Such a Close Call..

So week three already? Doesn’t seem like its been that long already!!

Things I’ve learned! (Which I will explain in detail later..)

  • Law school and high school are not that different..
  • I need to set more alarms
  • Headphones keep the world out!
  • How to pronounce federalist (well, still working on it.. don’t judge)

Last week went really well! I learned how to use LexisNexis.com and Westlaw.com. Two amazing research tools that OCU provides to its students! Plus learning new case law/statutes for torts, contracts, and civ pro! In legal research and writing we spent the week being taught how to do a rule synthesis and analysis which we applied today in class to 3 cases.. This was our first attempt at group work in law school, and I would like to say it went well! (Minus the fact that I was 8 minutes LATE TO CLASS! I know..)

Things I’ve learned in CLASS this week!

  • Torts: Trespass to Chattels & Conversion to Chattels –

 

  • Contracts: Offer and Acceptance – An offer is the “manifestation of willingness to enter into a bargain, so made as to justify another person in understanding that his assent to that bargain is invited and will conclude it.” Without acceptance of an offer there is no binding contract 🙂

 

  • Civil Procedures: Minimal Contact + Purposeful Availment – both of which apply to the courts ability to assert personal jurisdiction/long-arm jurisdiction over out of state residents/companies. Minimal Contact – “Does the defendant have “minimal contact” with the forum state such that the assertion of jurisdiction would not violate Due Process Clause?” … Has the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of the state’s law?

 

  • Legal Research & Writing: Rule Synthesis – how to take a rule provided by case law, relate similar cases with similar facts and develop a specified law for the issue presented to the court. It’s a little more complicated than you think! We were given a memorandum as if a senior attorney assigned us to the case and worked in groups to come up with the law applicable to the facts provided. It was hard to determine what the law would consider a “material change” in a victim’s location or condition when being applied to a plaintiff’s actionable tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress. If you move the victim from a room to the hallway is that considered a material change in location? One of the cases provided said moving from outside to inside (away from the scene of the incident) is a material change, and another said moving from a car crash to the hospital is absolutely a material change in location.. but if you were attacked in a hospital bed and then they moved your hospital bed (with you in it) to the hallway directly in front of your room, you were moved from the room where you were attacked but is this movement a material change? complicated! but I’m pretty sure the answer in no. Anyways that’s whats going on in LR&W!!
Advertisements

Please Let Me Know What You Think! I Love Comments!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s