PineappleSnack

Last week while ordering groceries Ben and I agreed to buy a pineapple as a post-memo celebratory snack to be eaten on Monday.  Well, today was that Monday, and we had our pineapplesnack (Steaklunch 2.0- when you don't really have time for steak).

The rules of pineapplesnack were twofold:

1.  We must eat the entire pineapple in one sitting.

2.  We must only use our hands and ridiculously over-sized knives.

Which is all to say that memo week is over.  I'm sure I spent far more time procrastinating than actually working on the memo, and I also learned that my personality is really geared to the exact opposite of what is required while editing a memo ("eh, this citation looks pretty close").  Still, though, I got through the week with what I think is a very solid memo and without stressing out or forgoing any fun. 

My favorite section of the memo goes something like this:

"Though South Carolina has not ruled on the status of a rolling pin, it has categorized other commonly used tools and in every case has ruled them to be a deadly weapon.  See State v. Scurry, 473 S.E.2d 61 (S.C. 1996) (a tire iron is a deadly weapon), State v. Johnson, 198 S.E. 1 (S.C. 1938) (a hoe is a deadly weapon), State v. Smalls, 17 S.C. 62 (S.C. 1882) (a barrel-stave is a deadly weapon), and State v. Beadon, 17 S.C. 55 (S.C. 1882) (a shovel is a deadly weapon)."

So that's how that works, if anyone was wondering what my legal writing looked like.  The idea is that if you cared you could take those citations and read all about why the Court thought a tire iron could be used as a deadly weapon.  Since, you know, it's not obvious.

Last night I had a brief reunion with some WM Wind Symphony people and it was awesome, though I did discover that it takes forever to metro to the end of the line.  Since, you know, it's not obvious.

The night before that there was a surprise party for one of my high school friends, Hunter.  I tricked Davia into coming with me and we had a good time hanging out with Tyler Brown.  Someone also used my name as an alias (because they had to sign in at the front desk and, well, it was supposed to be a surprise).  Everyone had a good laugh when I introduced myself to that guy.

Tonight I'm going to a fancy birthday soiree for Jeff, who is playing Rosencrantz to my Guildenstern and who also happens to be Ben L's roommate.  The invitation is pretty much the greatest thing ever:

"Please note: Those who do not choose to attend will be considered poor friends and will be Dismissed pursuant to Rule 19(a)(1), for failure to join a required party."

And I realized, when I thought that was legitimately funny in a non-ironic way, that I need to lay off the law school for a while.  Good thing I leave for Thanksgiving break tomorrow.

"I hope you realize that you're insane."

Quite so.

Tried out for R&G this week because... well, because I did.  I don't need reasons.  Annnnnyway as it turns out I'm going to be Guildenstern.  This, like Cioffi, is another one of those roles that just makes so much sense to me personally, so I sort of have to do it.

Rehearsals don't start til January, so I have plenty of time to learn my lines this time.  And I will learn them.  Before January.

But today I will keep working on my memo.  It's amazing how much information I can find that goes directly to the points I want to make.  It's also amazing how strong my desire is just to hang over all of my sources, give a one sentence answer to the question, and say "if you don't believe me, read these cases."  Efficiency!

To prep for memo writing, Davia and Ben and I had brunch and a movie this morning.  Surprisingly, it did not motivate me into wanting to write a memo.

Erie Doctrine

This post is intended entirely to help me understand this topic by trying to explain it in a semi-cogent fashion (but I'm gonna go ahead and capitalize things that shouldn't be capitalized for emphasis- that doesn't count against my cogency).  It somehow manages to be simple and incredibly difficult at the same time.  Here goes.

The first rule of the Erie Doctrine is that we don't talk about Federal Common Law (because there is none).

The second rule of the Erie Doctrine is that we DON'T talk about Federal Common Law (this is very important).

There IS Federal Statutory Law.  When seeking Federal jurisdiction because you are applying a Federal statute, then GREAT, the Erie Doctrine doesn't apply.

However, you can also get Federal jurisdiction if you and the opposing party have:

1.  Diversity of citizenship (you live in different states).
and
2.  A disagreement worth more than $75,000.

But once you get into the (Federal) District Court, which law applies?  The Erie Railroad case from somewhere in the 1800's says that the answer is the STATE law of whatever jurisdiction the court is in.  Huzzah, this seems easy!  And beneficial!  If the same law applies no matter what your forum (Federal or State) we successfully stop forum shopping AND ensure uniformity in application of the law.

BUT WAIT BUT WAIT

There's no Federal Common Law (CRAP, I forgot not to talk about it) but there IS an entire BOOK of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  NO NO NO BAD BAD.  The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were written in order to ensure uniformity across all the Federal Courts, but if they have to apply State law in diversity cases it ENTIRELY DEFEATS THE POINT.

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1940-somethingerother)- established the "outcome determination" test.  Would applying a Federal procedural rule rather than that of the State significantly change the outcome of the case?  (Of course, you can look at ANY rule in such a way that it significantly changes the outcome of a case, so Guaranty Trust RUINED EVERYTHING)

This analysis continues until 1958.  Byrd v. Blue Ridge Electric Cooperative, Inc.  Does Byrd get a jury trial in Federal Court when the State procedural law would give him a judge trial?  SEVENTH AMENDMENT TRUMP CARD!  Sorry, Guaranty Trust.   Guess you aren't as cool as you thought you were...

But now where do we stand?!

Hanna v. Plumer- NEW TEST.  TWO PATHS.  COLLECT THEM ALL.

Hanna path 1- If the issue is Federal procedural common-law ("But there IS no Federal common-law," you say.  SHHHHHH)  then we must adapt the test to suit the goals of Erie. Think about what the plaintiff would do BEFORE the litigation commences if they knew about both the Federal and State options.  Would they be driven to forum shop?  Then it is outcome determinative and State law wins.  See how easy that was?

Hanna path 2- There is a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure in place and a State law is conflicting.  In this case, Erie doesn't apply.  Ever.  Don't even start thinking about it.  Federal Rules trump.    

Yaaaay Hanna.  Now everything makes sense OH WAIT WE AREN'T DONE YET.

What if, for example, we don't know if the Federal rule and the State rule are conflicting?  I know, it should seem obvious, right?  RIGHT?  But noooooooooooooo.

In Shady Grove Orthopedics v. Allstate, NY law said that no class action could include punitive damages.  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely detail the way in which class actions can be certified.  IF the class action is certified by the Fed. R. Civ. Pro but would then be IMMEDIATELY shot down by NY's procedural rule tossing out class actions that involve punitive damages, do the Federal and State laws conflict here?!  The Supreme Court gave us a rousing answer of "no-ish" in a plurality opinion that substantially changes nothing but that puts a lot more focus on figuring out what the heck the legislature meant when establishing a new procedural law.

That's what I've got so far.  I'm sure this is entirely wrong.  I'll revise later.

Logical Progression

Me from August:

I'm going to be serious and study all the time!  Look- I can get all my homework done for next week over the weekend.  I will do this every week so that during the week I have time to start outlining.  I will also run and work out every other day.

Me from September:

This isn't so bad!  I'm going to be in a musical.  But just this semester.  I definitely won't do the Winter or Spring shows.  I can still get half of my homework done over the weekends and then I can finish the rest of it the day before the class.  I don't need to worry about outlines now because exams aren't til December and I was just being silly talking about that before.  I'm still going to run and work out every other day.

Me from October:

See?  I can survive doing a musical and doing law school at the same time.  Sure I may have to cut back a bit on the running and working out in order to get everything done, and sure my weekends are now taken up with tech crew so I can't really get work done in advance, but I'm still functional and getting a reasonable amount of sleep.

Me in November:

I seem to remember a time when I ran and worked out.  I would do that again, but first I have to finish my homework.  I'll just wake up a few hours early to get it done.  I don't need to do briefs anymore- I'll just... remember the cases.  I have to write a memo for 30% of my LRW grade?  Sure, I can learn absolutely everything there is to know about South Carolina law on this topic while still doing everything else.  Oh, Ben is directing the Winter show?  And it's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead?  Well now I have to at least go audition for that to show my support... I miss being in a show.  Exams start in two weeks?!  When was I supposed to outline for all this??  What IS an outline?  This should end well.

Me in December (Predicted):

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Me in January (Predicted):

Well, I'm not going to let that happen again.  I'm going to do all my homework for the week on weekends.  And I'm going to start outlining now.....


Also, since a few of you wanted an example of a fun proximate cause case, I'll give you the general details of the one most famously used to explain the issue to law students of the past hundred years or so.  Here are the generalized facts:

At a railroad station, a man is running to catch a train as it is pulling out.  He is carrying a bundle wrapped in newspaper.  He runs up to the train as it is moving and tries to jump on.  Two employees of the railroad, one on the train and one on the platform, try to help the man onto the train.  During this process the employee on the platform negligently (and the negligence is not in question here- we know that it was negligent) knocks the bundle wrapped in newspaper onto the ground.  The bundle is in fact filled with fireworks.  They explode.  The concussive wave hits a large set of scales some thirty feet away and the scales fall on someone, injuring them severely.

If the man carrying the fireworks has enough money, he will certainly be sued.  However, if the injured party also sues the railroad, should they win on the basis that the employee negligently knocking the bundle on the ground created the proximate legal cause which ended in the injury?

Some things that may be helpful-

1.  Employers are often sued for actions of their employees.  This legal doctrine, respondeat superior, exists to create an incentive for the proper training and supervision of employees.  The main requirement is just that an employee was acting within the scope of his or her duties for the employer.

2.  Also assume that there were no markings on the bundle wrapped in newspaper to indicate in any way its contents.

And So It Begins

I have my first exam tomorrow morning.  My first real law school exam.  It shouldn't be too terrible- just twenty multiple choice questions answered over the course of an hour.  That's three minutes per question, and the exam is open book and open internet.  If I can't find the answer to any question that legitimately has an answer within three minutes, then I don't think I deserve to find the answer.

This week I threw myself back into the law school work.  While visiting last weekend Brian and Josh and Kayface expressed concern that I wasn't actually doing any law work because I never mentioned it in my blog.  That's mostly because, though it is interesting for me, I'm not sure how many people for whom it would be similarly engaging.  That said, we did go through an interesting chapter about causation this week in Torts which I'll share part of just to prove that I do law things in law school (I would talk about CivPro because we discussed the all important Erie Doctrine, but then I realized the Erie Doctrine sounds really really boring if explained in any detail).

Here's the causation issue: we, as a society, would like to deter people from acting in a negligent (outside the realm of normal care that a normal person would exhibit) way.  One way in which we do this is to allow people to recover when they are injured due to the negligent acts of others.  If I am hunting in the woods and I accidentally shoot you, thinking that you are a deer, then you should be allowed to sue me.  I didn't mean to shoot you, sure, but clearly I shot you and it will cost money to fix you and I should be responsible for bearing that expense.  Right?  This example would be direct causation.  Obvious and easy.

The fun part comes in when I set off some sort of Rube Goldberg chain of events which results in your injury.  Assuming that I was still being negligent, we then have to sort out whether I was the legal proximate cause of your injury.  Given all the possible configurations of chain-of-event injuries, this results in hundreds and thousands of cases which straddle the line between a claim that succeeds and a claim that fails.  And many judges have come up with their own systems of determination of proximate cause throughout the years.  Yay ambiguity.  Also yay- I'm discussing law on my blog!  Okay, now I'm bored (I enjoy it, I just have to do it for many hours every day anyway).

Socially, the week was really excellent.  Despite being out of production, I still managed to see plenty of Davia, Emily Goo, and Ben.  We even had a steak dinner and watched White Christmas on Wednesday because we're all in the holiday spirit.  Steak dinner is different from Steaklunch.  Just wanted to be clear.

Monday (I know, I'm out of chronology) I went to see a Chinese panel discussion about the future of China's power as viewed through the lens of ancient Chinese philosophers.  I had almost forgotten how much I loved hearing Chinese academics talk, because something hilarious always gets messed up in translation.  I just about lost it when one of the speakers said: "China find that as it get mo' money, it have mo' problem."  (if you don't get it, you missed the music of the 90's.  Sorry.)  I also really enjoyed the following logic (paraphrased):

Questioner: We know that Chinese power is growing, but what about India?  Does China view their economic growth as a threat?

Answer: No, India is not a threat to China.  You see, let's say India's economy is about one-tenth of the US economy.  Now, if India continues its growth of 10% per year, which we think is very ambitious, then all the US has to do is continue to grow at 1% per year in order to always stay 10 times bigger than India economically.

Now I know that this very smart man probably understands how compound interest works and I know that somewhere in his head he was thinking of an example that actually made sense.  But it made me sort of sad as I looked around the room of distinguished academics and realized that no one seemed to notice that, using his numbers, India's economy would be almost twice as large as ours within thirty years.  Clearly- mo' money, mo' problems.

Today I got to see Josh and went out to get some Thai food for lunch.  Weekly tradition?  I think so.  While over near his offices, I also ran in to the House office building to see Emily Goo because she was letting me borrow some sheet music.  Never thought that my first time in the House office building would be justified by musical theater, but I guess that's not too surprising...

Fun day planned for tomorrow after the exam, and it should be because starting tomorrow I have ten days to write a memo that will be worth 75% of my grade in Legal Research and Writing for this semester.  Best to start those ten days on a high note.

"Oh, I saw Curtains the other night! It was GREAT! Were you in it?"

Whew, well that was fun.  I heard from the producer that Curtains was the highest grossing/highest audience size show that GGSS has ever done and that now we have lots of money with which to make our winter and spring shows awesome (I have taken a possessively-worded stance with GGSS because now I realize this is my group of people and I am obligated to stay with them in some capacity for all three years).

Who wouldn't love these people?  Just look at the faces.

I also love everyone who came to see the show.  It was so great to see Mom, Dad, both sets of grandparents, Pete, Josh, Brian, Kay, Brent, etc, etc, etc....  it was lovely to have my own dedicated claque each night, and better still to be able to see everyone (however briefly) afterwards.  I am pretty certain, and I may have said this before, that Lt. Frank Cioffi is the best possible role that I could ever hope to play in a musical theater context.  Unless there's another character who sings in my range and is actually SUPPOSED to dance awkwardly.  It was a blast saying every single line every single night.

I've got some more photos from the show that I'll put up here:

SHOW PEOPLE

I couldn't actually steal the fedora because it is Ben's fedora.  Sad.

I especially love Ben's face and Sarah's face in this one.

Because GGSS is a ridiculous group, we had full cast parties every night after the show.  I'm not even remotely sure how my body survived the weekend on the amount of sleep I gave it.  On Friday evening it was a full formal party.  That's how we roll.

Me talking with Marie, who made me look pretty.

I put of the picture of me and our costume designer because I blame her for making me so unrecognizable onstage that no fewer than six people came up to me while I was either wearing a Curtains t-shirt or sitting at the Curtains ticketing table or standing next to someone else who was in Curtains and asked whether I was in the show.  After having seen it.  Apparently I need to buy some vests and do my hair like Don Draper because people like me better when I am from the 1960's.  A disturbingly high number of people told me as much.  

After strike on Sunday we went out as a cast and got burgers at Five Guys.  Delicious. 

As of now I'm replacing all rehearsal time with social time because there are people I've been meaning to hang out with more.  In approximately three weeks I'll shift that social time over and add it to my studying time.  Should be fine for exams by doing that.  

We Can't Picture Being Anything But Showpeople... and Lawyers, that too...

Opening night last night apparently set the GGSS record for number of audience members on a Wednesday.  We were functionally sold out, as the only remaining seats were exceedingly crappy.  I think the final count was around 200.

The show itself went really well.  Adrenaline was high and the audience was really responsive and fantastic.  All of my fellow actors were on their A-games and turned in amazing performances.  We had been worried earlier in the day that Steph was losing her voice, but she rallied and still (as always) had the strongest sound out of the whole cast.  I am very proud to be involved in this production and I'm excited that we have three more nights.

I thought I'd take the hour I have between Civil Procedure and Torts to put up some photos that are supposedly on facebook but which don't show up on my profile and which I also don't want to lose.  The costume/set/lighting department did fantastic jobs, as you can see.

See?

Me and Steph before "Coffee Shop Nights"

I love this coat, even though I only get to wear it for five minutes...

Playing Mack the Knife during "Show People"

I love the reactions here.

 Yay kickline!

 The entire company (except for me, because I haven't been invited to be a real showperson yet).  They are all ridiculously talented and lovely people.  And they're basically all either law students, lawyers, or congressional staffers.  Who would have thought there were so many musical theater people within those groups?

Only had one relatively small mishap on opening night- at one point I pull my gun from my shoulder holster and give it to another character, but for some reason the gun was stuck in the holster.  After a few quick tries I just took off the entire holster and threw it while saying "You know what?  Take the whole thing."  Hopefully will be able to fix that tonight.  

Show people go on!