First exam is done

You know, on one level, exam period is what law school is all about. Since the result of the whole semester hinges on what happens during that time, you could say that it's really the only two weeks that matter out of the whole four months. But on another level, exam weeks are a complete aberration in relation to the rest of the year. Students who in November still had to ask a PA where the library was now have their mail forwarded to the second floor stacks. Those who had previously nested in the study carrels now flee to brighter shores upon seeing the sad parade of unwashed masses make inroads upon their erstwhile sanctuary. The Thursday keg is a distant memory. The Virginia Law Weekly has stopped its presses. The beanbags don't fly, and the bocce don't roll. Has Virginia at last remembered that it is a top ten school?

I'd write more and try to drum up some enthusiasm for a healthy work/life balance but, I, uh, gotta go study some Torts...

No, not a plongeur...

First question: I'm sure we're all familiar with the game at the grocery store where you try to find the combination of just two items that will most cause out the register clerk to look twice. If not, go here for the general idea and hover over the picture (to see the "alt" text). That is obviously the winning answer as far as I'm concerned (at least, for a guy), but I submit to you my own entry:

one box of butterscotch pudding cups and a plunger.

I suppose mine's more incongruent than it is anything else, but I should get points at least for it being unintentional, as I was at the store to buy both of those things and only those things.

Abraham on Exams (or life in general)

"Don't describe the ladder. Tell me what you see from the top of the ladder."
K. Abraham.

He's a ghost...who writes!

A bunch of us had a law school party last night to celebrate both the lifting of the ban on contacting legal employers and the instantiation of the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Somewhere along the way, the majority of us gave up on envelope-stuffing and sat through the entire first story arc of the Ghostwriter TV show from the early Nineties. Jonathan at least had never seen the show before and I had only seen the occasional episode (I wasn't allowed to watch it growing up because of the occult overtones).

Oh, had we missed out.

Among many unintentionally hilarious moments, I particularly enjoyed when one character said, of quarters, "They're kind of like money!"

Were we incredibly loopy when we watched this? Goodness yes, it was almost midnight before we finished and most of us had been writing cover letters or stuffing envelopes most of the day. Was it also some of the most fun we've had at law school? Undoubtedly so.

How you do you really feel about Semtek?

"It's bad, it's bad, you know it's bad."
G. Rutherglen on the decision in Semtek Int'l v. Lockheed Martin.

LSTotD - Congeries

congeries
n. (used with a singular or plural verb)

a collection of items or parts in one mass; assemblage; aggregation; heap

Heard in Crim. In the same class Prof. Low also referred to certain sentencing guidelines, saying "This is pretty standard poop now."

Is this what I have to look forward to on the MPRE?

"Lawyer convicted of tax evasion and fraud charges asks judge to set aside his nine-year prison term and allow him to teach course on ethics and morality to law school students instead."
[Guardian, courtesy FARK]

What goes on in my head?

Another inscrutable comment in my notes, this time in the margin of my Crim book. As a side comment on declaratory judgments, I've written:

declaratory judgment
- get rights declared w/o enforcement
- mushroom v. toadstool

It's that second bullet that has me worried, as I have no idea what might have prompted it. Maybe I need to lay off the mushrooms for a while...

Roughing the Passer

"Though I initially called a roughing-the-passer penalty, I am overruling my decision. When defensive end number 97 launched his attack on the quarterback, number 7, the quarterback still had the ball. But the JumboTron clearly shows that number 97's head turned in the direction of the cheerleaders, and number 97 was therefore unable to concentrate fully on the play. The cheerleaders prevented number 97 from knowing that the quarterback had ridded himself of the ball long before number 97 ran into him. The cheerleaders represent an attractive nuisance, and, since they are cheering for the quarterback's team, the offense is responsible. The defendant, in this case, confusingly, the offense, knew or should have known that showcasing cheerleaders, especially in such revealing outfits (see exhibits T and A), would prove to be a reasonable risk of attraction and harm. The cheerleaders are found to be peculiarly or unusually attractive. Therefore, the criteria of an attractive nuisance have been met. As stated earlier, my decision has been overturned. Fourth down. "

From Referree Ed Hochuli's More Notable Calls. By Frank Ferri, courtesy McSweeny's Internet Tendency

I suppose I could stand to type up my notes more often

"Generally, any form of sexual interaction involves some sort of request...I hope I'm not telling you anything new here."
G. Rutherglen

Monkey apple carburetor?

I worry about myself when I'm typing up my notes and I see "burden cost strategic behavior manipulation" apparently intended as a complete sentence. Any thoughts on what that might mean?

Technical difficulties

“The computer is like this class. As the semester goes on, it doesn’t want to start at 8:30 either.”
G. Rutherglen

Nolan v. Transocean Air Lines

276 F.2d 280, 281 (2d Cir. 1960)

Friendly, J. "Our principal task, in this diversity of citizenship case, is to determine what the New York courts would think the California courts would think on an issue about which neither has thought."

I'll bet he spent all night coming up with that one.

Except in One Career, Our Brains Seem Built for Optimism

Except in One Career, Our Brains Seem Built for Optimism [WSJ]
Be sure to read until the end, as the last four sentences are what qualify this article for posting here. (Thanks, Amy)

Law School Term of the Day: supererogatory

supererogatory
adj.

1.	going beyond the requirements of duty.

2.	greater than that required or needed; superfluous.

Encountered in Torts:

"Most of the time we treat rescue as something praise-worthy, as a supererogatory act, rather than as simply doing your duty."

Bosley v. Andrews

393 Pa. 161, 142 A.2d 263 (Pa. 1958)

MUSMANNO, Justice (dissenting).
Like those human beings who believe that fame and fortune always lie in some land distant from their own, the cows of the Dale Andrews farm in West Salem, Mercer County, were not satisfied to browse and chew their cuds in their own pasture. They were certain that in the fields across the highways which bordered their owner's domain, the grass was greener, the earth fresher, the trees shadier, and the skies above bluer. Thus from time to time they would leave their own preserves and invade the Bosley farm on the other side of the road where, with the spirit of bovine buccaneers, they devoured their neighbor's corn and wheat, destroyed his vegetable gardens, knocked over young peach trees, damaged the apple orchard, mangled berry bushes, and eventually departed, leaving behind them a wide swath of ruin destruction. They sometimes went away of their own accord, but frequently they had to be driven back to their home territory by the Bosleys.

On the morning of April 10, 1950, at about 9 o'clock they ambled over to the Bosley farm to breakfast in the fields which were the scene of former invasions but before they reached the regurgitation stage, Mrs. Evelyn Turner (married daughter of the Bosleys), assisted by a trained cattle dog, which was half collie and half of indeterminate breed, headed them off and sent them mooing back to their own pastures. By noon, however, they forgot their defeat of the morning and decided to visit the Bosleys for lunch. This time they came, eight of them, with reinforcements. They brought along their boy friend, a 1500-pound Hereford white-faced bull.

Inspirited and encouraged by their horned escort, the female bovines overran the peach trees and apple orchard when Mrs. Turner, who was in the field with her 6-year old son and the dog, sounded the alarm to her mother, Mrs. Bosley, then in the house. Mrs. Turner at once rang up the Andrews on the telephone to tell them to call off their cloven-hoofed trespassers, and then hurried outside to assist her daughter, not knowing of the presence of Mr. Hereford. Mr. Hereford and Mrs. Bosley saw each other at the same time. Mrs. Bosley screamed, and the truculent Hereford lowered his head to charge. Terror-stricken, Mrs. Bosley tried to run, but, as in a bad dream one cannot flee although disaster is at one's heels, she froze to the spot. As she later described the agonizing moment:

‘I turned around and looked, and he was coming at me with his head down, and I started to run, but I thought I could not get my legs to go and I choked up and I collapsed, and momentarily, I thought he was going to get me, I could just even feel that he was on top of me.'

In the meantime, the collie-mongrel dog, who was to become the unwreathed hero of the episode, bounded into the space between the bull and the terror-stricken woman. The bull then, as dull-witted as his brothers in the shouting arenas of Spain who pursue an innocuous red rag, took after the dog, and Mrs. Bosley was saved from a leaden-footed torreador's end.

[...]

Since the doctors have stated categorically that Mrs. Bosley's heart disability is the direct result of the bull's aggression, and since it is conceded that the bull's presence on the Bosley property constitutes an almost wanton trespass, it is inexplicable how this Court can legally dispose of a controversy which is peculiarly one for a jury's determination. The explanation offered in the Majority Opinion does not explain. To say that to grant what the law allows in this case might create an untoward situation in other cases is like saying that the fountain of justice should be boarded up because of the possibility that someone might drown in its salutary waters.

I would have the fountain flowing at all times, assured that the established safeguards of the law will keep away those who would defile its pure and refreshing essence just as those same safeguards are prepared, if not shackled, to hold responsible those who allow ferocious animals to roam at large to the hurt and grievous loss of the innocent and the unsuspecting, in the tranquil enjoyment of their homes, their gardens, and the prospect of a safe and cloudless future.

In recapitulation I wish to go on record that the policy of non-liability announced by the Majority in this type of case is insupportable in law, logic, and elementary justice-and I shall continue to dissent from it until the cows come home

The rest of the dissent is equally brilliant, including an extended quotation from Shakespeare (King Richard II, Act III, Scene iii). I cannot recommend highly enough that you read the whole text, though I think Blogger would explode if I tried to post it here.

Thacker v. Commonwealth

134 Va. 767, 114 S.E. 504 (1922)

"The accused, in company with two other young men, ...was attending a church festival in Allegheny County, at which all three became intoxicated."

That must have been one heck of a church party. Why save the wine for Sundays?

Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Railroad

116 P.513, 520 (Cal. 1911)

HENSHAW, J. No rational being would change places with the injured man for an amount of gold that would fill the room of the court, yet no lawyer would contend that such is the legal measure of damages.

Fuller v. Lloyd

714 S.W.2d 698 (Mo.App. 1986)

"Soon after their marriage, the Lloyds started a used car business in Albany. Louise supplied the capital and Darrell was responsible for operating the business. [...]
In August of 1980 Darrell became upset because Louise's daughter was driving one of the automobiles and fired a gun at the car while the daughter was in it. No one was injured but the bullet hit the fender of the car. Thereafter, the Lloyds separated and Darrell was charged
with assault."

The court seems to envision the past-incident conversation going like this:
"Hello, husband, dear. You seem to have fired your projectile weapon at my daughter."
"Why yes, I suppose I did. How about that?"
"You know, I don't know that I really feel safe around you any more. I think we should take some time off."
"Whatever you need, shnookums."

Thereafter the Lloyds separated and, oh yeah, Darrell was charged with assault because he is one crazy mofo.

Law School Term of the Day: exiguous

exiguous
adj. Extremely scanty; meager.

I wanted to use exiguous as the Law School Term of the Day but other than the word itself inked across the margin of my Civil Procedure notes, I don't remember the context in which it occurred.

Law School Term of the Day: vituperative

vituperative
adj. Using, containing, or marked by harshly abusive censure.


Encountered in Contracts, quoting Wilson v. Brett, 152 Eng. Rep. 737 (Ex. 1843):

"Gross negligence [is] the same thing as ordinary negligence 'with the addition of a vituperative epithet.'"

Law School Term of the Day: mucilage

mucilage
n.

1. A sticky substance used as an adhesive.
2. A gummy substance obtained from certain plants.


Encountered in Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972):

"The rule of law, evenly applied to minorities as well as majorities, to the poor as well as the rich, is the great mucilage that holds society together."

On brevity:

"According to the court, counsel were lucky that the discipline [for writing an excessively lengthy complaint] was not akin to that meted out by the chancellor in 1596 who 'decided to make an example of a particularly prolix document filed in his court. The chancellor first ordered a hole cut through the center of the document, all 120 pages of it. Then he ordered that the person who wrote it should have his head stuffed through the hole, and the unfortunate fellow was lead around to be exhibited to all those attending court at Westminster Hall.'"