Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Sorry.
No more homework related posts. For a while at least. They bore me even more than the work I was complaining about.
Somehow, despite having one of [if not] the best starting rotations in all of baseball, and having the greatest homerun hitter of all time, the Giants are still sucking. And like always, the Rockies are doing even worse.
On a sports theme, I'm watching the French Open right now. I'm blown away at the women's side. It is incredible to me how much women's tennis has changed in the past few years. These women kick ass. And I'm in love with Maria Sharapova. She will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
2 posts in one day? What are you, nuts?!
Couldn't help myself.
Look at the name of this poor shmuck in this case;
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation
Not only does his name sound like boner, he's disabled!!!!!
Ha ha ha.
[It's okay though, he kinda won.]
Look at the name of this poor shmuck in this case;
Bonerb v. Richard J. Caron Foundation
Not only does his name sound like boner, he's disabled!!!!!
Ha ha ha.
[It's okay though, he kinda won.]
And you think you're bored?
This has been my evening:
Affirmative Defenses
FRCP 8(c)
Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
- WsW?: Layman suing SBTC for trespass
o Appealing b/c easement raised at trial, after general denial, not as an affirmative defense
- Facts:
o ∏ Layman, 2 counts in petition
• 1. She was owner of property in Jeff. Co. Missouri
• 2. Δ’s had trespassed on land to install telephone wires without her consent
o She lost the suit, appeals
• She further contends that Δ’s continued to enter to maintain wires and cables
o ∏ asks for $7500 in loss to property value, and $2000 punitive damages for willful and forceful nature of acts by Δ
o *∏ received title in 1956
o 1973 she sees someone digging on the land, ∏ says it decreased value from $35k to $20k
o Δ Southwestern Bell (and Wright Tree Service) say SB received an easement from original owners dated 1946
o
o *****∏ argues that TC should not have permitted SB to introduce evidence of an easement at trial b/c it made a general denial and did not raise the issue as an affirmative defense.
- Issue:
o Whether a right of entry by easement is an affirmative defense in an action for trespass.
- Holding:
o ∏’s objection to the introduction of evidence of easement should be sustained
o Judgment reversed, remanded for new trial
- Reasoning:
o Rule 55.08 [similar to FRCP 8(c)] specifies “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”
• Although easement is not expressly in the rule, it pretty much is there [license is there]
o Test applied is whether Δ intends to rest his defense upon some fact not included in the allegation necessary to support the ∏’s case.
• Δ can admit facts that could sustain ∏’s theory, but they don’t apply to it because of additional facts which place the Δ in a position to avoid any legal responsibility for its action, then such a defense must be set forth in his answer.
o *It is the obligation of the Δ in an action for trespass to affirmatively plead and prove it was justified
Affirmative Defenses
FRCP 8(c)
Layman v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
- WsW?: Layman suing SBTC for trespass
o Appealing b/c easement raised at trial, after general denial, not as an affirmative defense
- Facts:
o ∏ Layman, 2 counts in petition
• 1. She was owner of property in Jeff. Co. Missouri
• 2. Δ’s had trespassed on land to install telephone wires without her consent
o She lost the suit, appeals
• She further contends that Δ’s continued to enter to maintain wires and cables
o ∏ asks for $7500 in loss to property value, and $2000 punitive damages for willful and forceful nature of acts by Δ
o *∏ received title in 1956
o 1973 she sees someone digging on the land, ∏ says it decreased value from $35k to $20k
o Δ Southwestern Bell (and Wright Tree Service) say SB received an easement from original owners dated 1946
o
o *****∏ argues that TC should not have permitted SB to introduce evidence of an easement at trial b/c it made a general denial and did not raise the issue as an affirmative defense.
- Issue:
o Whether a right of entry by easement is an affirmative defense in an action for trespass.
- Holding:
o ∏’s objection to the introduction of evidence of easement should be sustained
o Judgment reversed, remanded for new trial
- Reasoning:
o Rule 55.08 [similar to FRCP 8(c)] specifies “any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”
• Although easement is not expressly in the rule, it pretty much is there [license is there]
o Test applied is whether Δ intends to rest his defense upon some fact not included in the allegation necessary to support the ∏’s case.
• Δ can admit facts that could sustain ∏’s theory, but they don’t apply to it because of additional facts which place the Δ in a position to avoid any legal responsibility for its action, then such a defense must be set forth in his answer.
o *It is the obligation of the Δ in an action for trespass to affirmatively plead and prove it was justified
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Really shows you who your friends are...
That is usually one of those statements that is followed by a bunch of bitching about your jerk friends. I intend the opposite. It's nice to be reminded of all the people who have your back. I highly advise making sure you have good people in your life.
No real secret, haven't made the quality of friends here in S.D. I would have liked to. Unfortunately, the circle just got smaller. I'm 99% sure most of my closest friends here won't be returning after grades came out. Bummer. Losing friends sucks, but it's not my fault this time. I guess I can take solice in that.
That said, one or two of you owe me a call back. Think about it for a minute. You know exactly who you are.
(My Giants just lost a heartbreaker. One of the wildest games I've ever seen. What a thriller.)
No real secret, haven't made the quality of friends here in S.D. I would have liked to. Unfortunately, the circle just got smaller. I'm 99% sure most of my closest friends here won't be returning after grades came out. Bummer. Losing friends sucks, but it's not my fault this time. I guess I can take solice in that.
That said, one or two of you owe me a call back. Think about it for a minute. You know exactly who you are.
(My Giants just lost a heartbreaker. One of the wildest games I've ever seen. What a thriller.)
Monday, May 28, 2007
Detox
Newport. Manhattan. What a crazy weekend. All day, every day.
The return was epic. What I remember of it at least.
The return was epic. What I remember of it at least.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Yep, I'm a jerk
There's this girl in my class who is always a total bitch to me for no reason. Except for when she needs something from me; an assignment, schedule question, etc. I've been dealing with this since January. I've finally had enough. I called her out on it and she left crying.
I rule.
I actually don't feel that bad.
I rule.
I actually don't feel that bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
