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

[lhanvt13]

question about RAP
Having trouble with this hypo.

E conveys shittyacre to F for life, then to the first child of S who reaches age 25. Assume S is 50 years old and has two children, ages 3 and 1.

So,
1. interests
E - reversion
F - present interest in life estate
S child - contingent remainder

2. Contingent remainder, so good to go.

3. Life in Being
E, F, S and S's children

4. F dies, then it must or must not vest to the children because if they're not 25, then no vesting and if 25 then vest.

Therefore, not subject to RAP

Is this right?

Are you dealing with "The fertile octogenarian" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrati ... rpetuities

Feels like it.

yeah, the professor says the future interest is all good and RAP won't prevent but in my reasoning, the child could be 24 if F dies immediately. Then, the interest could vest 22 years after F's death, and therefore, everything goes to shit and that future interest clause gets struck out. Yes?

[bandenjamin]

Could be off here but I thought the 21 yr part was only for a life not in being, so like f dies, then if the 3 yr old and 1 yr old both die S is still life in being and can have more kids. If S has a kid to replace two dead ones and dies before that kid is 4 then you'll have an issue cause all lives in being are gone and it wont vest before 21 yrs runs out.

Clear as mud?

[2807]

Could be off here but I thought the 21 yr part was only for a life not in being, so like f dies, then if the 3 yr old and 1 yr old both die S is still life in being and can have more kids. If S has a kid to replace two dead ones and dies before that kid is 4 then you'll have an issue cause all lives in being are gone and it wont vest before 21 yrs runs out.

Clear as mud?

You are basically conveying the "fertile octogenarian" analysis mentioned above.
This, and the young spouse fact pattern are the fundemental fact patterns to teach the extremes of this rule.

They are old tricks. They will play off of these concepts to test you too.

You should know them.

Use the above google link.

[shifty_eyed]

question about RAP
Having trouble with this hypo.

E conveys shittyacre to F for life, then to the first child of S who reaches age 25. Assume S is 50 years old and has two children, ages 3 and 1.

So,
1. interests
E - reversion
F - present interest in life estate
S child - contingent remainder

2. Contingent remainder, so good to go.

3. Life in Being
E, F, S and S's children

4. F dies, then it must or must not vest to the children because if they're not 25, then no vesting and if 25 then vest.

Therefore, not subject to RAP

Is this right?

Are you dealing with "The fertile octogenarian" ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrati ... rpetuities

Feels like it.

yeah, the professor says the future interest is all good and RAP won't prevent but in my reasoning, the child could be 24 if F dies immediately. Then, the interest could vest 22 years after F's death, and therefore, everything goes to shit and that future interest clause gets struck out. Yes?

I am confused. I think your two posts are contradictory. If you could have an interest that could vest 22 years later (which it seems like you can here), than it IS subject to RAP.

[2807]

I believe we see this fact pattern is subject to RAP and fails because there is a way it could avoid vesting in the required timeframe.

The professor of the class says we are wrong.

That is how I understand our conversation.

[1278]

From today's news:

A visits B in B's house and carries a loaded gun with him. B, a single mother of 4, played with her kids and B together in the bedroom for a while. A and B then left to get some Coffee in the kitchen. While they were in the kitchen, the 2-year-old toddler son of B found the gun and played with it. Most unfortunately, the gun fired a shot and killed his 11-years old sister.

What is the criminal liability of A and B, if any?

--- thanks for your discussion!

[Over the top]

From today's news:

A visits B in B's house and carries a loaded gun with him. B, a single mother of 4, played with her kids and B together in the bedroom for a while. A and B then left to get some Coffee in the kitchen. While they were in the kitchen, the 2-year-old toddler son of B found the gun and played with it. Most unfortunately, the gun fired a shot and killed his 11-years old sister.

What is the criminal liability of A and B, if any?

--- thanks for your discussion!

A might be reckless, but it depends on how the gun left his possession. Did he leave it on the table? Did it fall out of his pocket? Was it registered? Arguably more of a risk to have an unregistered firearm, but maybe not since the point of registration isn't necessarily safety. But for A leaving the gun there the accident wouldn't have happened. Is the kid's act a superseding cause? Probably not, 2 year olds (traditionally) can't have criminal intent so A leaving the gun there should have foreseeably seen that this accident could occur. B's probably not a conspirator, but he could be complicit if she knew A had the gun and almost surely if she saw B place the gun in harm's way. If you can make an argument to bump B up to knowingly (under the MPC), that'd help.

Thanks for the hypo, I actually really liked crim first semester.

[bandenjamin]

From today's news:

A visits B in B's house and carries a loaded gun with him. B, a single mother of 4, played with her kids and B together in the bedroom for a while. A and B then left to get some Coffee in the kitchen. While they were in the kitchen, the 2-year-old toddler son of B found the gun and played with it. Most unfortunately, the gun fired a shot and killed his 11-years old sister.

What is the criminal liability of A and B, if any?

--- thanks for your discussion!

A might be reckless, but it depends on how the gun left his possession. Did he leave it on the table? Did it fall out of his pocket? Was it registered? Arguably more of a risk to have an unregistered firearm, but maybe not since the point of registration isn't necessarily safety. But for A leaving the gun there the accident wouldn't have happened. Is the kid's act a superseding cause? Probably not, 2 year olds (traditionally) can't have criminal intent so A leaving the gun there should have foreseeably seen that this accident could occur. B's probably not a conspirator, but he could be complicit if she knew A had the gun and almost surely if she saw B place the gun in harm's way. If you can make an argument to bump B up to knowingly (under the MPC), that'd help.

Thanks for the hypo, I actually really liked crim first semester.

Careful, registration will greatly depend on your state. I know 8 states flat out ban the requirement of registering firearms, and I think it's like 6 or 7 that actually require them to be registered.

[Rahviveh]

Before you spend waste time on the RAP you should check to see if your professor tests on it. From what I've heard most professors don't test on it. In our case, our professor has only asked about it once in the past 10 years, and it was a 5-point short answer question.

[1278]

From today's news:

A visits B in B's house and carries a loaded gun with him. B, a single mother of 4, played with her kids and B together in the bedroom for a while. A and B then left to get some Coffee in the kitchen. While they were in the kitchen, the 2-year-old toddler son of B found the gun and played with it. Most unfortunately, the gun fired a shot and killed his 11-years old sister.

What is the criminal liability of A and B, if any?

--- thanks for your discussion!

A might be reckless, but it depends on how the gun left his possession. Did he leave it on the table? Did it fall out of his pocket? Was it registered? Arguably more of a risk to have an unregistered firearm, but maybe not since the point of registration isn't necessarily safety. But for A leaving the gun there the accident wouldn't have happened. Is the kid's act a superseding cause? Probably not, 2 year olds (traditionally) can't have criminal intent so A leaving the gun there should have foreseeably seen that this accident could occur. B's probably not a conspirator, but he could be complicit if she knew A had the gun and almost surely if she saw B place the gun in harm's way. If you can make an argument to bump B up to knowingly (under the MPC), that'd help.

Thanks for the hypo, I actually really liked crim first semester.

Unfortunately, NOT a hypo: it really happened yesterday (?) in Philly.
I totally agree with you, Over the Top! I also think A’s leaving the gun in the room is the criminal act here, being both direct and proximate cause of the death. What a curious 2-year-old did can hardly be said to be abnormal or unexpected, since they should be expected to do anything possible! This is even more so when there are other three young kids in the room who can help him.
I also totally agree that A was reckless/negligent, depending on what really happened. Where did he leave the gun? (risk, deviation from standard of care)How did the toddler find it? Did A know toddlers (or this specific toddler, perhaps) or children well? Was he aware of the risk of 4 children in a room with a loaded gun? (awareness) A can be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter or even depraved heart murder under CL, depending on the context.
A will surely say he was not aware of the risk and that he did use reasonable care (maybe he did locked the gun, but the kids found the key). I guess he will likely get negligent manslaughter? No reasonable person would leave a loaded gun in a room with 4 kids. Under MPC, probably negligent homicide if he did try to hide the gun?
What I am really confused about is the liability of B. I thought conspiracy is not an issue here, since it’s about negligence/reckless and nobody has a specific intent? As for accomplice, since A’s crime is one of recklessness or negligence, B is accomplice if 1) she intended to help A in leaving his gun in the room AND 2) she was also negligent/reckless, right? So if B merely knew about the gun (or even saw A place the gun in the room), but didn’t assist (even less intend to assist) A in leaving it there, is her recklessness or negligence alone enough for making her an accomplice? Given her specific duty to protect her children?
Even if B is not liable as A’s accomplice, is B still liable in her own right for 1)having specific duty 2)failing to intervene, given that she knew about the gun? If yes, What crime would that be?
So grateful if your guys would care to further correct/clarify/discuss! 0L here, only some half-baked ideas from reading commercial outlines.

[Over the top]

From today's news:

A visits B in B's house and carries a loaded gun with him. B, a single mother of 4, played with her kids and B together in the bedroom for a while. A and B then left to get some Coffee in the kitchen. While they were in the kitchen, the 2-year-old toddler son of B found the gun and played with it. Most unfortunately, the gun fired a shot and killed his 11-years old sister.

What is the criminal liability of A and B, if any?

--- thanks for your discussion!

A might be reckless, but it depends on how the gun left his possession. Did he leave it on the table? Did it fall out of his pocket? Was it registered? Arguably more of a risk to have an unregistered firearm, but maybe not since the point of registration isn't necessarily safety. But for A leaving the gun there the accident wouldn't have happened. Is the kid's act a superseding cause? Probably not, 2 year olds (traditionally) can't have criminal intent so A leaving the gun there should have foreseeably seen that this accident could occur. B's probably not a conspirator, but he could be complicit if she knew A had the gun and almost surely if she saw B place the gun in harm's way. If you can make an argument to bump B up to knowingly (under the MPC), that'd help.

Thanks for the hypo, I actually really liked crim first semester.

Unfortunately, NOT a hypo: it really happened yesterday (?) in Philly.
I totally agree with you, Over the Top! I also think A’s leaving the gun in the room is the criminal act here, being both direct and proximate cause of the death. What a curious 2-year-old did can hardly be said to be abnormal or unexpected, since they should be expected to do anything possible! This is even more so when there are other three young kids in the room who can help him.
I also totally agree that A was reckless/negligent, depending on what really happened. Where did he leave the gun? (risk, deviation from standard of care)How did the toddler find it? Did A know toddlers (or this specific toddler, perhaps) or children well? Was he aware of the risk of 4 children in a room with a loaded gun? (awareness) A can be prosecuted for negligent manslaughter or even depraved heart murder under CL, depending on the context.
A will surely say he was not aware of the risk and that he did use reasonable care (maybe he did locked the gun, but the kids found the key). I guess he will likely get negligent manslaughter? No reasonable person would leave a loaded gun in a room with 4 kids. Under MPC, probably negligent homicide if he did try to hide the gun?
What I am really confused about is the liability of B. I thought conspiracy is not an issue here, since it’s about negligence/reckless and nobody has a specific intent? As for accomplice, since A’s crime is one of recklessness or negligence, B is accomplice if 1) she intended to help A in leaving his gun in the room AND 2) she was also negligent/reckless, right? So if B merely knew about the gun (or even saw A place the gun in the room), but didn’t assist (even less intend to assist) A in leaving it there, is her recklessness or negligence alone enough for making her an accomplice? Given her specific duty to protect her children?
Even if B is not liable as A’s accomplice, is B still liable in her own right for 1)having specific duty 2)failing to intervene, given that she knew about the gun? If yes, What crime would that be?
So grateful if your guys would care to further correct/clarify/discuss! 0L here, only some half-baked ideas from reading commercial outlines.

She has a duty to protect the child, but she's not strictly liable. If she has no idea that A has a gun, and that he left it in the room, you'll have a real hard time establishing liability.

I agree that she's not a conspirator, but we covered complicity too (briefly). Complicity is a lower standard, basically, if she was aware and didn't try to stop it she could be complicit without being a conspirator.

[Br3v]

How does the Ct find a right fundamental for due process?

I know that is not a question that really has an agreed upon answer. But assuming in a fact pattern you have to decide if a new right is fundamental, what do you do?

[2807]

How does the Ct find a right fundamental for due process?

I know that is not a question that really has an agreed upon answer. But assuming in a fact pattern you have to decide if a new right is fundamental, what do you do?

When you are doing this, you are really arguing for the level of scrutiny required/desired

Likely in a test, you will have to answer depending on more than one possible outcome by the court..
(ie: "if the court finds...X, then Y scrutiny applies, and therefore..)

When deciding if a right is "fundamental" and therefore worthy of "strict scrutiny" the right will either be an "enumerated right"
or.. "unenumerated right" ...

If unenumerated (like you are asking about..)
The inquiry/analysis is:

1. Is the claimed liberty interest "deeply rooted in the country’s legal traditions and customs" ?
or....
2. Is the claimed liberty interest "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty" ?

Then, if the law substantially burdens that fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies; if not, rational basis.

So, you have to argue analogies that show/don't show how you want the right considered, so that the corresponding level of scrutiny you need applies.

The end.

[Br3v]

How does the Ct find a right fundamental for due process?

I know that is not a question that really has an agreed upon answer. But assuming in a fact pattern you have to decide if a new right is fundamental, what do you do?

When you are doing this, you are really arguing for the level of scrutiny required/desired

Likely in a test, you will have to answer depending on more than one possible outcome by the court..
(ie: "if the court finds...X, then Y scrutiny applies, and therefore..)

When deciding if a right is "fundamental" and therefore worthy of "strict scrutiny" the right will either be an "enumerated right"
or.. "unenumerated right" ...

If unenumerated (like you are asking about..)
The inquiry/analysis is:

1. Is the claimed liberty interest "deeply rooted in the country’s legal traditions and customs" ?
or....
2. Is the claimed liberty interest "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty" ?

Then, if the law substantially burdens that fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies; if not, rational basis.

So, you have to argue analogies that show/don't show how you want the right considered, so that the corresponding level of scrutiny you need applies.

The end.

Thank you this was very helpful. Two follow up Questions.

(1)

1. Is the claimed liberty interest "deeply rooted in the country’s legal traditions and customs" ?
or....
2. Is the claimed liberty interest "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty" ?

This is the Glucksberg test right? Is that the go to test?

(2) Also, just so I am clear. We can have fundamental rights appear thus triggering strict scrutiny in both equal protection and substantive due process cases right? I assume your walkthrough above it for SDP? Would the only difference for EP be:

When deciding if a right is "fundamental" and therefore worthy of "strict scrutiny" the right will either be an "enumerated right"
or.. "unenumerated right" ...

If unenumerated (like you are asking about..)
The inquiry/analysis is:

1. Is the claimed liberty interest "deeply rooted in the country’s legal traditions and customs" ?
or....
2. Is the claimed liberty interest "fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty" ?

Then, if the law substantially burdens that fundamental right, strict scrutiny applies; if not, rational basis.

If EP: Look for compelling Govt reason for the discrimination and if narrowly tailored
If SDP: Does the Govt have a compelling Govt reason for infringing the right and is this narrowly tailored

So, you have to argue analogies that show/don't show how you want the right considered, so that the corresponding level of scrutiny you need applies.

The end.

[2807]

I do not use the label "Glucksberg" for the test.
However, YES, this is the go to test for unenumerated rights arguments.

As far as EP and SDP:
Yes, they frequently overlap in analysis. However, be precise in your analysis.
Merely being a "fundamental right" is not necessarily an EP issue too.
For EP, the focus is on the "class" of citizenry affected by the law differently than others.
Therefore-- the analysis/argument is focused on THE CLASS of people and the reason the law draws a line in the sand.
The parties will try to define the class by the level of corresponding scrutiny they need for victory.

Know your "scrutiny" definitions.
Know your "suspect classes"

These things are driven by scrutiny determinants and the corresponding duty the court has.
Each party will try to define the issue into the most advantageous scrutiny for them.
Anything other than "rational basis" IS NARROW TAILORING, so you must state the scrutiny required and the definition too.
You cannot rely on "narrowly tailored."

Your essay will likely need to state the argument and result for multiple scrutiny findings.

Also, for EP, you have to show discriminatory INTENT, not just discriminatory effect of the law.
A large discriminatory "impact" can be evidence of discriminatory intent, but the State can rebut.

So....
SDP: The category/label of the "right" affected = level of corresponding scrutiny
EP: The class (or individual) affected by the law = level of corresponding scrutiny

*** Seems clear, but watch for hybrid facts that mix things up.
Like.... a law that states: "Gay people cannot adopt children"
Gay is not a protected class, but raising children is a fundamental right....
So, you have to solve that.

[sublime]

..

[kckool7]

Anyone know a good civpro supplement that covers class action well? Something in flowing outline form like Acing Civil Procedure would be ideal, but any advice would be much appreciated.

[2807]

Does anybody have any tips/advice for how to keep inchoate offenses (Attempt/solicitation/conspiracy) and accomplice liability straight? Learn them or whatever?

My crim prof loves multiple inchoate offenses and the main hypo on his exam two years ago was the Lincoln assassination hypo

Yes, Lincoln's assassination would be a good one. Many conspirators, solicitations, attempts, and, well, success.

However, your question is so broad.
Can you refine it to more specific issues within those concepts?

Generally, the flow is: Solicit--> Conspire --> Attempt/Commit
So, that is how you "keep them straight"

But each crime has elements and issues.
It would help if you refine your inquiry.

As far as accomplice liability: You have "at the scene", "before", and "after" the act.
What part of this are you struggling with?

Be precise if possible. Otherwise, go read an outline or something to get a grasp of the big concepts.

The trick is to see an actor in the fact pattern, and watch the progression/liability flow from solicit- to - final act.

[sublime]

..

[KingFish]

What about something like aiding an attempt to conspire? Is that even possible?

How about soliciting to conspire to aid an attempt.

[arklaw13]

Thanks, that is helpful! I am sorry it was a bit vague.

The main problems I am having come up in recognizing multiple inchoate offenses and how they work together like Attempted Conspiracy, Conspiracy to aid and abet, aiding an attempt, etc. What about something like aiding an attempt to conspire? Is that even possible?

Another point I am struggling with is inchoate crimes and their relation to specific/general intent crimes and conduct/result crimes. But I am not sure I can even formulate a sensible question about those at this point. lol

I'm pretty sure you can't attempt to conspire. You either make an agreement or you don't. I don't think conspiracy to aid and abet would be its own thing either. You'd be guilty of conspiracy to commit the crime and would also be liable for the attempts of completed offenses of co-conspirators if you have Pinkerton.

My advice would be to break it down into completed offense -----> attempt liability ------- > accomplice liability --------> Pinkerton liability
go through your analysis starting with completed offense. If something is missing, see if they're liable for attempt. Then check to see if they're liable as an accomplice to either the completed offense or an attempt. Then analyze whether there was a conspiracy and see if D is liable under Pinkerton.

[KD35]

Might have missed this earlier, does anyone have any recommendations for supps/places to get good Present Estates & Future Interests practice? Free/cheap is preferable but not necessary!

[Over the top]

.

[ladybug]

Might have missed this earlier, does anyone have any recommendations for supps/places to get good Present Estates & Future Interests practice? Free/cheap is preferable but not necessary!

Last semester my prof recommended these 2 books:
http://www.amazon.com/Estates-Land-Futu ... 0735576653
http://www.amazon.com/Moynihans-Introdu ... 0314160485

I didn't use either supplement, but my prof gave us a bunch of handouts from one of the books, I think the Estates in Land & Future Interests, that I used. It looks like both have good reviews online FWIW. I bet your library has them.

[Br3v]

Is chattel the same thing as personal property?