1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[Grizz]

still don't get summary judgment.

Burden shifting?

[mths]

Property ova

4500 words in 2 hours

oof

B+

like

[BarbellDreams]

still don't get summary judgment.

All you need to focus on is whether there is a dispute of material fact. If you and I are in a car accident and we agree on every single material fact based on how it happened and there is a law governing it (lets say the whole thing about rear ending car being always responsible), there is no need for a jury trial because there would be nothing for the jury to decide, you just agreed on every single fact.

[Thirteen]

Believe dat. I am gonna act a fool.

Ron-Ron Juice?

Oh yeah. copious amounts. Copious.

Fuck yeah!!!

[Thirteen]

Quick, someone make me care about Civ Pro.

Figure out a way to include Barry Bonds in your answers.

[kalvano]

Quick, someone make me care about Civ Pro.

Figure out a way to include Barry Bonds in your answers.

Why?

[Thirteen]

Quick, someone make me care about Civ Pro.

Figure out a way to include Barry Bonds in your answers.

Why?

He talked about it every day for the last 6ish classes.

[kalvano]

Quick, someone make me care about Civ Pro.

Figure out a way to include Barry Bonds in your answers.

Why?

He talked about it every day for the last 6ish classes.

You assume I was in class.


Or that I know what is going on with Barry Bonds.



Or that I really know anything about Barry Bonds.

[traehekat]

still don't get summary judgment.

All you need to focus on is whether there is a dispute of material fact. If you and I are in a car accident and we agree on every single material fact based on how it happened and there is a law governing it (lets say the whole thing about rear ending car being always responsible), there is no need for a jury trial because there would be nothing for the jury to decide, you just agreed on every single fact.

this much i THINK i get, and is basically how i understood summary judgment before civ pro even started.

still don't get summary judgment.

Burden shifting?

THIS shit, however, i don't get. when someone moves for summary judgment, how do the burdens affect the analysis? don't plaintiffs have to show something with summary judgment, but defendants just have to show that plaintiff didn't show anything on ANY particular element.

like, if P who has burden of proof and production puts on evidence for element 1 and 2, but nothing for 3, would a motion for summary judgment by D be proper where D is basically saying looking, there is no genuine issue of material fact for element 3, and that is why summary judgment should be awarded.

does that sound right?

[BarbellDreams]

Whoever moves for summary judgment, all inferences are made in favor of the NON-MOVING party, once that party establishes that there is a material issue of fact the burden shifts to the mover to rebut the presumption. Then it just goes back and forth until someone fails.

[fathergoose]

Just make it stop.

I'm putting a lot of my eggs in the "I hope everybody else knows as little as I do" basket

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQoLq_Wg ... re=related

[snowpeach06]

I need to study, but for lack of sleep Im so deliriously tierd, that i'm thinking of just taking the night off.

[PirateCap'n]

like, if P who has burden of proof and production puts on evidence for element 1 and 2, but nothing for 3, would a motion for summary judgment by D be proper where D is basically saying looking, there is no genuine issue of material fact for element 3, and that is why summary judgment should be awarded.

does that sound right?

Here are my notes on the subject if they're any help: (for some reason, it won't let me indent, but 1 and 2 are the options and then the letter are just sub-topics in outline form. Same thing applies for the second part).


When a D moves for SJ on an element that P would have to prove at trial, D has two options.
1. the moving party may submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
A. This is a very difficult option because it would require lots of evidence/discovery/other information
2. the moving party may demonstrate to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
A. e.g. plaintiff couldn't prove proximate cause
I. Can prove the negative of the plaintiff not having evidence by asking about her evidence in discovers
B. Shows that there is an absence of evidence

When a D moves for SJ on an affirmative defense (that D must prove at trial), D has only one option.
1. If the moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party must support its motion with credible evidence – using any of the materials specified in Rule 56(c) – that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial.
A. The movant must put the evidence in the record
I. Must be sufficient evidence to win a directed verdict

[kalvano]

Just make it stop.

I'm putting a lot of my eggs in the "I hope everybody else knows as little as I do" basket

I can't think of anyone who cares much about this. Including Martinez.

[traehekat]

Whoever moves for summary judgment, all inferences are made in favor of the NON-MOVING party, once that party establishes that there is a material issue of fact the burden shifts to the mover to rebut the presumption. Then it just goes back and forth until someone fails.

like, if P who has burden of proof and production puts on evidence for element 1 and 2, but nothing for 3, would a motion for summary judgment by D be proper where D is basically saying looking, there is no genuine issue of material fact for element 3, and that is why summary judgment should be awarded.

does that sound right?

Here are my notes on the subject if they're any help: (for some reason, it won't let me indent, but 1 and 2 are the options and then the letter are just sub-topics in outline form. Same thing applies for the second part).


When a D moves for SJ on an element that P would have to prove at trial, D has two options.
1. the moving party may submit affirmative evidence that negates an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
A. This is a very difficult option because it would require lots of evidence/discovery/other information
2. the moving party may demonstrate to the court that the nonmoving party’s evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmoving party’s claim.
A. e.g. plaintiff couldn't prove proximate cause
I. Can prove the negative of the plaintiff not having evidence by asking about her evidence in discovers
B. Shows that there is an absence of evidence

When a D moves for SJ on an affirmative defense (that D must prove at trial), D has only one option.
1. If the moving party will bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party must support its motion with credible evidence – using any of the materials specified in Rule 56(c) – that would entitle it to a directed verdict if not controverted at trial.
A. The movant must put the evidence in the record
I. Must be sufficient evidence to win a directed verdict

solid stuff, thanks guys.

[keg411]

Hopefully I will be halfway to drunk at this time tomorrow.
Also post-final diet and exercise starts Sunday .

[traehekat]

now the question is.. do i study more, or watch gladiator.

[Gamecubesupreme]

Future Interests is killing me.

[uwb09]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phGzXh3z55c

[snowpeach06]

Future Interests is killing me.

I just did my teachers sample questions and don't even remember learning this stuff. He talked about remainder life estates. Vested remainderin fee simple. Ugh it's like watching 20% of my exam go down the toilet.

[Helmholtz]

Done with 1L oh yeah

[weee]

Done with 1L oh yeah

This is all I want to be able to say.

[iminlstrick]

Future Interests is killing me.

I just did my teachers sample questions and don't even remember learning this stuff. He talked about remainder life estates. Vested remainderin fee simple. Ugh it's like watching 20% of my exam go down the toilet.

For that stuff, I found it best to just spend a few hours going through all Estates/FI stuff and diagramming it out on one piece of paper (front and back) for easy reference during the exam. That and just practice problems. If you can overnight Edwards' "Estates and Future Interests" via Amazon 1-day, the book is really straightforward and has diagrams for you if you need guidance. GL!

[stratocophic]

Done with 1L oh yeah

This is all I want to be able to say.

It's pretty great, but it definitely takes some time to really sink in IMO. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel like a 2L

[BarbellDreams]

If my entire property exam was ONLY present estates and future interests I would guarantee an A/A-. Its all that other stuff that I seemed to neglect studying while putting time into present estates and future interests that scares me.