|
6 hours before I have to get up for work
14 hours till Dance Practice 6 days till my stats Math project is due 7 Days before my library books are due 2 minutes before I forget to do something, that I should be doing instead of playing on the computer 3 minutes before I blindly change the channel of this dumb trash I am watching on tv 1hour in a half before I go to sleep 23 days till my formal 13 days till pay day 16 days till the last day of classes 17 days till finals start 15 days before i start stressing over finals 17 days till book buy back :) oh and 75 days till my brithday day (which means sometime in February ) |
oh yea and -7 days for my movies-boy they are really overdue
|
2 more days until the rosiness on my cheeks fade. BOO! (Yes I was in the sun this weekend. I live in Florida. Gotta love it.)
5 days until the Gators chomp Tennessee. Pasadena, here we come. YAY! 9 days until my Property final. BOO! 10 days until the huuuuuuuge holiday party thrown by the law firm where I'll be working next summer. YAY! 19 days until I am done with my finals and my first year of law school. YAY! 20 days until one of my roommates (AKA whiny bitch) moves out. YAY! 22 days until I get to go home for Christmas! YAY! 23 days until I am totally absolutely without a doubt sick of every single one of my relatives. BOO! 4 months since I've had a boyfriend and, ahem, had any "fun". BOO! Actually make that a DOUBLE BOO! |
56 days until I initiate
35 days until I leave for Copper Mountain for a ski trip 34 days until New Years' (my fave holiday) 29 days until Christmas 24 days until I finish my first Semester of College 22 days unitl my first College final 12 days until Formal 10 days until my chemistry exam 3 days until we leave for our pledge class sneak to Kansas State (where I'll get to see a bunch of my HS friends) 2 days until our Frosh with Theta, and our annual Taco Feed philanthropy 1 day until I ask a girl to be my date for formal 4 hours until I go see my Beta Buddy 1 hour until I go to class, and see my best friend ??? days/hours/weeks before they turn on the heat in the pledge wing :mad: http://www.plaudersmilies.de/errrr.gif |
Quote:
I'm sure you'll do just fine! (But boy am I glad I'm not in your shoes anymore. :p ) |
73 days till I write my LSAT
2 Months til Robbie Burns Day/My bf's 27th b-day 27 days til xmas 26 days to shop for xmas 3 weeks until xmas vacation 2 weeks until skiing at Whistler 6 hours til I leave work 1 1/2 hours til lunch |
Quote:
For those of you are have been smart enough to avoid law school so far - the "unborn widow" is the idea that you could write a will leaving property to "my wife" but that isn't necessarily certain who your wife is, even if you're currently married. For example, say Mr. X is 30 and married to Mrs. X. He writes a will leaving property to "my wife" but doesn't identify her by name. Mrs. X divorces Mr. X 10 years later, when he's 40 because she catches him in a weird tryst involving triplets, a goat, and Kraft-mac-and-cheese. (law school casebooks are like this - no one ever "just gets divorced" or "just dies" - they are mushed into bits or beheaded or something really gruesome) 20 years later, when Mr. X is 60, Miss A is born. 20 years after that, Mr. X (now 80) meets Miss A (now 20) Mr. X (aka sleazy old man) marries Miss A. He dies shortly thereafter. Miss A is the "unborn widow" because she wasn't born yet when he made the gift/wrote the will. She was a future person. So now everyone is going to sue about how to define "my wife" in the will. And I will have to read about it in some heavy $100 book. Fabulous. :rolleyes: Doesn't everyone just want to sign up for law school now??? |
my life does have purpose and direction! that actually sounds fascinating to me - thank god!!!! wait, does that make me really odd, or just plain dumb? get me out of undergrad, i want to go to law school now! ;)
|
2 days til thursday (ie the weekend).
(take it as it comes.) |
Quote:
Case in point: The horror of every Torts class: the infamous Palsgraf case. My study partners and I were wishing that Cardozo and Andrews (the two judges that wrote the majority and dissenting opinions) to ROT IN H***. Guy getting on a train, but he's late and the train has started to move. One train employee gives him a boost and another employee who's on the train extends a hand to help pull him up. (I know you've seen this in movies when someone is late and runs to jump up on the train) In the process of helping this idiot with a punctuality problem on the train, he gets bumped around and drops a small package he was holding. He does make it on the train. However, that package contained fireworks. Why the hell he was bringing a small unmarked package of fireworks on a train, I don't know. So anyway, the box falls, hits the tracks, and BOOM! explodes. The explosion carries some kind of shock wave to the platform about 30' away and everyone standing there panics. Mrs. Palsgraf, our helpless little plaintiff, was standing under some heavy scales. (you know the old fashioned kind). The scales fall and hit her, causing and injury and this lovely little lawsuit. So the judges writing the opinions go into these loooooooonnnnngggg detailed analyses of whether it was "reasonably foreseeable" by the train employees that the package was potentially dangerous to people standing on the platform 30 feet away. If anyone has insomnia problems, look up this case, it will cure you! Page after page after page of these complex, yet stultifyingly vague, theoretical concepts. I almost expected them to start discussing "What is the meaning of life?" :rolleyes: In the meantime though, you gotta ask, who cares about whether or not you can "reasonably foresee" such a wack-ass chain of events? Of course you can't! But isn't the problem more that maybe, just MAYBE, train employees shouldn't let people board trains that are MOVING??? :eek: Especially if their movement is restricted, i.e. they're carrying a friggin' box? My Torts class spend an entire hour on this case. The prof was relentless in going through ALLLLLLL the details of the majority and dissenting opinions and asking a bazillion questions about each side, all of which we got wrong. Then he concluded by basically saying that we were all completely hopeless and the true negligence lay in passengers boarding moving trains. So WHY THE HECK did you just spend an HOUR asking us about all that other stuff? |
6 Days till my program is due
7 days till my final marketing test 8 days till my program user guide is due 9 days till my speech group presentation is due 13 days till my Finance final.... about 20 days until I can sleep again 20 minutes till finance :( |
Update!
17 days till I graduate with a bachelor's:D
8 days till I find out if I got the job at the Daily Herald 2 days till MIKE AND JOE!!!!! |
g8Ralphaxi
I love reading your post about those scenarios-it is cracking me up. Post more. What is the weirdest one you have read? What is the kinkiest/strangest? I should have gone to law school just for the case stories. Maybe if I pay off all of my student loans from vet. school-of course I am on the 30 year plan. Do they let 60 year olds in? |
Speaking of crazy law stories...do any of you remember the case in 1L crim law where they tried some sailors for murder for eating one of their shipmates after a shipwreck?
That one always stuck out in my mind.:eek: |
Oh, I remember that shipwreck/eating case. Creepy.
The absolute funniest thing I ever read in law school was the case Regina v. Ojibway (I'm pasting this, so I hope it comes out okay): _______ Blue, J. Fred Ojibway, an Indian, was riding his pony through Queen's Park on January 2, 1965. Being impoverished, and having been forced to pledge his saddle, he substituted a downy pillow in lieu of the said saddle. On this particular day the accused's misfortune was further heightened by the circumstance of his pony breaking its right foreleg. In accord with Indian custom, the accused then shot the pony to relieve it of its awkwardness. The accused was then charged with having breached the Small Birds Act, s. 2 of which states: 'Anyone maiming, injuring or killing small birds is guilty of an offense and subject to a fine not in excess of two hundred dollars.' The learned magistrate acquitted the accused, holding in fact, that he had killed his horse and not a small bird. With respect I cannot agree. In Light of the definition section my course is quite clear. Section 1 defines 'bird' as a 'two legged animal covered with feathers.' There can be no doubt that this case is covered by this section. Counsel for the accused made several ingenious arguments to which, in fairness, I must address myself. He submitted that the evidence of the expert clearly concluded that the animal in question was a pony and not a bird, but this is not the issue. We are not interested in whether the animal in question is a bird or not, in fact, but whether it is one in law. Statutory interpretation has forced many a horse to eat birdseed for the rest of its life. Counsel also contended that the neighing noise emitted by the animal could not possibly be produced by a bird. With respect the sounds emitted by an animal are irrelevant to its nature, for a bird is no less a bird because it is silent. Counsel for the accused also argued that since there was evidence to show accused had ridden the animal, this pointed to the fact that it could not be a bird but was actually a pony. Obviously, this avoids the issue. The issue is not whether the animal was ridden or not, but whether it was shot or not, for to ride a pony or a bird is no offense at all. I believe that counsel now sees his mistake. Counsel contends that the iron shoes found on the animal decisively disqualify it from being a bird. I must inform counsel, however, that how an animal dresses is of no concern to this Court. Counsel relied on the decision in Re Chicadee, where he contends that in similar circumstances the accused was acquitted. However, this is a horse of a different color. A close reading of that case indictes [sic ] that the animal in question there was not a small bird, but, in fact, a midget of a much larger species. Therefore, that case is inapplicable to our facts. Counsel finally submits that the word 'small' in the title Small Birds Act refers not to 'Birds' but to 'Act,' making it the Small Act relating to Birds. With respect, counsel did not do his homework very well, for the Large Birds Act * * * is just as small. If pressed, I need only refer to the Small Loans Act * * * which is twice as large as the Large Birds Act. It remains then to state my reason for judgment which, simply, is as follows: Different things may take on the same meaning for different purposes. For the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two-legged, feather- covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two- legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multilegged animals with feathers as well. Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute only small animals 'naturally covered' with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intention of the legislature I am certain that the phrase 'naturally covered' would have been expressly inserted just as 'Long' was inserted in the Longshoreman's Act. Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be a bird, and a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird. Counsel posed the following rhetorical question: If the pillow had been removed prior to the shooting, would the animal still be a bird? To this, let me answer rhetorically: Is a bird any less of a bird without its feathers? _______ On a side note, the second funniest thing was Cordas v. Peerless Transp. Co., 27 NYS 2d 198. It might be in your torts book, and is definitely worth reading. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.