Thread of legal hubbub

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Fri May 06, 2022 9:42 am

@MalkinIsMyHomeboy



DigitalGypsy66
Posts: 19680
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
Location: Iodine State

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby DigitalGypsy66 » Sat May 07, 2022 9:16 am


Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Sat May 07, 2022 11:10 am

Git gud, noob.

willeyeam
Posts: 39563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby willeyeam » Sat May 07, 2022 11:26 am

Is the bar like the CPA, they curve it to only let X amount in each period?

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Sat May 07, 2022 10:43 pm

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.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Sun May 08, 2022 10:25 am

Is the bar like the CPA, they curve it to only let X amount in each period?
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.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Mon May 09, 2022 7:24 pm

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.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Mon May 09, 2022 7:28 pm

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.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Sat Jul 16, 2022 9:12 pm


MalkinIsMyHomeboy
Posts: 29195
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:45 pm
Location: (=^_^=)

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby MalkinIsMyHomeboy » Wed Aug 03, 2022 7:36 pm

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

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Wed Aug 03, 2022 8:08 pm

Did you have a written contract, or anything in writing (emails, texts, etc.) that memorializes the "12 dates in 6 months" expectation?

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:02 pm

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
Short version:

- Rich dude in CA puts deposit down against $210,000 cost of building a replica Barris Batmobile (from the TV show).
- Builder (in Indiana) is the only entity officially licensed by DC Comics to make these vehicles.
- Buyer misses milestone payment and ghosted the builder for 8 months, not returning any messages.
- Builder informs buyer that his car is being moved from the front to the end of the production line of the (8 or 9?) in progress builds.
- Buyer becomes angry and pays off balance in full, but Builder cannot shift his build timeline now that he's moved on to other projects.
- Buyer files civil suit in CA (dismissed), then tries to file criminal charges in Indiana (told "civil court, schmuck").
- Buyer loses mind, leverages personal relationship with the lame duck outgoing Sheriff in San Mateo County.
- Multiple SMCS deputies are dispatched to Indiana with warrants in hand, and secure a warrant signed by a local Indiana Judge to search the Builder's shop.
- In parallel to this, separate warrants were obtained in CA to freeze Builder's business bank account and get his Gmail records.
- Local (in San Mateo) ABC news affiliate gets wind of ensuing shenanigans.
- County DA learns of all this from news reporting, shuts it all down.

I would like to take a monthlong vacation like the San Mateo County Sheriff in this case. That sounds sweet.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Tue Aug 09, 2022 6:45 pm

Now there are some good causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, at least. Probably conspiracy too.

mac5155
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby mac5155 » Tue Aug 09, 2022 7:59 pm

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)

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Tue Aug 09, 2022 8:25 pm

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.

mac5155
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby mac5155 » Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:40 pm

I wasn't talking to YOU

:pop: :lol:
we told him he should've been paying closer attention

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:01 pm

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.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby tifosi77 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:53 pm

SITREP on the Batmobile case:
The San Mateo Sheriff circulated an internal department memo that basically said, "Yup. That all happened per my direction after my friend and campaign donor made a personal entreaty to me..... and I'd do it again if the same facts were presented by some complete rando, because who does that minister in the midwest think he is, with his Batmobiles and whatnot."

A total of four deputies were dispatched to Indiana (a Lt, a Sgt, and two investigators) to execute the warrants. The accusation (to support the 'diversion of construction funds' charge) was that Builder was spending money from Clients B-I to build Client A's car. The initial plan was to apprehend the Builder and escort him back to San Mateo with two of the deputies, and have the other two impound the (or I guess 'a') Batmobile and transport it back to SMC as well. During warrant service it became pretty clear to investigators on scene that Builder was pretty much on the up and up, and and local Indiana constabulary that was brought along for support indicated that the pros from Cali were going to have some problems on their hands if they tried to place an Indiana resident in custody and seize their property in Indiana if the facts were as they were understood (IN LEOs thought they were aiding in the execution of search warrants only).

Meanwhile, ahead of the trip the SMCS Lt who swore the affidavit to secure the warrants was........................ let's go with 'generous' in his characterization of the case. He described himself as the Commander of the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force, but left out that he's also the boss of the Auto Theft Task Force. Now, the former is entirely accurate.... but completely irrelevant. We have no idea what was said to the judges to support the affidavits and warrant applications, but if the judges were in any way under the impression that they were dealing with something connected to an ongoing narcotics investigation, that might grease the wheels for what was otherwise a pretty unusual interstate escapade.
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.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby dodint » Wed Aug 10, 2022 12:55 pm

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.

CBear3
Posts: 7666
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby CBear3 » Wed Aug 10, 2022 2:47 pm

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.

mac5155
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby mac5155 » Thu Aug 11, 2022 9:50 am

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.
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.

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.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Thu Aug 11, 2022 7:42 pm

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.

mac5155
Posts: 13840
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:47 pm

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby mac5155 » Thu Aug 11, 2022 11:22 pm

Yeah the kid is totally fine. Maybe a few thousand in damage to the UTV.

Shyster
Posts: 13093
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:08 pm
Location: Nullius in verba

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Shyster » Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:02 pm

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:
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:
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…."
According to the article, the omission came about because:
[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.

Beveridge
Posts: 5357
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:17 pm
Location: 8-8-1

Thread of legal hubbub

Postby Beveridge » Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:04 pm

Explain it like I'm 5

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Dickie Dunn, faftorial, Google [Bot], pens9192, skullman80 and 109 guests