Top Law Schools

Take advantage.

What are the elements of Negligence.

Thanks in advance.

can you explain RAP to me?

Lol, OP has to be a flame.

somewhatwayward wrote:can you explain RAP to me?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hlE ... t?hl=en_US

Extension_Cord wrote:What are the elements of Negligence.

Thanks in advance.

Duty, Breach, Cause in Fact/Proximate Cause, Injury.

Thanks.

Bronte wrote:Lol, OP has to be a flame.

--ImageRemoved--

Sorry, it was pretty hard to get a good angle.

_______________________________________________

No troll though, taking questions. Some people are confused, haters gonna hate.

Bronte wrote:Lol, OP has to be a flame.

somewhatwayward wrote:can you explain RAP to me?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hlE ... t?hl=en_US

sarcasm fail

Extension_Cord wrote:What are the elements of Negligence.

Thanks in advance.

didn't you have your torts final already? how did it go?

*Stares into the eye of the beast (aka property outline)*

What is horizontal privity of estate in the context of real covenants?

somewhatwayward wrote:

Bronte wrote:Lol, OP has to be a flame.

somewhatwayward wrote:can you explain RAP to me?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hlE ... t?hl=en_US

sarcasm fail

TBF, people make a bigger deal about RAP than they need to. It can get tricky when you have to consider that people may be dead and the unborn widow problem and all but generally it is not that complicated.

Can you give me some examples of how to apply the minority rule factors for landlord duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of third parties?

AreJay711 wrote:*Stares into the eye of the beast (aka property outline)*

What is horizontal privity of estate in the context of real covenants?

Umm...the original covenanting parties were in privity.

shepdawg wrote:Can you give me some examples of how to apply the minority rule factors for landlord duty to protect tenants from the criminal acts of third parties?

Sure.

The landlord must make reasonable efforts to protect the tenants from foreseeable criminal activity.

Examples may include installing new locks or securing lower level windows.

ph14 wrote:

AreJay711 wrote:*Stares into the eye of the beast (aka property outline)*

What is horizontal privity of estate in the context of real covenants?

Umm...the original covenanting parties were in privity.

Privity of estate appears in assignments and subleases. It requires:

1) That one of the parties to the lawsuit created an estate in land
2) The other party to the lawsuit holds that very estate
3) Promise that is being sued upon attaches to the estate.

The key point of focus is the last one, because an assignee (the individual to whom the original tenant assigned) may not have any promise that he has to perform that is owed to the landlord. Therefore, even if the two have the same estate, there is no cause of action.

Most often, privity of estate will be created between:

1) Landlord and assignee, when the tenant makes an assignment of the estate to the assignee.
2) Tenant and assignee, when the tenant makes a sublease of the estate to the assignee.

Please explain eminent domain as if I am 5 years old. My brain must be running on low battery right now because I swear I understood zoning and eminent domain in class. Now I don't even understand how substantive due process is applied. Thanks.

Do you need to prove proximate cause for strict liability claims?

Why ever use nuisance instead of trespass?

Peg wrote:Please explain eminent domain as if I am 5 years old. My brain must be running on low battery right now because I swear I understood zoning and eminent domain in class. Now I don't even understand how substantive due process is applied. Thanks.

Did not cover that in my property class. Sorry Peg.

johansantana21 wrote:Do you need to prove proximate cause for strict liability claims?

Why ever use nuisance instead of trespass?

1) Yes you do. Both cause in fact and proximate cause must be proven. Although it is strict liability, if that something did not cause your injury for what reason would you be willing to sue that particular individual/manufacturer?

2) Although trespass and nuisance are similar in some regards, they are also quite different.

Nuisance can only be a cause of action when there is a continuous, unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your land caused by someone or something owned by someone. A large roadblock people may often have with nuisance is that they do not account for the fact it must be continuous. Furthermore, they may also be confused by the factor of "unreasonableness." That does not deal with any actor's conduct, simply that what is happening that is causing you that interference with the use and enjoyment of your land is something that is "more than a reasonable person should put up with."

Trespass can be a one second thing, such as stepping on someone's lawn (even if inadvertently, unless something caused you to step on someone's lawn and it wasn't out of your own doing). Trespass only requires intention as to the act of stepping (bodily movement), you need not intend to either know that it is someone else's land nor intend to cause the interference with their possession of the land.

No problem, I'm just going to go to bed and mull over it in the morning.

FordhamBrah wrote:

Peg wrote:Please explain eminent domain as if I am 5 years old. My brain must be running on low battery right now because I swear I understood zoning and eminent domain in class. Now I don't even understand how substantive due process is applied. Thanks.

Did not cover that in my property class. Sorry Peg.

johansantana21 wrote:Do you need to prove proximate cause for strict liability claims?

Why ever use nuisance instead of trespass?

1) Yes you do. Both cause in fact and proximate cause must be proven. Although it is strict liability, if that something did not cause your injury for what reason would you be willing to sue that particular individual/manufacturer?

2) Although trespass and nuisance are similar in some regards, they are also quite different.

Nuisance can only be a cause of action when there is a continuous, unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of your land caused by someone or something owned by someone. A large roadblock people may often have with nuisance is that they do not account for the fact it must be continuous. Furthermore, they may also be confused by the factor of "unreasonableness." That does not deal with any actor's conduct, simply that what is happening that is causing you that interference with the use and enjoyment of your land is something that is "more than a reasonable person should put up with."

Trespass can be a one second thing, such as stepping on someone's lawn (even if inadvertently, unless something caused you to step on someone's lawn and it wasn't out of your own doing). Trespass only requires intention as to the act of stepping (bodily movement), you need not intend to either know that it is someone else's land nor intend to cause the interference with their possession of the land.

One key reason why you would use one or the other is that trespass has to be a physical entry onto another's land. You can have a nuisance without ever entering your neighbor's property.

Peg wrote:Please explain eminent domain as if I am 5 years old. My brain must be running on low battery right now because I swear I understood zoning and eminent domain in class. Now I don't even understand how substantive due process is applied. Thanks.

Eminent domain is basically a "taking" (5th/14th amendments depending on who is doing the taking) for "public use" (in eminent domain's case, I think it means for highways, railroads, public utilities, etc.; although other types of takings can have more things included under public use). The government has to pay you "just compensation" which is defined as fair market value for the property.

There are 2 fundamental issues at play for takings: (1) whether the taking is for a "public use"; if it is not, then the taking is unconstitutional and they can't even take it if they pay just compensation; (2) whether a regulation rises to the level of a taking or not (which doesn't really come into play in an eminent domain situation because it's not just regulating to the point of a taking it's explicitly saying we are taking your property).

Not quite sure how due process is applied to it. For (1), if it isn't taken for a public use, then it is unconstitutional. For (2), a regulation rises to the level of a taking (and thus requires just compensation) if it is an unfair and unjust burden on the person that would be better borne by the public as a whole-- which it tested using the "ad hoc" test.

Assuming we are in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Model Penal Code, can you define the elements of a contract? Like, under the MPC's purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, what is the requisite intent of the offeror and offeree?

Many other students have told me to engage in "legal synthesis". However, I find it extremely difficult to synthesize rules across subjects. Maybe I'm not cut out for this law school thing?