A little shout out to my fellow 1Ls, mired deep in first-round final exam anxieties:
You guys are the most brilliant people I've met!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Gems from Torts
Student comments during a product's liability discussion:
Given this rule, I have a hard time understanding why q-tips are still being sold.
If you don't know what a stroke is... how do you know you don't want one?
Smells Like Procedural Spirit
CP prof., basking in the glory of his own hypo/problem case:
It's like a potpourri of civil procedure!
It's like a potpourri of civil procedure!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Deflection at Its Finest
1L responding to a cold call and explaining a liability rational...
Prof, in that typically quizzical way: And you are persuaded by that argument?
1L: Ummmm....as long as there are no follow up questions...Yes.
Prof, in that typically quizzical way: And you are persuaded by that argument?
1L: Ummmm....as long as there are no follow up questions...Yes.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Tortinator or Trend Setter?
On aesthetic nuisance:
1L: Well, I mean, one day's eyesore is the next day's sweet new trend.
Prof: Clearly, I've been a trendsetter for years
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Ah, rivalries
Tort prof, defining a trick legal term by use of example:
I mean, brothels are a nuisance everywhere you find them... except in Nevada ...and Berkley
Or was that Egg Drop?
Tort Prof in class...
Well, its defined as willful and wonton... whatever that is... I think it's a soup.
Well, its defined as willful and wonton... whatever that is... I think it's a soup.
Tradition and Diversity
So, one of the great benefits of SLS is the opportunity to interact with classmates who have a wide array of pre-law-school life experience. A recent moment in CrimLaw highlights how this factor adds to the depth of a standard class discussion:
1L, formerly a Naval Officer, discussing Dudley v. Stevens:
1L: Well, traditionally, you eat the cabin boy. That’s kind of the point to HAVING a cabin boy... [But,] eating the cabin boy always bothered me a little bit. . .
Crim Prof: Well, you would hope so.
1L: I mean, you know, you have to think about these things...
[a few moments later]
1L: Well, from what I understand, this case essentially, ended the tradition of eating cabin boys.
[a few moments later]
1L: Well, from what I understand, this case essentially, ended the tradition of eating cabin boys.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Why Guatemala?
1L discussing Winter course selection:
I think I’m going to lottery into negotiation...that would give me the skills I need to negotiate, say, the handover of Guatemala . . . to me.
Free Sonia G.
1L during a late-night Sonia G. brief writing session:
Alternatively, if she doesn’t fit, you can’t acquit.
-courtesy of the ethical jedi muppet (you kinda had to be there)
Overheard at SLS
in Torts, while speculating on whose fault the accident was:
Maybe it was our proverbial hobo!?!
Maybe it was our proverbial hobo!?!
...maybe!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
But which Rules?
This morning, I sat in CivPro and my prof emphatically declared:
Which begs the question: If the judge calls to schedule a hearing for the following morning, should you just tell them you already have plans with another judge and s/he'll just have to schedule earlier if s/he wants to make it onto your rather full social schedule? I mean, do you really want to appear too needy or desperate for a court appearance? Just sayin...
When in doubt read The Rules. When in doubt invoke The Rules.
Perhaps it was the discussion on dating I'd had the night before, but my mind conjured the following image:
Which begs the question: If the judge calls to schedule a hearing for the following morning, should you just tell them you already have plans with another judge and s/he'll just have to schedule earlier if s/he wants to make it onto your rather full social schedule? I mean, do you really want to appear too needy or desperate for a court appearance? Just sayin...
Blame Sonia for the Lack of Interesting Posts
but, here's a little gem from onion's past to make up for my general lack of blogging this week:
WASHINGTON—Under the provisions of a bill approved by Congress and signed into law Tuesday, every 25-year-old American, regardless of prior life commitments, is now legally obligated to enroll in a full year of study at one of the nation's accredited law schools. "This new measure gives us the means to compel 25-year-olds to simultaneously placate their parents, impress their friends with complex-sounding legal jargon, and effectively avoid any real-world responsibilities for another full year," said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN). "We can think of no better way for our young people to squander their postcollegiate aimlessness." Congress is reportedly seeking further legislation that would provide for an additional nine months of grumbling over LSAT prep, and up to five years of whining about paying off student loan debt.
Year Of Law School Now Mandatory For Nation's 25-Year-Olds
MARCH 11, 2009 | ISSUE 45•11
WASHINGTON—Under the provisions of a bill approved by Congress and signed into law Tuesday, every 25-year-old American, regardless of prior life commitments, is now legally obligated to enroll in a full year of study at one of the nation's accredited law schools. "This new measure gives us the means to compel 25-year-olds to simultaneously placate their parents, impress their friends with complex-sounding legal jargon, and effectively avoid any real-world responsibilities for another full year," said Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN). "We can think of no better way for our young people to squander their postcollegiate aimlessness." Congress is reportedly seeking further legislation that would provide for an additional nine months of grumbling over LSAT prep, and up to five years of whining about paying off student loan debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)