates the 7th Amendment. The only reason it's allowed in state court is that the 7th Amendment doesn't apply to states.

Are we sure about additur does not apply in Fed Court? It can apply if it is sitting in diversity right?

There's no case law either way, besides Erie. Since no one knows whether they could use additur for a state law case, it's not a testable question on an exam that's supposed to have right answers.

Kage3212 wrote:Doing some crim law questions and trying to wrap my head around accomplice liability.

Does an accomplice need to have the specific intent that a crime be committed + aid, assist?

I could have sworn that I see answers that state "accomplice not guilty because no intent that crime be committed" and then "accomplice guilty because assistance foreseeably resulted in crime."

BVest wrote:

Kage3212 wrote:Doing some crim law questions and trying to wrap my head around accomplice liability.

Does an accomplice need to have the specific intent that a crime be committed + aid, assist?

I could have sworn that I see answers that state "accomplice not guilty because no intent that crime be committed" and then "accomplice guilty because assistance foreseeably resulted in crime."

Generally: Intent that crime be committed + intent to aid/assist wrongdoer as you stated. But when the mens rea for the underlying crime is recklessness or negligence, then those can replace the intent that the crime be committed.

Kage3212 wrote:

BVest wrote:

Kage3212 wrote:Doing some crim law questions and trying to wrap my head around accomplice liability.

Does an accomplice need to have the specific intent that a crime be committed + aid, assist?

I could have sworn that I see answers that state "accomplice not guilty because no intent that crime be committed" and then "accomplice guilty because assistance foreseeably resulted in crime."

Generally: Intent that crime be committed + intent to aid/assist wrongdoer as you stated. But when the mens rea for the underlying crime is recklessness or negligence, then those can replace the intent that the crime be committed.

Question was a guy goes to a gun store, tells owner he wants a gun to rob. Owner charges him 4x price for gun. Guy takes the gun and robs a store and kills the clerk. Says that the owner is an accomplice for the murder. I have a tough time delineating here because I dont see any specific intent on part of the gun shop owner to have any specific intent that the guy commit a robbery. Sure he knew about it, but I didn't mere knowledge rose to the level of having specific intent that the crime be committed.

N.P.H. wrote:When is it required that a modification of a contract be written?

Only when there's a SoF issue? (ie the modification itself is within the SoF??)

Tiago Splitter wrote:

N.P.H. wrote:When is it required that a modification of a contract be written?

Only when there's a SoF issue? (ie the modification itself is within the SoF??)

If after the modification you'd need a writing, then you need a writing for the modification. So if I agree to lease you land for 18 months and then we change it to 14 months, we need a writing for the change because a lease for 14 months on its own requires a writing.

For sales of goods under the UCC if the contract says you always need a writing for modifications the contract controls. So normally a modification of a sale of goods from $600 to $400 would not need a writing since it's going under $500. But if the original contract said you always need a writing the original contract wins out, and the court won't enforce the modification without a writing.

kyle010723 wrote:Just finished Mixed Set 7 and came in at 38/50. Most of my mistakes today were "[A] is not as good as " type of errors... Oh well. I'm done with studying for the MBE.

N.P.H. wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

N.P.H. wrote:When is it required that a modification of a contract be written?

Only when there's a SoF issue? (ie the modification itself is within the SoF??)

If after the modification you'd need a writing, then you need a writing for the modification. So if I agree to lease you land for 18 months and then we change it to 14 months, we need a writing for the change because a lease for 14 months on its own requires a writing.

For sales of goods under the UCC if the contract says you always need a writing for modifications the contract controls. So normally a modification of a sale of goods from $600 to $400 would not need a writing since it's going under $500. But if the original contract said you always need a writing the original contract wins out, and the court won't enforce the modification without a writing.

So under the UCC we don't need a writing if the contract is silent on the issue and we're under $500?

Thanks man.

RaleighStClair wrote:Today's the first day in about a month (aside from the 4th of July) that instead of studying within an hour of waking up, I just sat down and watched a movie. I can't tell you how good it feels. Burnout is real, you guys.

I'll probably put in a few hours later today, but that's it.