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