Hi All:
The exams have begun! I had my first law school exam yesterday. Civil Procedure was pretty tough, but it was a fair exam. I struggled with some of the multiple choice questions, but I felt reasonably confident about my essay answer. Of course, those of you who know me probably predicted that, as soon as I walked out of the room, I would start worrying about Torts. This is exactly what happened. I had to force myself to unwind from the exam and take some brain time. I watched the last episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm and took a nap. As soon as I woke up, it was back to the grind. I covered a lot of ground last night (making note cards) and went over the entire course. My buddy Justin came over to the house today and we repeated our study strategy from Civ Pro..a full review of the course. 10 hours later, we were pretty much wiped. We had only taken a 1/2 hour break all day, and we were feeling it. I think that talking out the problems in the courses is a great way to study. I know that I will still feel a little panicky tomorrow as I realize that there is only one day until my exam, but I am prepared for that. I plan on taking it easy on Friday night since my next exam is not until Tuesday. The days are going by in a blur. I keep forgetting that this is Wednesday!
Well, I am going to sleep now. I hope that everyone is keeping warm. Here in Chicago, it is a blistery 10 degrees F!
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
Study blues and a lesson in Civil Procedure...
It has been over 10 years (not counting the LSAT) since I last took an exam. 10 years. Normally, this would be something that might send me into a panic, but for some reason I am calm. I keep waiting for the exam panic to hit, but so far, there has been nothing. My outlines are done, I have done a single complete review for Civil Procedure (mastering the most difficult case of the year in the process) and am now just doing some fine tuning on my studying. I have attended every class and have kept up with the reading and my note taking all year, so I know that I have the materials to succeed. If I should worry about anything, it is that I will fail to expound on some key topic that might keep me from getting the “As” that I want in all of my classes. My classmates are in full blown panic/study mode, but the strange thing is that, as I go though my (voluminous) notes, everything seems familiar. This isn’t to say that I know everything and am fully prepared for my exams, but I know that it’s in there. I liken my brain right now to a disorganized office. Everything that I need to know is in there, but I have to put it all in my file drawers for accurate and quick access.
The general malaise of exam studying has already kicked in. I have rapidly lost track of the days of the week, and I am now looking forward to getting the first exam under my belt. I will be so glad when I walk out of that Civil Procedure exam.
Speaking of Civil Procedure, I will now bore all of you with a law lesson. We will be discussing Semtek International Corp. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. This case was the most complicated case of the year in our class, and you will soon see why. The plaintiff sued the defendant (Lockheed) for breach of contract and other tort claims in CA state court. Because the defendant and the plaintiff are residents of different states, the defendant was allowed to (and chose to) move the case to federal district court in CA. The CA federal court found for the defendant and dismissed the case “on its merits”. The plaintiff then refiled the same claim in Maryland state court. The defendant moved it to federal court again (but not on the ‘different state” grounds as before since Lockheed Martin is considered a “citizen” of Maryland), but the federal court threw it back to the state court (too complicated to explain here). The defendant also tried to enjoin the plaintiff from bringing the suit again because the federal district court in CA had already ruled in its favor. I think that you can appreciate how someone found innocent doesn’t want to have to defend himself all over again. The doctrine of res judicata is one of claim preclusion; courts use it to prevent people from endlessly litigating claims after final judgment has been entered. The CA federal court upheld the claim as subject to res judicata, so technically, the plaintiff should not have been able to bring suit in Maryland. The problem is that, even though the federal could precluded the plaintiff from bringing the claim again, there are no laws or statutes that govern whether a state court has to follow what the federal court says. In a way, this is a preservation of the states’ 10th amendment rights. The Supreme Court had to decide: what law does a state court follow in federal claim preclusions? The answers for other court decisions are all easy. If the preclusion was given by another state (say, the state court in CA instead of the federal court), the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution holds that state courts must follow the decisions of other state courts. If the preclusion was given by a state and the plaintiff brought the case to federal court, there is the Full Faith and Credit statute. This forces federal courts to follow the decisions of state courts as binding. If a federal court precluded the claim and the plaintiff tried to refile in another federal court, federal common law (federal judicial decisions) would hold that all federal courts giver deference to a federal district court decision.
This brings us to the problem. In this case, we have a federal court decision on a claim that is being re-litigated in a state court. The defendant is saying that the federal court precluded the claim from being re-litigated, but does the state have to follow what the federal courts say? What about state’s rights? What law of claim preclusion should be followed? Are you still awake at this point?
In this case, the Supreme Court used the judicial decision (federal common law) of Erie RR v. Tompkins. In that case, the Court held that the laws of the state in which the federal court sits would govern cases brought in federal district court. In the current case, the district court of CA passed judgment. Thus, the law of claim preclusion followed by the Maryland State court should be the law of claim preclusion of the state courts of CA. So, in the end, federal common law dictated that the law of the state in which the district court sits will be the deciding factor. When you consider the Full Faith and Credit Clause and how it works, this actually makes a lot of sense. So what happened? Well, the claim was NOT precluded under CA law, so the P could make its case in a Maryland state court. After all of that effort (and all of those lawyers’ fees), the plaintiff gets his day in court again.
Isn’t the study of law fun? If you were able to follow this, you too could be studying law! Note…I wrote all of this from memory, and this is only ONE case from part of a single class this semester. Multiply this by 2(roughly 2 cases per class, with more cases in other classes), multiply this number by 26 (average number of class meetings) and multiply that by 4 (the total number of classes I am taking). This may give you all some sense of the amount of material I am dealing with over the next 2 weeks.
I am SOOOO looking forward to the holidays...
The general malaise of exam studying has already kicked in. I have rapidly lost track of the days of the week, and I am now looking forward to getting the first exam under my belt. I will be so glad when I walk out of that Civil Procedure exam.
Speaking of Civil Procedure, I will now bore all of you with a law lesson. We will be discussing Semtek International Corp. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. This case was the most complicated case of the year in our class, and you will soon see why. The plaintiff sued the defendant (Lockheed) for breach of contract and other tort claims in CA state court. Because the defendant and the plaintiff are residents of different states, the defendant was allowed to (and chose to) move the case to federal district court in CA. The CA federal court found for the defendant and dismissed the case “on its merits”. The plaintiff then refiled the same claim in Maryland state court. The defendant moved it to federal court again (but not on the ‘different state” grounds as before since Lockheed Martin is considered a “citizen” of Maryland), but the federal court threw it back to the state court (too complicated to explain here). The defendant also tried to enjoin the plaintiff from bringing the suit again because the federal district court in CA had already ruled in its favor. I think that you can appreciate how someone found innocent doesn’t want to have to defend himself all over again. The doctrine of res judicata is one of claim preclusion; courts use it to prevent people from endlessly litigating claims after final judgment has been entered. The CA federal court upheld the claim as subject to res judicata, so technically, the plaintiff should not have been able to bring suit in Maryland. The problem is that, even though the federal could precluded the plaintiff from bringing the claim again, there are no laws or statutes that govern whether a state court has to follow what the federal court says. In a way, this is a preservation of the states’ 10th amendment rights. The Supreme Court had to decide: what law does a state court follow in federal claim preclusions? The answers for other court decisions are all easy. If the preclusion was given by another state (say, the state court in CA instead of the federal court), the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution holds that state courts must follow the decisions of other state courts. If the preclusion was given by a state and the plaintiff brought the case to federal court, there is the Full Faith and Credit statute. This forces federal courts to follow the decisions of state courts as binding. If a federal court precluded the claim and the plaintiff tried to refile in another federal court, federal common law (federal judicial decisions) would hold that all federal courts giver deference to a federal district court decision.
This brings us to the problem. In this case, we have a federal court decision on a claim that is being re-litigated in a state court. The defendant is saying that the federal court precluded the claim from being re-litigated, but does the state have to follow what the federal courts say? What about state’s rights? What law of claim preclusion should be followed? Are you still awake at this point?
In this case, the Supreme Court used the judicial decision (federal common law) of Erie RR v. Tompkins. In that case, the Court held that the laws of the state in which the federal court sits would govern cases brought in federal district court. In the current case, the district court of CA passed judgment. Thus, the law of claim preclusion followed by the Maryland State court should be the law of claim preclusion of the state courts of CA. So, in the end, federal common law dictated that the law of the state in which the district court sits will be the deciding factor. When you consider the Full Faith and Credit Clause and how it works, this actually makes a lot of sense. So what happened? Well, the claim was NOT precluded under CA law, so the P could make its case in a Maryland state court. After all of that effort (and all of those lawyers’ fees), the plaintiff gets his day in court again.
Isn’t the study of law fun? If you were able to follow this, you too could be studying law! Note…I wrote all of this from memory, and this is only ONE case from part of a single class this semester. Multiply this by 2(roughly 2 cases per class, with more cases in other classes), multiply this number by 26 (average number of class meetings) and multiply that by 4 (the total number of classes I am taking). This may give you all some sense of the amount of material I am dealing with over the next 2 weeks.
I am SOOOO looking forward to the holidays...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
