1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT) Forum

[sublime]

..

[Easy-E]

Sup late night property people, adverse possession. Obviously there needs to be an actual entry, but if you are also constructively possessing an additional part of the land, can that fall under your adverse possession claim? Or is it only what you actually posses. Not talking about color of title here, I know the deal with that. Thanks bros.

Constructive possession only comes up in AP when you have color of title, I believe.

That's what I thought, not sure where I pulled the idea otherwise from but it was in my notes. Here's another one, I'm a little confused on the difference between a "vested remainder subject to divestment" and "vested remainder subject to executory interest". Two ways of saying the same thing?

Like, O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B, but if B has not graduated law school before A's death, to C. I may have screwed up the wording (and ignore RAP for this one), but don't both of the things I said before describe B's interest?

[sublime]

..

[Mal Reynolds]

Those are close to the same thing, but divestment is a little vague. Executory interests are anything that isn't a remainder, since they won't revert back to the original testator. So a vested remainder subject to "divestment" could either mean it will revert back to the owner or a third party. It's unclear from just that language. Whereas a vested remainder subject to executory interest means there is a condition subsequent governing the future interest, and if it's met, then the remainder interest will be lost and transferred to a third party. The latter is just a more clear way to describe what is going on.

[Easy-E]

Sup late night property people, adverse possession. Obviously there needs to be an actual entry, but if you are also constructively possessing an additional part of the land, can that fall under your adverse possession claim? Or is it only what you actually posses. Not talking about color of title here, I know the deal with that. Thanks bros.

Constructive possession only comes up in AP when you have color of title, I believe.

That's what I thought, not sure where I pulled the idea otherwise from but it was in my notes. Here's another one, I'm a little confused on the difference between a "vested remainder subject to divestment" and "vested remainder subject to executory interest". Two ways of saying the same thing?

Like, O conveys Blackacre to A for life, then to B, but if B has not graduated law school before A's death, to C. I may have screwed up the wording (and ignore RAP for this one), but don't both of the things I said before describe B's interest?

My understanding is that it is an executory interest only when it could cut short another party's interest before they die, so B would have a remainder, because there is no possibility of cutting off someone else (either goes to B at A's death if he has graduated, or it goes to C if he hasn't and he retains no interest)

Maybe check that though, bc my property prof was not great (and that is being kind) so I taught myself real property through supplements (Understanding Property is particularly recommended).

Yeah I think I messed up my hypo

My property professor was actually great, but it's just a frustrating topic sometimes. Like here's another thing, "vested remainder subject to open", at least ONE person needs to be ascertained at the time of conveyance right? Or else it would just be a contingent remainder? Or am I totally fucked on this stuff? My professor said it will only be in the multiple choice, but I don't feel like giving up easy points on that shit.

[Easy-E]

Those are close to the same thing, but divestment is a little vague. Executory interests are anything that isn't a remainder, since they won't revert back to the original testator. So a vested remainder subject to "divestment" could either mean it will revert back to the owner or a third party. It's unclear from just that language. Whereas a vested remainder subject to executory interest means there is a condition subsequent governing the future interest, and if it's met, then the remainder interest will be lost and transferred to a third party. The latter is just a more clear way to describe what is going on.

I looked back on some practice problems my professor had given us earlier in the semester (future interests and RAP was like the second topic we covered), and he used this language:

— Vested remainder subject to divestment in a fee simple [or a vested remainder
in a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, which amounts to the same thing]


I tend to use the second term ("subject to executory limitation") for the reasons you said, it just seems clearer as to who the interest will go to.

[lhanvt13]

Question for Torts.
Last clear chance/Discovered peril doctrine is a bar against a contributory negligence claim.
So for example, A sues B for Negligence. B says A was contributorily negligent. A says "no no no last clear chance doctrine so you don't have the right to bring a contributory negligence claim." Could somebody give me a fact pattern about this? I'm so very confused how this would come up.

[sublime]

..

[lhanvt13]

Question for Torts.
Last clear chance/Discovered peril doctrine is a bar against a contributory negligence claim.
So for example, A sues B for Negligence. B says A was contributorily negligent. A says "no no no last clear chance doctrine so you don't have the right to bring a contributory negligence claim." Could somebody give me a fact pattern about this? I'm so very confused how this would come up.

My prof, IIRC said it was mostly for people getting ran over by trains.

Dude falls asleep on the track, if the conductor wasn't being negligent, he could have stopped in time/warned him in time, whatever. He doesn't try to stop (and he would have been able to), the dudes contributory negligence doesn't bar recovery.

On the other hand, if the driver wasn't negligent or wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway, still no recovery.

But wouldn't that fall under "D's reckless or intentional conduct" as a bar to contributory negligence? Also, wouldn't that be an intentional tort claim by the sleeper (P) because the conductor decided not to stop? he acted volitionally with intent to touch because he knew to a substantial degree that the sleeper would get hit and intent to harm because he knew to a substantial degree that getting hit by a train would severely injure the guy?

[sublime]

..

[lhanvt13]

Question for Torts.
Last clear chance/Discovered peril doctrine is a bar against a contributory negligence claim.
So for example, A sues B for Negligence. B says A was contributorily negligent. A says "no no no last clear chance doctrine so you don't have the right to bring a contributory negligence claim." Could somebody give me a fact pattern about this? I'm so very confused how this would come up.

My prof, IIRC said it was mostly for people getting ran over by trains.

Dude falls asleep on the track, if the conductor wasn't being negligent, he could have stopped in time/warned him in time, whatever. He doesn't try to stop (and he would have been able to), the dudes contributory negligence doesn't bar recovery.

On the other hand, if the driver wasn't negligent or wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway, still no recovery.

But wouldn't that fall under "D's reckless or intentional conduct" as a bar to contributory negligence? Also, wouldn't that be an intentional tort claim by the sleeper (P) because the conductor decided not to stop? he acted volitionally with intent to touch because he knew to a substantial degree that the sleeper would get hit and intent to harm because he knew to a substantial degree that getting hit by a train would severely injure the guy?

I think the point of last clear chance is to mitigate some of the harshness of contributory negligence laws.

And no idea about the intentional tort, although I imagine that there is some defense that invalidates it. That is just my understanding of it though, hopefully someone else can clarify.

Sweet thanks for the reply sublime!

[desiballa21]

Bexiga Principle.. someone explain.

[Aporia88]

Edit: probably not the right place for that question.

[BigZuck]

Question for Torts.
Last clear chance/Discovered peril doctrine is a bar against a contributory negligence claim.
So for example, A sues B for Negligence. B says A was contributorily negligent. A says "no no no last clear chance doctrine so you don't have the right to bring a contributory negligence claim." Could somebody give me a fact pattern about this? I'm so very confused how this would come up.

My prof, IIRC said it was mostly for people getting ran over by trains.

Dude falls asleep on the track, if the conductor wasn't being negligent, he could have stopped in time/warned him in time, whatever. He doesn't try to stop (and he would have been able to), the dudes contributory negligence doesn't bar recovery.

On the other hand, if the driver wasn't negligent or wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway, still no recovery.

I like how we have to learn crap that pretty much only applies to when people fall asleep on train tracks.

Nice one, law school. I'm sure that knowledge will set me up nicely when I try to get a job as a lawyer. Which is, you know, the whole point of going to law school.

[sinfiery]

Can you use the Hertz test used to find the citizenship of a corporation for subject matter jurisdiction as the basis for finding domiciliary for personal jx and thus having jx under miliken?

[BigZuck]

Can you use the Hertz test used to find the citizenship of a corporation for subject matter jurisdiction as the basis for finding domiciliary for personal jx and thus having jx under miliken?

wut

[sinfiery]

Can you use the Hertz test used to find the citizenship of a corporation for subject matter jurisdiction as the basis for finding domiciliary for personal jx and thus having jx under miliken?

wut

can you serve a corporation for pjx in its domiciliary (as determined for subject matter jx)?


20 hours from now is going to be a shitshow

ETA: NVM you cannot use this for corporations

[BigZuck]

Can you use the Hertz test used to find the citizenship of a corporation for subject matter jurisdiction as the basis for finding domiciliary for personal jx and thus having jx under miliken?

wut

can you serve a corporation for pjx in its domiciliary (as determined for subject matter jx)?


20 hours from now is going to be a shitshow

ETA: NVM you cannot use this for corporations

Domicile is for humans. Humans are subject to general jurisdiction in the place of their domicile basically.

Corporations are subject to general jurisdiction in their place of incorporation (aka Delaware am I right?) and the "nerve center" of the operation (basically their HQ). They might be subject to other places where they are "essentially at home" but WTF does that mean, Supreme Court?

Specific jurisdiction depends on contacts.

[mu13ski]

Civ Pro Question

Initial case is filed in state court of Illinois. Can the defendant remove to Federal court of another state?

[BigZuck]

Civ Pro Question

Initial case is filed in state court of Illinois. Can the defendant remove to Federal court of another state?

Removal is only to the federal district court embracing the area where the suit was originally brought. So it can only be removed to that IL court.

It could be transferred after its removed, however, if there is a more appropriate venue.

[mu13ski]

Civ Pro Question

Initial case is filed in state court of Illinois. Can the defendant remove to Federal court of another state?

Removal is only to the federal district court embracing the area where the suit was originally brought. So it can only be removed to that IL court.

It could be transferred after its removed, however, if there is a more appropriate venue.

That's what I thought, thanks!

[sinfiery]

Can you use the Hertz test used to find the citizenship of a corporation for subject matter jurisdiction as the basis for finding domiciliary for personal jx and thus having jx under miliken?

wut

can you serve a corporation for pjx in its domiciliary (as determined for subject matter jx)?


20 hours from now is going to be a shitshow

ETA: NVM you cannot use this for corporations

Domicile is for humans. Humans are subject to general jurisdiction in the place of their domicile basically.

Corporations are subject to general jurisdiction in their place of incorporation (aka Delaware am I right?) and the "nerve center" of the operation (basically their HQ). They might be subject to other places where they are "essentially at home" but WTF does that mean, Supreme Court?

Specific jurisdiction depends on contacts.

tybro

[desiballa21]

sooo no takers on explaining bexiga principle?

[mu13ski]

What are the big changes that CAFA brought in to existence? What were some of the policy motivations behind enacting it?

[MCFC]

What are the big changes that CAFA brought in to existence? What were some of the policy motivations behind enacting it?

Makes it easier to bring class actions in federal courts (only minimal diversity required, for one thing). Despite that, seen as a pro-defendant move, rescuing them from "judicial hellholes" that were state courts.