We had a mandatory statutory interpretation research lecture today. The research librarian was pretty funny:
Librarian: “You know how there are those people who get scared talking in front of large groups of people? Well, I should have checked where they keep the defibrillators beforehand…”
Librarian: “This is a diagram from Westlaw. I don’t think it’s that helpful but other people have told me it is. Personally it makes me a little dizzy, a little nauseous..”
Librarian: “And everyone just loves microfiche! Typically when we tell someone that we have the document in microfiche they suddenly don’t need it anymore…”
He also mentioned that there was a Soulja version of School House Rock’s “How a Bill Becomes a law”… and sure enough:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaMt6qj1XRc]
We just a semi-brutal moment in Corporations. The professor started with yesterday’s reading:
Professor M: “And can shareholders act with written consent in Delaware?” Jack: “I didn’t catch that in the reading.” Professor M: “And you wouldn’t have caught it in the reading unless you read the statutes I assigned for today! Well?” (Deathly silence. Jack blushes) Professor M: “Does anyone know the answer?” (More awkward silence) Professor M: “I’m disappointed. I’m not surprised, but disappointed.”
Why isn’t Professor M surprised? General incompetence? Nope. Today is the day before “Winter Break.”
“Winter Break” is a four day weekend at UMN Law. I think Winter Break is designed to help 1L retention. Our professors told us to “take some time off to do things we love.”
No one bought that line.
Grades are in. Classes, legal writing and the 1L summer job hunt are in full swing. This is our 4-day catch up weekend and we are grateful for it. But whether Winter Break is the reason no one read the Corporations statutes is another matter…
* And by the way, if anyone in Corps wants to pull up the statutes on Westlaw, that post is here.
I returned the massive statute book for Corporate law. I thought, “It’s online. I’m never carrying that book anywhere…so why waste $30?”
Well, after I got my $30 back, I realized that I don’t know how to find any of the statutes online. Great.
After some tech support time I figured out how to pull up DGCL (Delaware General Corporation Law) and RMBCA (Revised Model Business Corporation Act) on Westlaw: Continue reading “FYI – for those in corporations” »
The case is about a 14-year-old gymnast who tried this:
The girl (of course) landed on her head, was injured, and sued.
Now, it’s hard to explain the complicated vault, so this is what the court did:
Goetz began participating in gymnastics programs when she was five or six years old, and it appears from the record that she is a fairly skilled gymnast. She attempted the difficult Tsukahara vault for the first time in the autumn of 2001. When performing a Tsukahara vault, a gymnast runs along a long mat, jumps off a springboard, does a half twist, pushes off a pommel horse with her hands while upside down, does one and a half flips, and lands on her feet facing the horse.1
[....]
1 The school district cited a video of Mitsuo Tsukahara performing his namesake vault at the 1976 Olympics. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TmYqSOYZr0 (last visited Dec. 16, 2008). Goetz did not object to the citation. We found the video to be helpful.
I think this is brilliant. It would be terribly convenient for courts to create a youtube channel that contains videos of pertinent material, including depositions (instead of transcribing them in opinions)…
…heck, or even Westlaw – “Defendant robbed a bank…see the video here.”
… “Defendant cussed out judge and was thrown in jail for contempt of court…see video here.”
Sure, it might put TruTV out of business, but I still think it’s the business.
Lexis has a very liberal point system. You get points for researching, tutorials, and 400 points-a-pop for those goofy searches that the Lexis rep emails.
Lexis will give you a $5 Starbucks gift card for 400 points, and a $10 gift card for 715 points.
I’ve received five $10 gift cards so far.
That’s right. $50 in coffee. Thank you mam.
Today I’m studying for my contracts final at Starbucks, courtesy of Lexis. I hand the gift card to the chipper Barista and she asks, “Haveya registered your card yet?”
Me: (mumbling) “no… I haven’t… it’s only for $10 so…” Barista: “Well! If ya register it you get free refills dontcha know! That’ll be 54 cents, oh, wait! Someone registered it for you. Your refills are free! Here-ya-go dontcha know!”
Holler Lexis. Holler.
Despite Lexis’s bribes, I still do most of my research on Westlaw because I’ve learned Westlaw’s shorthand for restatements… for example, “Rest 2d Contr 90” will pull up “Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90: Promise Reasonably Inducing Action Or Forbearance.” I’m sure Lexis has a similar shorthand… I just haven’t bothered to learn it yet.
Westlaw also has a point system, but doesn’t offer gift cards. And uh, everything I’ve seen on Westlaw Rewards costs about 10,000 more points than I have. Maybe I’ll get a highlighter someday…
* No, I’m not a student rep, nor am I being paid for this.
Update **********
Apparently the coffee is so delicious that I feel the need to pour it all over myself. Wee! ITS SO WARM! (but not scalding) I’m not getting up for a while…
Update #2 **********
The fun continues on facebook…
And an insurance company whose maximum interest in the case cannot exceed $20,000 and who in fact asserts that it has no interest at all, should not be allowed to determine that dozens of tort plaintiffs must be compelled to press their claims-even those claims which are not against the insured and which in no event could be satisfied out of the meager insurance fund-in a single forum of the insurance company’s choosing.
There is nothing in the statutory scheme, and very little in the judicial and academic commentary upon that scheme, which requires that the tail be allowed to wag the dog in this fashion.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire. 386 U.S. 523
Excerpt from Justice Buckley’s opinion (retrieved from Westlaw)
Williams v. Foster 281 Ill.App.3d 203, 666 N.E.2d 678
Ill.App. 1 Dist.,1996. March 29, 1996 (Approx. 6 pages)
Mr. and Mrs. Foster each testified that in 1983, they purchased a new water heater, which was manufactured by State and installed by Sears. The installer never provided any warnings or safety information, and the heater was installed in a utility closet which was lined with insulation along its three walls.
On March 30, 1988, while the Fosters were asleep, a fire broke out on the ground floor of their house. When they awoke, they were trapped on the second floor by the flames and smoke. At about that time, plaintiff was driving home when he noticed smoke coming from the side of the Fosters’ house. He exited his car and approached the house to help the Fosters evacuate.
Mr. Foster broke the glass out of his bedroom window, helped Stacie climb outside, and lowered her down to plaintiff. Mr. Foster then began breaking more glass out of the window so he and plaintiff could do the same thing with Mrs. Foster, who was larger than Stacie. Plaintiff testified that he yelled to Mrs. Foster not to jump so that Mr. Foster could finish clearing out the glass and lower her down slowly, but she pushed Mr. Foster aside and jumped out head first. Plaintiff stated that he was standing directly beneath the window, and that he caught Mrs. Foster to break her fall and prevent her head from hitting the ground. The force of the collision broke plaintiff’s ankle. He testified that his foot was at a 90 degree angle with his leg.
(Plaintiff sued installer of water heater and wife. The wife was not held liable because court found that she was not negligent in jumping from a burning building.)
Today in Civ Pro we picked apart a (extremely) poorly written answer to a complaint. Giant fail.
Professor V: We see that the complaint has a lot of problems, but it seems like the defendant wasn’t even trying to get it right. I asked the clerk of the court if this was typical, and she said that there was a deep divide: 90% of the pleadings were perfect, and 10% were absolutely dreadful. This obviously falls into the dreadful category, but that makes it an awfully good learning tool.
An example of the absurdity… the defendant, Southwestern Publishing Company, denied this part of the Plaintiff’s claim:
IV.
Defendant, The Southwestern Company, engages in the business of publishing and selling books to residential customers. Defendant contracts with college students to spend their summers selling its books from door to door in residential areas selected by Defendant.
Students who participate in the program represent approximately 350 colleges and universities from the United States, Canada, Europe, South Africa, and South America. Our products are sold to families in their homes by these students during their summer breaks. These students are independent contractors and have the opportunity to run their own businesses by purchasing products from Southwestern at wholesale and selling them to customers at retail.
Um…yeah.
* For you Westlaw people, the full case is at: Grewe v. Southwestern Co. Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 1593048 D.Minn.,2005. but the botched answer to the amended complaint is not among the Westlaw court docs on Westlaw. Hm..
The cases that are hardest to understand are the ones where one of the parties did something incredibly stupid. For example, in Batsakis v. Demotsis (1949), Mrs. Demotsis agreed to pay $2000 for a loan of 500,000 drachmas (worth about $25)
‘Q. ….. who suggested the figure of $2,000.00?
A. That was how he asked me from the beginning. He said he will give me five hundred thousand drachmas provided I signed that I would pay him $2,000.00 American money.’
I had to look the case up on Westlaw because I couldn’t believe someone agreed to pay back 80 times the amount they borrowed.
It also looked like Mrs. Demotsis signed a letter stating she received $2000, when she really only borrowed $25.
I must have read it wrong. The case must be in old-speak. No one does that. I must be missing something…
And so I check Westlaw and learn that Mrs. Demotsis actually agreed to pay $2000 for $25 loan. And she also signed a letter stating she received $2000, when she …well, didn’t.
So I learned three things:
I need to trust my readings of cases.
Mere inadequacy of consideration will not void a contract
Most Popular Posts