sooo…

I found out from a 2L at my school that my legal writing and research class will require our book this semester. Hell ya!

I hope you ladies are enjoying orientation or the start of classes. I guess we start late. I orientate (?) next week and class starts after Labor Day.

Laura Ex. 20 basic

I’m skipping exercise 19 because it requires finding a journal article. This was pretty easy.

• The following documents are enclosed:

• At your request, I met with Roger Smith today to discuss the case.

• The discovery cut-off for the case is Monday, March 20, 2000.

• After speaking to Alex from your office, I contacted the trustee.

• We would like to retain you as a consultation on this case.

• Thanks for your courtesy and cooperation. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Kim ex. 18 basic

As stated in the Appellant’s brief the procedural history of this matter is essentially correct.  On July 27, 2000 Keith W. Hillman filed for benefits from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund.  His claim was denied a month later because 1) his conduct contributed to the infliction of his injury and 2) he failed to cooperate with law enforcement.  In December 2000 Hillman requested a denial of benefits review.  Four months later Hillman was allowed an evidentiary hearing before a deputy commissioner.

Kim ex. 17 basic

I didn’t rewrite this as much as I would’ve liked to.  I’m at the point where I’d like to get through more of the book before class begins because I don’t know if I’ll have time later on.

Pine National has conclusively established that Peter Foster did not initiate this lawsuit until after the expired limitations period.  Foster does not dispute this but seeks to avoid applying the limitations bar for two reasons: 1) this is a misnomer case, in which limitations would be tolled, and 2) under Enserch Corp. v. Parker, [footnote citation], factual issues exist as to whether Pine National was prejudiced by the late filing.  Yet due to evidence the Court determined this a misidentification case (which does not toll limitations), not one of misnomer.  Further, Foster has not responded with any tolling limitations proof under the equitable exception to the statute of limitations described in Enserch.  The exception is inapplicable under the facts before this Court.  Therefore, prejudice to Pine National is not a relevant inquiry.  Foster’s claims against Pine National are barred by limitations as a matter of law.

Kim ex. 16 basic

• Licensee will perform the work in compliance with all applicable laws.
• While the witness’s truthfulness may be questioned on cross-examination, it cannot be further challenged by the introduction of extrinsic evidence relating to matters not already in the record.
• If the bailee fails to perform any obligation under this agreement, the bailor may choose to perform and charge the bailee for the obligation.
• Seller must assist Buyer in the process without bearing associated costs.

Kim ex. 15 basic

Some of these exercises are simple enough that a group of people could have the same responses.  For example, Laura and I have the same response for the first one.  I still feel wordy too. HOWEVER, I still have yet to start law school so I’m ok.

• Jenkins knew the computer’s access port existed.
• This Court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
• Courts have identified several factors as relevant in determining whether the defendant’s use of another’s registered trademark is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception.
• A private party can preemptively protect the enforceability of the contract’s provisions by inserting a severability clause.
• A party may waive a provision of this agreement only by signing a written waiver.

Laura Ex. 18 basic

The procedural history statement in the Appellant’s brief is basically correct. Keith W. Hillman filed his claim for benefits from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund, Va. Code 19.2-368.1 et seq., on July 27, 2000. The Director of the Division of Crime Victim’s Compensation denied the claim on August 27, 2000 because Hillman’s conduct contributed to his injury and he had not cooperated with law enforcement. On December 20, 2000, Hillman requested a review of the denial. On April 8, 2001, Hillman had an evidentiary hearing before a deputy commissioner pursuant to Administrative Bulletin No. 25, attached as Addendum A.

Laura Ex. 17 Basic

This is not so good compared to the answer in the back of the book. I still have trouble with the terminology. I simply don’t know that “tolling limitations” means “time-bar.”

Pine National has established that Foster did not initiate the suit until the applicable time period expired. Foster agrees. However, Foster seeks to avoid applying the time bar by (1) asserting this case is a misnomer, in which limitation would be tolled, and (2) asserting that, under Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2, 4-5 (Texas 1990), factual issues exist about whether late filing prejudiced Pine National. Yet the evidence establishes this as a matter of misidentification (which does not toll limitations), not one of misnomer. Further, Foster has not responded with a basis for tolling limitations under the equitable exception to the statute of limitations described in Enserch. The exception does not apply based on the facts and is therefore irrelevant. The time-bar, therefore, prevents Foster from a successful claim against Pine National.

Laura Ex. 16 Basic

• Licensee will perform the work in compliance with all applicable laws.

• While the cross-examination may inquire about the witness’ truthfulness, it may not introduce evidence related to matters outside the record.

• If a bailee fails to perform any obligation under this agreement, the bailor may perform the obligation and charge the bailee for the cost of this performance.

• Seller must assist Buyer in this process without bearing the associated costs.

Laura Ex. 15 Int.

• Henry II’s genius never manifested itself more clearly than in the way he appreciated the divergence between crime and tort, and his conception that crimes offend the whole community.

• Penfold could not possibly have known the amount of money paid before reviewing its financial position in 2000. Its profit-sharing, therefore, cannot be subject to Title III protections.

• Some court functions will suffer. Deciding the controversy’s merits will yield either to formulating a precedent that will not embarrass future decision, or to the need to study the case’s merits.