Here's a tip for you 0L's...... Forum

[motiontodismiss]

[Edit: though I will say it is very tempting to own somebody that is always a pompous ass to you and tries to make you feel below them all the time (and in the past) by being all, "well, that depends, viewing the situation through the lens of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the appellate court would likely....." and make them feel retarded.

Not that I ever do that, but I may for this one special person.

I'm Elle Woods. Miss Bonifante's attorney.
And I'm here to discuss the legal situation at hand.
Come again?
Do you understand what subject matter jurisdiction is?
- No. - I didn't think so.
Well, due to habeas corpus...
you and Miss Bonifante had a common law marriage...
which heretofore entitles her...
to what is legally referred to...
as equitable division of the assets.
Come again?
Due to the fact that you've retained this residence...
Miss Bonifante is entitled...
to full canine property ownership...
and will be enforcing said ownership right now.
Tell him, Paulette.
I'm taking the dog, dumbass!

Edit: WTF, SMJ, seriously?

Mens rea.

Respondeat superior.

If you think that's complicated, try Dred Scott v. Sandford. 160 pages total. For a decision that comes down to "Slaves are property, they can't be taken without due process, and moving to a free state is not due process. fuck off."

[mac.empress]

Respondeat superior.

If you think that's complicated, try Dred Scott v. Sandford. 160 pages total. For a decision that comes down to "Slaves are property, they can't be taken without due process, and moving to a free state is not due process. fuck off."

Since I have to know the holding of Dread Scott for Constitutional Law, thank you

[engineer]

Respondeat superior.

If you think that's complicated, try Dred Scott v. Sandford. 160 pages total. For a decision that comes down to "Slaves are property, they can't be taken without due process, and moving to a free state is not due process. fuck off."

Since I have to know the holding of Dread Scott for Constitutional Law, thank you

AWESOME, it looks like I don't have to know this case for con law. I have a 30 page limit on court opinions--if a judge can't make his point in 30 pages, or if an editor can't trim it down to 30 pages, I'm not going to read it.

[motiontodismiss]

Respondeat superior.

If you think that's complicated, try Dred Scott v. Sandford. 160 pages total. For a decision that comes down to "Slaves are property, they can't be taken without due process, and moving to a free state is not due process. fuck off."

Since I have to know the holding of Dread Scott for Constitutional Law, thank you

You're welcome.

Make sure to check on Westlaw though. I may be wrong.

[mac.empress]

Respondeat superior.

If you think that's complicated, try Dred Scott v. Sandford. 160 pages total. For a decision that comes down to "Slaves are property, they can't be taken without due process, and moving to a free state is not due process. fuck off."

Since I have to know the holding of Dread Scott for Constitutional Law, thank you

You're welcome.

Make sure to check on Westlaw though. I may be wrong.

I'm just gonna trust you on this one.

[keg411]

I know an attorney who writes like that when he wants to piss people off (he used to be an academic prior to law school).