November 2005
Monthly Archive
Constitutional Law I #32: Enforcing Brown Wednesday, Nov 30 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:48 am
It is one thing to hand down a Supreme Court opinion. It is quite another thing to have that opinion enforced. We will look at Brown II and a string of other cases showing the multi-decade struggle that was educational integration.
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (Brown II)
Green v. County School Board
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education
Keyes v. School District No. 1
Milliken v. Bradley
Constitutional Law I #31: Brown v. Topeka Board of Education Wednesday, Nov 30 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:45 am
After six decades Plessy falls by the Supreme Court banning separate but equal education. What was the rationale and environment that created Brown, and did it actually overrule Plessy?
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education
Bolling v. Sharpe
Contracts #30: Breach II Wednesday, Nov 30 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:43 am
What is the difference between a material breach and an immaterial breach? Once we have a material breach, what’s the difference between a partial breach and a total one? We’ll attempt to illuminate the subject in this episode.
Sackett v. Spindler
Contracts #29: Breach I Wednesday, Nov 30 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:42 am
Studying contracts can get much more exciting when a party breaches their contract. We’ll examine what a breach is, and see how the doctrine of substantial performance can apply to immaterial breaches.
Jacobs & Young v. Kent
Contracts #28: Parol Evidence II Wednesday, Nov 30 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:40 am
In this episode we will discuss patent and latent ambiguities, while also looking at situations where the parol evidence rule does not apply at all. Finally, we will conclude by looking at an example case.
Taylor v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Corp
Contracts #27: Parol Evidence I Wednesday, Nov 30 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 7:38 am
In this episode we will get an introduction to the parol evidence rule, and when it can be invoked.
Thompson v. Libby
Civil Procedure I #32: Rule 11 Sanctions Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:07 am
Rule 11 gives us the fun and frolic of sanctions. When can a lawyer or a client get hit with monetary penalties for their conduct? Is unfamiliarity with a legal subject sanctionable? We’ll get answers from a case revolving around one of my favorite subjects: copyright.
Rule 11
Zuk v. Eastern Penn. Psychiatric Institute of the Medical College of Penn.
Listen Now:
Standard Podcast [14:46m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground on "Law-Related Things That Suck: Too Few Frivolous Lawsuits" [3:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | DownloadCivil Procedure I #31: Heightened Pleadings II Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:05 am
The Supreme Court weighs in with their opinion of heightened pleadings. Specifically, a dim view is taken, striking many heightened pleading requirements in a pair of cases
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, NA
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics and Coordination Unit
Civil Procedure I #30: Heightened Pleadings I Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:04 am
In some cases, the simple notice pleading of Rule 8 is not enough. Rather, a plaintiff must plead with “particularity.” When does this heightened requirement kick in, and what does it mean? We’ll attempt to answer those questions.
Rule 9
Ross v. A.H. Robins Co.
Cash Energy, Inc. V. Weimer
Civil Procedure I #29: Pleadings Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:03 am
All good lawsuits start with a great pleading. Or at least, a pleading that won’t get you dismissed out of court. We’ll look at the history of pleadings, and the current requirements for a standard civil pleading.
Rule 8
Rule 12
Conley v. Gibson
Mitchell v. Archibald & Kendall, Inc.