Top Law Schools

We need not go so far as to insist that in order to "dispense with personal service the substitute that is most likely to reach the defendant is the least that ought to be required," in order to recognize that where an inexpensive and efficient mechanism such as mail service is available to enhance the reliability of an otherwise unreliable notice procedure, the State's continued exclusive reliance on an ineffective means of service is not notice "reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand."

-Greene v. Lindsey

That is one (1) sentence, entirely unedited with the exception of an omitted citation. Jesus Christ, it's like some judges never heard of William Strunk's "Elements of Style".

MisterChase wrote:

We need not go so far as to insist that in order to "dispense with personal service the substitute that is most likely to reach the defendant is the least that ought to be required," in order to recognize that where an inexpensive and efficient mechanism such as mail service is available to enhance the reliability of an otherwise unreliable notice procedure, the State's continued exclusive reliance on an ineffective means of service is not notice "reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand."

-Greene v. Lindsey

That is one (1) sentence, entirely unedited with the exception of an omitted citation. Jesus Christ, it's like some judges never heard of William Strunk's "Elements of Style".

What school are you at? That was my homework tonight as well.

savagedm wrote:

MisterChase wrote:

We need not go so far as to insist that in order to "dispense with personal service the substitute that is most likely to reach the defendant is the least that ought to be required," in order to recognize that where an inexpensive and efficient mechanism such as mail service is available to enhance the reliability of an otherwise unreliable notice procedure, the State's continued exclusive reliance on an ineffective means of service is not notice "reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand."

-Greene v. Lindsey

That is one (1) sentence, entirely unedited with the exception of an omitted citation. Jesus Christ, it's like some judges never heard of William Strunk's "Elements of Style".

What school are you at? That was my homework tonight as well.

Given that this is a place where I'll ask stupid 1L questions, I'll prefer to keep my blanket of anonymity.

MisterChase wrote:

savagedm wrote:

MisterChase wrote:

We need not go so far as to insist that in order to "dispense with personal service the substitute that is most likely to reach the defendant is the least that ought to be required," in order to recognize that where an inexpensive and efficient mechanism such as mail service is available to enhance the reliability of an otherwise unreliable notice procedure, the State's continued exclusive reliance on an ineffective means of service is not notice "reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be informed by other means at hand."

-Greene v. Lindsey

That is one (1) sentence, entirely unedited with the exception of an omitted citation. Jesus Christ, it's like some judges never heard of William Strunk's "Elements of Style".

What school are you at? That was my homework tonight as well.

Given that this is a place where I'll ask stupid 1L questions, I'll prefer to keep my blanket of anonymity.

lol erright. It'll come out one day.

Read this one tonight in torts... A nice, clear and concise summary...
Makes sense but requires some attention....

Brown v. Kendall

"The evidence may be offered by the plaintiff or by the defendant; the question of due care, or want of care, may be essentially connected with the main facts, and arise from the same proof; but the effect of the rule, as to the burden of proof, is this, that when the proof is all in, and before the jury, from whatever side it comes, and whether directly proved, or inferred from circumstances, if it appears that the defendant was doing a lawful act, and unintentionally hit and hurt the plaintiff, then unless it also appears to the satisfaction of the jury, that the defendant is chargeable with some fault, negligence, carelessness, or want of prudence, the plaintiff fails to sustain the burden of proof, and is not entitled to recover."

Compaq1984 wrote:Read this one tonight in torts... A nice, clear and concise summary...
Makes sense but requires some attention....

Brown v. Kendall

"The evidence may be offered by the plaintiff or by the defendant; the question of due care, or want of care, may be essentially connected with the main facts, and arise from the same proof; but the effect of the rule, as to the burden of proof, is this, that when the proof is all in, and before the jury, from whatever side it comes, and whether directly proved, or inferred from circumstances, if it appears that the defendant was doing a lawful act, and unintentionally hit and hurt the plaintiff, then unless it also appears to the satisfaction of the jury, that the defendant is chargeable with some fault, negligence, carelessness, or want of prudence, the plaintiff fails to sustain the burden of proof, and is not entitled to recover."

I hate that whole section of torts. It seemed so unnecessary.

TTH wrote:

Compaq1984 wrote:Read this one tonight in torts... A nice, clear and concise summary...
Makes sense but requires some attention....

Brown v. Kendall

"The evidence may be offered by the plaintiff or by the defendant; the question of due care, or want of care, may be essentially connected with the main facts, and arise from the same proof; but the effect of the rule, as to the burden of proof, is this, that when the proof is all in, and before the jury, from whatever side it comes, and whether directly proved, or inferred from circumstances, if it appears that the defendant was doing a lawful act, and unintentionally hit and hurt the plaintiff, then unless it also appears to the satisfaction of the jury, that the defendant is chargeable with some fault, negligence, carelessness, or want of prudence, the plaintiff fails to sustain the burden of proof, and is not entitled to recover."

I hate that whole section of torts. It seemed so unnecessary.

You probably feel that way because it was... haha

I've noticed that the "more intelligent" the writer is, the more convoluted and unnecessarily long their sentences become.