Transpher wrote:Hope this helps -
Easements must be in writing UNLESS:
I'm printing this out and I will let you know tomorrow.
Thanks!
Transpher wrote:Hope this helps -
Easements must be in writing UNLESS:
Allow Scalia to clarify that he has nothing against those who wish to have sex with con law, he just doesn't see it as part of our history and tradition. We shouldn't just give in to the political pressure of the "conlaw screwing" agendaCharles Barkley wrote:On the one hand, the Court has recognized a right to sexual intimacy (Lawrence)... On the other hand, at its most narrow level of abstraction, the right to fuck a doctrinal class in the ass is not historically protected...Desert Fox wrote:Discuss if sodomy between a doctrinal class and a man is a fundamental right.Charles Barkley wrote:Oh and fuck you Con Law. Fuck you in the ass.
I feel better now.
I think you're my opposite. If you can cover easements, covenants, takings, and other shit, I'll do all your present and future interests, and R.A.P.snowpeach06 wrote:SDLKFJS:DLFKJS:DLfjk. Still don't get the rule against perpetuities in the least. I'm really slow with identifying future interests. I've done all my studying for property with a group, which seems like a time suck, but because my teacher has his own method and I didn't pay attention, it's kind of my only option. I just don't think I can learn everything in time. I tried to do a sample exam today and could hardly spot issues thing. And this estates and future interests, like, I dont' get why it isn't clicking. And my study group really bothers me. I swear, anything I wan to focus on, they want to do the opposite and then we never get to do what I want. And then they get mad at me for requesting that we do it. I know i get bitchy during finals. And nervous. And i can tell it makes them all like me less. But still.
Want to continue reading?
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
high fiveIthacaIsWet wrote:First exam, Property, in 12.5 hours.
Goodbye, GPA. Hello unemployment.
Last time I'll ask, I suppose:
Anyone have any good attack charts for easements?
Actually, I sort of can do that stuff (at least I fucking hope so). But, my teacher likes bullshit 'reasonableness' arguments. So, I don't know if I know it like its taught in other classes.IthacaIsWet wrote:I think you're my opposite. If you can cover easements, covenants, takings, and other shit, I'll do all your present and future interests, and R.A.P.snowpeach06 wrote:SDLKFJS:DLFKJS:DLfjk. Still don't get the rule against perpetuities in the least. I'm really slow with identifying future interests. I've done all my studying for property with a group, which seems like a time suck, but because my teacher has his own method and I didn't pay attention, it's kind of my only option. I just don't think I can learn everything in time. I tried to do a sample exam today and could hardly spot issues thing. And this estates and future interests, like, I dont' get why it isn't clicking. And my study group really bothers me. I swear, anything I wan to focus on, they want to do the opposite and then we never get to do what I want. And then they get mad at me for requesting that we do it. I know i get bitchy during finals. And nervous. And i can tell it makes them all like me less. But still.
Agreed, 100-fucking percent. Can't believe I ended up watching the 4th quarter (hoping Kobe would explode).BarbellDreams wrote:Stayed up till 1 a.m. watching the lakers lose. I hate living on the east coats for sports-watching purposes.
Register now!
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
Was surprised Steve Blake made it out of the arena alive after that performance. Lamar missing 3 layups in a row? Seriously?nooyyllib wrote:Agreed, 100-fucking percent. Can't believe I ended up watching the 4th quarter (hoping Kobe would explode).BarbellDreams wrote:Stayed up till 1 a.m. watching the lakers lose. I hate living on the east coats for sports-watching purposes.
Watching the Mavs embarrass the Lakers at home and hearing the fans Boo was so worth staying up.BarbellDreams wrote:Was surprised Steve Blake made it out of the arena alive after that performance. Lamar missing 3 layups in a row? Seriously?nooyyllib wrote:Agreed, 100-fucking percent. Can't believe I ended up watching the 4th quarter (hoping Kobe would explode).BarbellDreams wrote:Stayed up till 1 a.m. watching the lakers lose. I hate living on the east coats for sports-watching purposes.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
The Lakers will get Dwight Howard in February.Kilpatrick wrote:The possible end of the Kobe era is heartbreaking. But at least after today I am done with Torts, my least favorite class ever.
the exam is over. drink in honor of cinco de mayo!PirateCap'n wrote:Con Law question:
If someone is advocating illegal conduct, you use the Brandenburg test. If the conduct that the person is advocating is technically illegal but shouldn't be because making it illegal is a violation of the constitution (e.g. illegal for men to have custody but women can, I advocate men having custody and am charged with advocacy of illegal conduct -- statute says it's illegal but it would probably be invalid under equal protection if the statute were challenged), the person can still be charged with and convicted of advocacy, right (because he could have gone to the "political process" to have the law overturned rather than violating it)?
True enough. I'm the same -- mine is definitely from apathy though. Truly not a good thing. I know it's not going to end well in the long run. I'm prepared for my exams in the sense that I've studied outlines and can give you basic ideas. I'm completely unprepared in the sense that I have no idea what I'm doing on exams. Either way, the question still stands. I'd like to know at least that much if only because I want to know if the conviction can stand even if the statute would be unconstitutional. It's not really pertinent to my particular exam. Just more of an offshoot that I was wondering about.moandersen wrote:the exam is over. drink in honor of cinco de mayo!PirateCap'n wrote:Con Law question:
If someone is advocating illegal conduct, you use the Brandenburg test. If the conduct that the person is advocating is technically illegal but shouldn't be because making it illegal is a violation of the constitution (e.g. illegal for men to have custody but women can, I advocate men having custody and am charged with advocacy of illegal conduct -- statute says it's illegal but it would probably be invalid under equal protection if the statute were challenged), the person can still be charged with and convicted of advocacy, right (because he could have gone to the "political process" to have the law overturned rather than violating it)?
2 out of 4 done. im much less stressed this semester during finals. i cant decide if its because im prepared (probably not) or im apathetic (most likely). either way, its nice not to be on edge.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Already a member? Login
fathergoose wrote:Brief turned in, four finals down, only civ pro left. It's easy street from here on in.
Except for the whole "I don't know what we covered in civ pro this semester" part, but other than that, it's easy street.
Giving him pine was a dick move, imo.kalvano wrote:fathergoose wrote:Brief turned in, four finals down, only civ pro left. It's easy street from here on in.
Except for the whole "I don't know what we covered in civ pro this semester" part, but other than that, it's easy street.
Trying to read my Glannon Guide. My brain keeps seeing Treeco and John, Buildco and Steve.
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login