Law School

[SigmaChiCard]

Not sure if I mentioned it, but I passed the KY bar exam this past July.

I take the patent bar on Thursday.

For anyone who has had to study for the regular bar.....that is a cakewalk compared to this thing! Anyone else doing patent law here?



also, if anyone ever wants my old outlines, you're more than welcome to them.....i tended to have very minimalist outlines, but they tend to have the bulk of the info in them & are very efficient if you can follow them. My friends sometimes thought they were hieroglyphics. For the Bar exam, my longest outlines were 4 pages for Wills, Trusts & Estates & 4.5 pages for real property. Criminal Law was 1.

Currently I've gotten most of the patent law down into 7 pages.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

Oh, that's bizarre. My boyfriend uses this made up system of citation that I can't believe nobody has called him out for yet. If he is referring to a case, he'll write:

The court held in Roe that abortion should be legal.

but if he's citing to the case, he'll put:

As the Court held, the Constitution has "penumbras, formed by emanations." Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).

Heh. I see lawyers with some regularity who underline and italicize:

"As the Court held, the Constitution has "penumbras, formed by emanations." Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)."

It drives me nuts. The whole thing is rather simple. Case names should always be italicized. Underlining is a typewriter convention to indicate text that would be italicized if possible. Italicizing is possible with a word processor, hence underlining is not needed as a substitute.

Of course, then there are the people who, for emphasis, will bold, italicize and underline. Because it's that important! LOL -- people who work with me know that I will never sign my name to a brief with any bolded text in it.

[Kevin]

The bluebook says that both underlining and italics are acceptable.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The bluebook says that both underlining and italics are acceptable.

Sure, it does, because they're the same thing. It also notes that "[t]raditionally, underscoring was simply a way of indicating to the printer text that should be italicized." (18th Ed. at 4) Underscoring (underlining) is a substitute for italics. Since wordprocessers can typeset, underlining is not needed as a substitute anymore.

As an aside, I have yet to practice in a court that sticks to Bluebook rules regarding citations.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Heh. I see lawyers with some regularity who underline and italicize:

"As the Court held, the Constitution has "penumbras, formed by emanations." Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)."

It drives me nuts. The whole thing is rather simple. Case names should always be italicized. Underlining is a typewriter convention to indicate text that would be italicized if possible. Italicizing is possible with a word processor, hence underlining is not needed as a substitute.

Of course, then there are the people who, for emphasis, will bold, italicize and underline. Because it's that important! LOL -- people who work with me know that I will never sign my name to a brief with any bolded text in it.

In one of the cases Mr. GP is doing right now, the state has traffic stop and custodial interrogation bolded every time they quote. I wonder if they copied and pasted from Westlaw.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by GeekyPenguin

In one of the cases Mr. GP is doing right now, the state has traffic stop and custodial interrogation bolded every time they quote. I wonder if they copied and pasted from Westlaw.

My guess is yep. I've actually seen briefs filed that are in the Verdana font with citations italicized, underlined (hyperlinked) and in gray (I'm assuming they'd be blue with color prints) AND the *898 *272 page markers. Talk about lazy....