Thread of legal hubbub
Thread of legal hubbub
@MalkinIsMyHomeboy
-
- Posts: 19785
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
- Location: Iodine State
Thread of legal hubbub
Git gud, noob.
Thread of legal hubbub
Is the bar like the CPA, they curve it to only let X amount in each period?
Thread of legal hubbub
No.
But CA has a lot of looney tunes folks that take the bar. And a **** ton of retakers. You can sit for the bar, and practice, in CA without a law degree.
But CA has a lot of looney tunes folks that take the bar. And a **** ton of retakers. You can sit for the bar, and practice, in CA without a law degree.
Thread of legal hubbub
No, but if you get close enough to the cut line your essays are automatically assigned to a different examiner for reevaluation. The highest score of the two is your official result.Is the bar like the CPA, they curve it to only let X amount in each period?
Thread of legal hubbub
California's results were actually not all that worse than other states. California had 34% pass. The passage rates for the February bar exam were 45% for New York, 44% for Florida, and 37% for Pennsylvania. California is known to have a difficult exam, so there's no surprise that it's passage rate is lower than those other states, but it's not like other states had 90% of applicants pass.
The February bar exam is also the test that usually taken by people who have already failed once and are taking again; most new law-school graduates take the bar exam in July. People who have failed before are more likely to fail again. The press release from the State Bar of California mentions that about 1/3 of the test-takers were first timers and 2/3 were repeat testers, so that would skew the results lower.
The February bar exam is also the test that usually taken by people who have already failed once and are taking again; most new law-school graduates take the bar exam in July. People who have failed before are more likely to fail again. The press release from the State Bar of California mentions that about 1/3 of the test-takers were first timers and 2/3 were repeat testers, so that would skew the results lower.
Thread of legal hubbub
I passed on the first try in February. *flex*
I graduated a semester early. Not sure I would or could have studied as hard during the summer.
I graduated a semester early. Not sure I would or could have studied as hard during the summer.
-
- Posts: 29552
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
- Location: “MIMH is almost always correct” -ulf
Thread of legal hubbub
alright looking for some legitimate advice
If you followed my escapades in the Thread of Love (I don’t recommend it), you’d know that earlier this year i hired a local matchmaker. Paid her $815 with the expectation of going in 12 dates in 6 months. After only 1 date in 4 months, she said over text on April 14th: “I’m sorry for your experience with these ladies it's been one thing after another. If I can't get a few dates set up by the end of the month then obviously I would be issuing a refund. I'm really trying”. After more time of her not setting up any dates, on April 25th she sends me “ When it rains, it pours! More and more ladies reaching out to me which is great! I'll have dates for you at end of day today!” which I honestly don’t believe because she has said this before and it never materialized into a date. I text back that I was planning on moving to Charlotte (this was something I had not decided on until after I realized she wasn’t gonna be able to find someone) and that I’d like to take the refund option. She agrees to the refund by saying “Ok, I'll be in touch... I'm sad but happy for you” and since then it’s been her saying that she’s gonna pay me but she never does. It’s been 3 months since then and she’s still waffling on the refund.
She asked if she can pay me back on a payment plan and I said yes. I’m really trying to be empathetic but when she was my matchmaker she was incompetent and confusing so I don’t know if I trust her and I’m very pissed off at all her antics. It’s always “I’ll get it soon!” And then radio silence. It’s bullshit
so is it worth pursuing this legally? I’m guessing it’d be a small claims court thing but I have no idea if this is a slam dunk win for me or if I’d just be wasting my time. It’s “only” $815 but she honestly doesn’t deserve the money and I’m not donating to her charity fund
If you followed my escapades in the Thread of Love (I don’t recommend it), you’d know that earlier this year i hired a local matchmaker. Paid her $815 with the expectation of going in 12 dates in 6 months. After only 1 date in 4 months, she said over text on April 14th: “I’m sorry for your experience with these ladies it's been one thing after another. If I can't get a few dates set up by the end of the month then obviously I would be issuing a refund. I'm really trying”. After more time of her not setting up any dates, on April 25th she sends me “ When it rains, it pours! More and more ladies reaching out to me which is great! I'll have dates for you at end of day today!” which I honestly don’t believe because she has said this before and it never materialized into a date. I text back that I was planning on moving to Charlotte (this was something I had not decided on until after I realized she wasn’t gonna be able to find someone) and that I’d like to take the refund option. She agrees to the refund by saying “Ok, I'll be in touch... I'm sad but happy for you” and since then it’s been her saying that she’s gonna pay me but she never does. It’s been 3 months since then and she’s still waffling on the refund.
She asked if she can pay me back on a payment plan and I said yes. I’m really trying to be empathetic but when she was my matchmaker she was incompetent and confusing so I don’t know if I trust her and I’m very pissed off at all her antics. It’s always “I’ll get it soon!” And then radio silence. It’s bullshit
so is it worth pursuing this legally? I’m guessing it’d be a small claims court thing but I have no idea if this is a slam dunk win for me or if I’d just be wasting my time. It’s “only” $815 but she honestly doesn’t deserve the money and I’m not donating to her charity fund
Thread of legal hubbub
Did you have a written contract, or anything in writing (emails, texts, etc.) that memorializes the "12 dates in 6 months" expectation?
Thread of legal hubbub
Didn't see this posted anywhere yet, and it could go in any number of threads. Putting it here because it raises some pretty good questions imo.
The Strangest Batmobile Quest and the Corruption Controversy It Started Are at an End
EXCLUSIVE: Batmobile raid hearing canceled, San Mateo DA considers dropping case
Batmobile Raid May Have Gone Too Far, DA Says
The Strangest Batmobile Quest and the Corruption Controversy It Started Are at an End
EXCLUSIVE: Batmobile raid hearing canceled, San Mateo DA considers dropping case
Batmobile Raid May Have Gone Too Far, DA Says
Thread of legal hubbub
Now there are some good causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, at least. Probably conspiracy too.
Thread of legal hubbub
Our friends just purchased a Honda Pioneer (4 seater UTV) about 2 weeks back. Over the weekend, he was out hanging tree stands with his almost 3 year old son. Key was out of the UTV and in park. 3 year old son was able to grab the gear shifter and pull it out of park, into neutral, and coast down the hill around 20 yards into a tree.
There was no safety mechanism that prohibited the UTV from being taken out of park neither from the foot brake nor the key being in it. There is also no hand/foot emergency brake. With these UTVs being essentially small jeeps, this seems like a huge safety issue.
I know we have some consumer protection attorneys on this board. Thoughts?
(disclaimer, these functionality (or lack thereof) claims are all my buddy's, I didn't validate any of them)
There was no safety mechanism that prohibited the UTV from being taken out of park neither from the foot brake nor the key being in it. There is also no hand/foot emergency brake. With these UTVs being essentially small jeeps, this seems like a huge safety issue.
I know we have some consumer protection attorneys on this board. Thoughts?
(disclaimer, these functionality (or lack thereof) claims are all my buddy's, I didn't validate any of them)
Thread of legal hubbub
I'm mostly a defense lawyer, though, so my first through is that the parents are primarily negligent for letting their three-year-old kid play around like that.
Thread of legal hubbub
I wasn't talking to YOU
Thread of legal hubbub
I don't know much about UTVs but I don't think they're generally street legal, are they? (Meaning a lot of those safety features would be non-factors) I don't know, either way it seems 'access' is the most important safety feature.
Thread of legal hubbub
SITREP on the Batmobile case:
tl;dr = The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors have requested the matter be looked into by the office of the California State Attorney General.
Thread of legal hubbub
mac, I'm a consumer protection attorney but not really into the product liability stuff. That litigation is expensive and I'm a solo.
I'd start by looking at what kind of warnings came with the UTV and ask yourself if they seem adequate.
I'd start by looking at what kind of warnings came with the UTV and ask yourself if they seem adequate.
Thread of legal hubbub
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2258_202207/
That's where you'd start. Is there an industry standard for parking brakes or removing the vehicle from park? I've got a list of ANSI standards we have to test for based on stability and parking brake holding, and ignition lockouts (E brake must be applied to start). There is no required force to disengage an emergency brake (only a max to apply it). But every garden tractor I've seen or mower/stand on I've worked on has an e-brake function, and our UTV here at the shop has one as well.
I'd be very surprised that there's not an e-brake req. for a UTV in the standards. Now the 3yo may still be strong enough to disengage the e-brake and then it's on the father for not supervising, but that's step two.
That's where you'd start. Is there an industry standard for parking brakes or removing the vehicle from park? I've got a list of ANSI standards we have to test for based on stability and parking brake holding, and ignition lockouts (E brake must be applied to start). There is no required force to disengage an emergency brake (only a max to apply it). But every garden tractor I've seen or mower/stand on I've worked on has an e-brake function, and our UTV here at the shop has one as well.
I'd be very surprised that there's not an e-brake req. for a UTV in the standards. Now the 3yo may still be strong enough to disengage the e-brake and then it's on the father for not supervising, but that's step two.
Thread of legal hubbub
Interesting, thanks. Didn't know these types of things exist. Again I've never even seen a pioneer in person. I just know that Polaris and yamaha both have hand E brakes that require a forceful button push and yank. A 3 year old would have trouble with them. I can see NOT having one since it's a park style shifter like in an auto. But you should have to either have the key in or the brake on to move the shifter, at the least.https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2258_202207/
That's where you'd start. Is there an industry standard for parking brakes or removing the vehicle from park? I've got a list of ANSI standards we have to test for based on stability and parking brake holding, and ignition lockouts (E brake must be applied to start). There is no required force to disengage an emergency brake (only a max to apply it). But every garden tractor I've seen or mower/stand on I've worked on has an e-brake function, and our UTV here at the shop has one as well.
I'd be very surprised that there's not an e-brake req. for a UTV in the standards. Now the 3yo may still be strong enough to disengage the e-brake and then it's on the father for not supervising, but that's step two.
I highly doubt they take any legal action. This was more so a conversation we had over a couple drinks and I didn't know how these types of things gain traction.
Thread of legal hubbub
Unless the kiddo was seriously injured or killed (and I certainly hope not), I highly doubt a lawyer would take the case, at least on a contingency basis, and I guarantee your friends would not want to pay hourly for that case. It would take a wall of text to explain in detail how products-liability cases work, and the state of the law is constantly in flux, but under the Tincher v. Omega Flex case, a plaintiff in Pennsylvania must demonstrate that a given product is "defective" by either showing: (1) that it presents an unknowable and unacceptable danger, or (2) that a reasonable person would conclude that the risk of potential harm outweighs the burden and cost of taking precautions.
The thing is, I can guarantee that those two questions are going to come down to a "battle of the experts" where each side hires one or more expert witnesses, such as engineers experienced in vehicle design and safety. And those guys charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars per hour for their time. I can absolutely guarantee that Honda would bring multiple engineering experts to the suit. A case like that could easily cost more than $100,000 to litigate through trial, and it could be much more than $100,000. Shoot, the discovery alone could cost $100,000.
So basically, unless your friends would have at least six figures in damages (like the kiddo lost an arm or broke his back), the cost would almost certainly not be worth it. I can give an example of a products-liability that I once defended that was clearly worth it. A plaintiff argued that a small backhoe that he had rented to work in his yard was defective in that it was prone to tipping over. It fell over on him, crushed his spine, and paralyzed him from the chest down. The defendants absolutely had expert engineers who testified and submitted expert reports saying that the backhoe was properly designed and that the plaintiff had been using it improperly, so his damages were all self-inflicted by user error and the backhoe was not dangerous. The plaintiff had to hire experts to argue the opposite. That was a case where the injuries (i.e., lifetime paralysis) were at a level where the cost of suit was worth it.
The thing is, I can guarantee that those two questions are going to come down to a "battle of the experts" where each side hires one or more expert witnesses, such as engineers experienced in vehicle design and safety. And those guys charge hundreds if not thousands of dollars per hour for their time. I can absolutely guarantee that Honda would bring multiple engineering experts to the suit. A case like that could easily cost more than $100,000 to litigate through trial, and it could be much more than $100,000. Shoot, the discovery alone could cost $100,000.
So basically, unless your friends would have at least six figures in damages (like the kiddo lost an arm or broke his back), the cost would almost certainly not be worth it. I can give an example of a products-liability that I once defended that was clearly worth it. A plaintiff argued that a small backhoe that he had rented to work in his yard was defective in that it was prone to tipping over. It fell over on him, crushed his spine, and paralyzed him from the chest down. The defendants absolutely had expert engineers who testified and submitted expert reports saying that the backhoe was properly designed and that the plaintiff had been using it improperly, so his damages were all self-inflicted by user error and the backhoe was not dangerous. The plaintiff had to hire experts to argue the opposite. That was a case where the injuries (i.e., lifetime paralysis) were at a level where the cost of suit was worth it.
Thread of legal hubbub
Yeah the kid is totally fine. Maybe a few thousand in damage to the UTV.
Thread of legal hubbub
Qualified Immunity's Flawed Foundation
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4179628
Law prof Alex Reinert has a paper out asserting that qualified immunity is based on a scrivener's error. The statute that is now codified at 18 USC § 1983, which is the statute that authorizes people to sue government officials for civil-rights violations, currently reads:
But Reinert asserts that the original text of the statute passed by Congress said:
This is significant, because if the Notwithstanding Clause is part of the law, then it would appear to say that common-law defenses were specifically precluded and are not available in § 1983 suits, and qualified immunity is precisely such a common-law defense.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=4179628
Law prof Alex Reinert has a paper out asserting that qualified immunity is based on a scrivener's error. The statute that is now codified at 18 USC § 1983, which is the statute that authorizes people to sue government officials for civil-rights violations, currently reads:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…."
But Reinert asserts that the original text of the statute passed by Congress said:
According to the article, the omission came about because:Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall, any such law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of the State to the contrary notwithstanding, be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress…."
[T]he version of the statute we find on the shelves of any law library is the product of a decision by the first Reviser of federal statutes to, for unclear reasons, remove the italicized language when the first edition of the Revised Statutes of the United States was published in 1874. Although the Revised Statutes were supplemented and corrected over time until the first United States Code was published in 1926, the Reviser’s error in omitting the Notwithstanding Clause from the reported version of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 was never corrected.
This is significant, because if the Notwithstanding Clause is part of the law, then it would appear to say that common-law defenses were specifically precluded and are not available in § 1983 suits, and qualified immunity is precisely such a common-law defense.
Thread of legal hubbub
Explain it like I'm 5