OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[Blumpbeef]

. I miss ... property.

The fuck is wrong with you?

[franklyscarlet]

. I miss ... property.

The fuck is wrong with you?

hate the professor, like the subject.

[stillwater]

. I miss ... property.

The fuck is wrong with you?

hate the professor, like the subject.

i actually like property. i also liked civpro. different strokes.

[Nelson]

I liked civ pro. Property is awful. I'm just glad our class didn't get to half of the stuff most classes cover (no joint tenancy or title records, barely any future interests).

[dannynoonan87]

Closed book civ pro. Professor said she wants case names. LOLOK

Drop the Asahi split FTW

[hephaestus]

Closed book civ pro. Professor said she wants case names. LOLOK

Drop the Asahi split FTW

Lol McIntyre

[kyle010723]

I want to compulsorily punch my FRCP book in the cover... and counter its cross by res piña colada...

Civ Pro is brutal

[Robert Paulson]

Closed book civ pro. Professor said she wants case names. LOLOK

Drop the Asahi split FTW

Are you talking about the dicta stating there is min contacts when putting goods into the stream of commerce? Is this worth mentioning since WWV says its not reasonable for domestic corps

[Bronck]

Closed book civ pro. Professor said she wants case names. LOLOK

Drop the Asahi split FTW

Are you talking about the dicta stating there is min contacts when putting goods into the stream of commerce? Is this worth mentioning since WWV says its not reasonable for domestic corps

Mention everything bro. Go through all the different analyses laid out in the stream of commerce cases.

[dannynoonan87]

Are you talking about the dicta stating there is min contacts when putting goods into the stream of commerce? Is this worth mentioning since WWV says its not reasonable for domestic corps

Here's what I had in my outline. Got a B+ in civ pro FWIW

Asahi
- court was split 4-4 on the contacts prong, but unanimous on the reasonableness prong
- Brennan’s view – relevant contact if product is placed in the stream of commerce and reasonably anticipate that it will get to the forum state
- O’Connor’s view – need more. Need to place product in the stream of commerce and reasonably anticipate that it will get there PLUS intent or purpose to serve the forum state.

And then after my notes on McIntryre...
"Never has a S. Ct. majority said that merely knowing that product is in the forum state is enough to have PJ over the ∆. This hasn’t been resolved"



Hope this helps

[Bronck]

Got an A last sem and this is what I had:

Asahi:
- O'Connor: mere awareness not enough; D must seek to serve market in particular state (e.g., designing the product for that specific market)
- Brennan: sending goods into market is sufficient (benefits economically from retail sale)

McIntyre:
- Plurality: intent to serve US market =/= intent to serve particular state
- Concurrence: may be sufficient when products are regularly sold into the state or it directly cultivates the state's market
- Dissent: can purposefully avail from US market (and thus all states where products sold)

Just go through each one, since nobody really knows wtf the current state of the law is on it.

[Danger Zone]

.

[Nova]

Shout out to Swimmer for creating this thread

"Lets get it done."

[stillwater]

Got an A last sem and this is what I had:

Asahi:
- O'Connor: mere awareness not enough; D must seek to serve market in particular state (e.g., designing the product for that specific market)
- Brennan: sending goods into market is sufficient (benefits economically from retail sale)

McIntyre:
- Plurality: intent to serve US market =/= intent to serve particular state
- Concurrence: may be sufficient when products are regularly sold into the state or it directly cultivates the state's market
- Dissent: can purposefully avail from US market (and thus all states where products sold)

Just go through each one, since nobody really knows wtf the current state of the law is on it.

you can blame a lot of the disarray in civil procedure on Stevens refusing to take sides (Asahi; Burnham). Thanks guy.

but yea, S of C you gotta just hack through the cases. all arguments are up for grabs in Asahi and McIntyre because neither have been able to garner a majority of votes doctrinally.

[Jsa725]

.

[Blumpbeef]

Glad I won't have to worry about the next PJ Catastrophe when that case gets decided.

My guess is that the answer is no on both counts, at least with the issues as given.

[Jsa725]

.

[SportsFan]

Everyone here has seen the Shawshank Redemption right? Is it wrong that I'm starting to feel institutionalized by 1L year? I don't know how I'm gonna live after this semester is over. Hell, I don't even know how I'm gonna approach 2L!

[Tiago Splitter]

Everyone here has seen the Shawshank Redemption right? Is it wrong that I'm starting to feel institutionalized by 1L year? I don't know how I'm gonna live after this semester is over. Hell, I don't even know how I'm gonna approach 2L!

"You know, the funny thing is, on the outside I was an honest man, straight as an arrow. I had to come to [law school] to be a crook."

[Robert Paulson]

Got an A last sem and this is what I had:

Asahi:
- O'Connor: mere awareness not enough; D must seek to serve market in particular state (e.g., designing the product for that specific market)
- Brennan: sending goods into market is sufficient (benefits economically from retail sale)

McIntyre:
- Plurality: intent to serve US market =/= intent to serve particular state
- Concurrence: may be sufficient when products are regularly sold into the state or it directly cultivates the state's market
- Dissent: can purposefully avail from US market (and thus all states where products sold)

Just go through each one, since nobody really knows wtf the current state of the law is on it.

I definitely freaked out when I read the McIntrye stuff but apparently my class didn't cover it. But the Asahi dicta had a 5-4 majority on there being min contacts for stream of commerce but its still nonbinding precedent. So would the Goodyear holding be controlling for stream of commerce still being no good? Also, WWV says its unreasonable, so it seems it would be pretty unlikely for a court to find TJ. Should I just mention all this bs and then conclude stream of commerce is no good? Thanks for the help everyone.

[SportsFan]

Got an A last sem and this is what I had:

Asahi:
- O'Connor: mere awareness not enough; D must seek to serve market in particular state (e.g., designing the product for that specific market)
- Brennan: sending goods into market is sufficient (benefits economically from retail sale)

McIntyre:
- Plurality: intent to serve US market =/= intent to serve particular state
- Concurrence: may be sufficient when products are regularly sold into the state or it directly cultivates the state's market
- Dissent: can purposefully avail from US market (and thus all states where products sold)

Just go through each one, since nobody really knows wtf the current state of the law is on it.

I definitely freaked out when I read the McIntrye stuff but apparently my class didn't cover it. But the Asahi dicta had a 5-4 majority on there being min contacts for stream of commerce but its still nonbinding precedent. So would the Goodyear holding be controlling for stream of commerce still being no good? Also, WWV says its unreasonable, so it seems it would be pretty unlikely for a court to find TJ. Should I just mention all this bs and then conclude stream of commerce is no good? Thanks for the help everyone.

IIRC, my professor basically just told us to argue both ways if we saw a SOC issue, since its not law but its a possibility (and at worst, its something that can help prove jurisdiction, if not provide a definitive answer on it).

[JamMasterJ]

Floating on is not allowed for at least another 5 days.

Grinding on for now.

screw all you and your five days - I don't even start exams for 15

[mephistopheles]

Floating on is not allowed for at least another 5 days.

Grinding on for now.

screw all you and your five days - I don't even start exams for 15

done in one day.

[SportsFan]

Just spent like 20 minutes creating a chart for present and future interests (it was thinking through the stuff that took the time, not actually writing it out), then notice that pretty much the exact same thing was already in one of my books and I could have just copied it.

[Jsa725]

.