1L Substantive Law Questions (c/o 2017) Forum

[Stylistics]

Just finished Civ Pro midterm and am absolutely furious with the prof. It was a super basic question. The question read something like, if P files in state court is there SMJ? If P files in federal court is there SMJ?

How could the MAJOR essay be so narrow? I would have loved to break down PJ, Supplemental J, Eerie, etc.

But no, we just get asked if there is SMJ when D1 is a Corp. with citizenship in DE and MA, D2 is a US Citizen domiciled in London, and P is domiciled in MA. 3 claims. C1 & C2 were against both D's for violating a patent and C3 was against D3 for a conversion case ($100k)that brought up a novel point of law.

I actually did mention Eerie a little regarding C3. But my point is....

IS THIS DUDE SERIOUS!!! I justurdered myself prepping for this midterm and you ask a question we could have answered after week 3!!??!?!??

1. SMJ in state court? State courts don't have any limitations on SMJ. But patent is exclusively fed, BUT Gunn v. Minton? Yes SMJ over C3
2. SMJ in fed court? Obviously FQ in C1 & C2. Diversity over C3? P needs to be diverse with BOTH DE and MA because a Corp is a citizen of both. So no diversityJ over C3.
3. But if C3 is intrinsically tied to C1 & C2 federal questions, then maybe Supp J.

What more is there to say? Everyone would say the same answer.

[pancakes3]

I've seen that exact hypo except the conversion case was brought against D2.

[JustHawkin]

Can someone give me the idiots guide to interpleader?

[jmo76]

Civ Pro

Can you ask a person being deposed to apply law to fact like you can with interrogatories?

[BVest]

Can someone give me the idiots guide to interpleader?

As in what it is? Basically you're saying that there's an issue that needs to be worked out between two other parties to allow you to complete your own business and avoid double-liability. Basically there are two types of interpleader (though the distinction doesn't matter for your civ pro exam... it just helps to recognize both situations):

Disinterested interpleader -- Example: Jeweler sells a yet-unmade custom engagement ring to an unmarried couple Jack and Jill. They pay $150,000 in full. By the time the ring is finished, Jack and Jill split up. The jeweler clearly doesn't own the ring, but if he gives it to the Jack, and it later turns out that Jill is the rightful owner, he could end up sued by Jill for the value of the ring (or vice versa). So the jeweler brings an action in interpleader to force the couple to reach a legal conclusion, allowing the jeweler to give the ring to the right person.

Interested interpleader -- Assume the same facts, but now Jack and Jill pay $100,000 down, with the remaining 50,000 due on completion. Now that the couple is split up and the ring is completed, the Jeweler sues to collect the balance AND find out who to give the ring to.

Here's a sample interpleader complaint where the US Government seized a bunch of money from a pyramid scheme and is now interpleading all of the investors so that the courts can determine how much of the seized funds should be paid back to each of the investors.

My "mnemonic" for Interpleader and Impleader (not really a mnemonic, since it actually uses the prefix meaning in one case) is:
INTERpleader => this suit is really between two other people
Impleader => I'm IMPLying that it's someone else's fault

[JustHawkin]

Thanks Bvest!

[I, Kandi]

Civ Pro (such a basic question I made a burner account just to ask it)

Joinder of defendants under 20a. X gets t-boned in his car by bad driver Y. When firetruck arrives, X gets hit in head with ladder by negligent fireman Z. X moves to join the defendants. They are transactionally related (let's just assume, since that's not the real heart of my question).

Assuming the defendants get joined, X files a complaint w/ 2 counts -- one saying Y was negligent, one saying Z was negligent. Y and Z in no way contributed to each other's interaction with X. Are Y and Z technically co-defendants, or does joining them simply mean that the trial will proceed as one trial but the counts are handled separately?

Basically what I'm asking is when defendants get joined, does that mean they are both on the hook as a unit, or do they move separately (separate answers, separate liability) and are just 'joined' in the sense of being in a single trial for efficiency sake?

(I promise I'm not an idiot; we just blew through joinder so fast, and I can't find a good answer in E&E, etc.)

[NYSStateOfMind]

Contracts

I have in my notes that the statute of fraud doesn't apply to waivers. Does anyone know why this would be (if it is correct)?

[foundingfather]

Torts - Products Liability

Attacking products liability hypo that will tell me I'm in either a RST or RTT jurisdiction

wat do? any resources appreciated.

also - magnets: how do they work?

[sesto elemento]

Contracts

I have in my notes that the statute of fraud doesn't apply to waivers. Does anyone know why this would be (if it is correct)?

Because waivers can be done under consent or if its not material terms then it can be done without consent. Look at Clark v. West where some dude was told to write K casebook but w/o drinking and would get paid 5 bucks per page. If he drank he'd get 2 bucks per page. Bro went HAM on the whiskey finished the K and still got paid the 5 bucks because the drinking requirement was waivable.

[BVest]

Contracts

I have in my notes that the statute of fraud doesn't apply to waivers. Does anyone know why this would be (if it is correct)?

That is correct. See UCC 2-209. The reasoning is that the waiving party has forborne exercising their rights (e.g. a vendor's rights to be paid in a timely fashion) by previously accepting the amended performance (late payments) of the customer without enforcing the remedies available to them in the K for late payments. This puts the vendor in a position of complicity with the customer's continued late payments. Having been complicit in the late payments, the vendor cannot then turn around and use the SOF to take advantage of the late payments for gain (such as, after accepting 6 late payments, turn around and sue for contractual late fees and interest for the 6 late payments).

The vendor is not left without any remedy though. Waiver itself can be corrected unilaterally retracted by the vendor by asserting that he seeks to strictly enforce the K from here on out. That's why Waiver is favored as an interpretation over any parol evidence "Meaning" interpretations of the vendor's actions like Course of Performance that would effectively modify the K.

[chargers]

Crim Law Question

Is there any difference between accomplice liability (if you are in a jurisdiction that follows natural & probable consequences doctrine) and conspiratorial liability under Pinkerton?

For example:
A, B, & C agree to rob a bank. A waits in the car, B & C go inside. Things get ugly and C ends up shooting and killing someone.


Only C committed the substantive crime, but could A & B be held liable for murder under both accomplice liability & conspiratorial liability. It is natural & probable a bank robbery could lead to that, and conspiratorial liability because it is within the scope of the conspiracy and done in furtherance of it? Do they normally always overlap? Would A & B be charged as principals or accomplices?

[pancakes3]

Crim Law Question

Is there any difference between accomplice liability (if you are in a jurisdiction that follows natural & probable consequences doctrine) and conspiratorial liability under Pinkerton?

For example:
A, B, & C agree to rob a bank. A waits in the car, B & C go inside. Things get ugly and C ends up shooting and killing someone.


Only C committed the substantive crime, but could A & B be held liable for murder under both accomplice liability & conspiratorial liability. It is natural & probable a bank robbery could lead to that, and conspiratorial liability because it is within the scope of the conspiracy and done in furtherance of it? Do they normally always overlap? Would A & B be charged as principals or accomplices?

Well, going by how we learned it...

Accessorial liability:
If you apply the MPC, A and B lack the MR for the murder under 2.06.
If you extend accessorial liability through the decision in Fountain, A and B are still not liable since they had no knowledge that C was going to shoot the guard.
If you extend accessorial liability further through Luparello/Roy, as long as it's foreseeable that C would shoot the guard AND it's in furtherance of the crime, A and B are accomplices.

Conspiracy (I'm shaky on this so if someone can chime in re: Pinkerton, it'd be much appreciated): As long as you establish conspiracy and the jx allows for Pinkerton, A and B are liable via Pinkerton.

Question re: Pinkerton - we were taught that it's a vague, and rarely used - even allowable extension of liability. The analogy given was that say Chargers and I are both drug dealers. We're in a conspiracy for drug saleS - not just the sale of a single drug. As such, his sales are my sales and mine his. That's under pinkerton. Then one day someone doesn't pay up and Chargers shoots him to get his money. If it's reasonably foreseeable that Chargers would do so, and it's in furtherance of the crime, pinkerton now pins a murder charge to me too? I'm going to assume so until someone corrects me.

[sesto elemento]

Property

Difference between Notice and Race-notice?

[foundingfather]

Property

Difference between Notice and Race-notice?

sorry for the 100th edit, but this is assuming the "bona fide purchaser" was trying to record, meaning he bought the property at a reasonable price and had no notice of the preceding purchasing AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE. if he finds out after he buys it, he's still considered a bona fide purchaser and able to record. however, if he purchased the property with knowledge of all the shenanigans going on with the deed, the info below does not apply

Recording Statutes
1. Notice Statutes: A subsequent purchaser, who has NO notice of the prior instrument, prevails over a prior grantee who has not recorded.
• If O sells to A, who does not record, and then O sells to B, B wins against A unless B had notice of the earlier transaction at the time of purchase
• Subsequent purchaser must be in good faith, cannot know about previous transaction.
• Opposite of common law, LAST person gets property
• Rationale is to get people to record
• Notice needs to be ACTUAL NOTICE. (need to be told outright)
Shelter Principle: you can shelter someone else when you are the one that is going to lose out. Since the 3rd party has no notice, he will win if he records first. Law protects the innocent.—goes to last person
• giving someone benefit of their ignorance (example of laundering money though checks)

2. Race Statutes: The first person to record wins.

3. Race-Notice Statutes: The second purchaser only wins if he takes without notice and also records first.

[sesto elemento]

Thank you FF!

Property

Someone learn me on takings. Or answer the following plz: If an exaction does not meet the Nolan-Dolan standard, that means its a taking and the gov should compensate correct?

[Stylistics]

Thank you FF!

Property

Someone learn me on takings. Or answer the following plz: If an exaction does not meet the Nolan-Dolan standard, that means its a taking and the gov should compensate correct?

To your specific question: Yes. Koontz v. St John 2013 extended Nollan/Dolan to basically all exactions.

Give one Take one: Can someone/a company be liable for product liability if the product itself were fine but they botch the installation?

Like say someone comes to install a washing machine or fridge or some other appliance for you. The product itself is fine but he messes up the electric plug or the water hose or something, but the plug and the water hose themselves are made fine.

Is it strict product liability, some other kind, or just plain negligence (duty to install competently etc). Does it really matter? Because if you prove plain negligence then you'd win whether the standard was strict or vanilla negligence. Just say "the installation guy messed up, foreseeable, etc"

Also, Question2: Property
What do you have to show in order to demonstrate that violating a negative covenant reverts back to heirs and assignees?

Do you have to show touch & concern, or some type of future interest (fee simple determinable etc), or what? Whatever it is you have to show, how do you show it?

[Stylistics]

Civ Pro (such a basic question I made a burner account just to ask it)

Joinder of defendants under 20a. X gets t-boned in his car by bad driver Y. When firetruck arrives, X gets hit in head with ladder by negligent fireman Z. X moves to join the defendants. They are transactionally related (let's just assume, since that's not the real heart of my question).

Assuming the defendants get joined, X files a complaint w/ 2 counts -- one saying Y was negligent, one saying Z was negligent. Y and Z in no way contributed to each other's interaction with X. Are Y and Z technically co-defendants, or does joining them simply mean that the trial will proceed as one trial but the counts are handled separately?

Basically what I'm asking is when defendants get joined, does that mean they are both on the hook as a unit, or do they move separately (separate answers, separate liability) and are just 'joined' in the sense of being in a single trial for efficiency sake?

(I promise I'm not an idiot; we just blew through joinder so fast, and I can't find a good answer in E&E, etc.)

Well if you're using Rule 20, then you need a question of fact or law common to both defendants. The common question also has to be substantial. If Y and Z literally had nothing to do with each other except Y created the need for Z to be there, then you'd have to know a bit about tort law to determine whether Y is responsible for creating a rescue situation. But assuming CivPro assumes you know no Torts, it's easy to say that if Y and Z have nothing to do with each other, then there's no substantial question common to both defendants and they shouldn't be joined under Rule 20a.

Also a common result after a Rule 20a joinder is that the judge can split it up into essentially 2 trials. Rule 42 I think.

[hailcaesar34]

Foe 2nd degree depraved heart murder, can intoxication work as a defense for the subjectively being aware of the risk?

[03152016]

Foe 2nd degree depraved heart murder, can intoxication work as a defense for the subjectively being aware of the risk?

intoxication is generally not a defense to general intent crimes
self-induced intoxication is considered reckless conduct – one knows they will be impaired and may jeopardize the safety of others
however, intoxication can be a defense to specific intent crimes, so, for example, 1st degree murder might be mitigated to 2nd degree

[Stylistics]

Foe 2nd degree depraved heart murder, can intoxication work as a defense for the subjectively being aware of the risk?

Yes because intoxication negates specific intent. MPC always recognizes intox if it negates an element.

2 points:

1. But 187s are touchy subjects, some states have abolished voluntary intox for that group of offenses even if it negates specific intent.

2. 2nd degree is extreme recklessness and even if the intoxication means you're not aware of something, your decision to become voluntarily intoxicated can satisfy extreme recklessness. There was a case in my casebook about a guy's DUI down the wrong side of the highway and that was enough to demonstrate extreme recklessness. AFAIK it's not an outlier rule.

Now can someone answer my above 2 questions re: Torts and Property?

[twenty]

The key words (for MPC) are "extreme recklessness" or, for common law, "depraved heart." It has to be outside the boundaries of plain old recklessness.

Guy is driving 45 mph in a 30 zone and is a beer and a half over the legal limit; kills someone who is jay-walking. very difficult to show depraved heart murder.

Guy is a beer and a half over the legal limit when he thinks to himself "Old people are irritating - we all know they can move faster, but they move slowly just to annoy everyone else. I'll prove it by driving my car straight at them; then let's see how fast they move!" fully expecting that anyone he drives his car into is going to jump out of the way to avoid being killed. intox probably won't be a defense to ER/DH.

edit> disclaimer, 1L

[03152016]

The key words (for MPC) are "extreme recklessness" or, for common law, "depraved heart." It has to be outside the boundaries of plain old recklessness.

Guy is driving 45 mph in a 30 zone and is a beer and a half over the legal limit; kills someone who is jay-walking. very difficult to show depraved heart murder.

Guy is a beer and a half over the legal limit when he thinks to himself "Old people are irritating - we all know they can move faster, but they move slowly just to annoy everyone else. I'll prove it by driving my car straight at them; then let's see how fast they move!" fully expecting that anyone he drives his car into is going to jump out of the way to avoid being killed. intox probably won't be a defense to ER/DH.

edit> disclaimer, 1L

ya it doesn't operate as a defense unless it's substantial enough intoxication to negate the mental element
tho it's such a narrow band that, as a practical matter, i'd argue extreme recklessness and recklessness are functionally indistinguishable as it pertains to the applicability of an intoxication defense
i think it's the broader specific/general distinction re: intoxication defense doing the work
which is a deeply flawed and arbitrary rule, but that's another can of worms

[Thrive]

Special motives in the MPC. They are free floating. Do they also modify the rest of the statute or is the culpability embedded in them separate?

[TheSpanishMain]

Civ pro question on the 12B defenses that are "lost" if not raised prior. Does that include answers, or only motions? For example, could I raise the improper service defense in a pre-trial motion if I hadn't raised it in an answer?