November 2005
Monthly Archive
Civil Procedure I #28: Erie Wrap-Up Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 5:01 am
We will finally attempt to bring closure to our introductory survey of Erie. We will also look at one final case under Erie, dealing with the question of sanctions for appealing a decision.
Burlington Northern RR Co. v. Woods
Civil Procedure I #27: Byrd and Hanna Tuesday, Nov 29 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 4:56 am
York gets more major tweaking with two United States Supreme Court decisions. We’ll see outcome-determinative receive some balancing, as well as a return to the initial policies underlying Erie.
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Hanna v. Plumer
Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co.
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan
Torts #41: Trespassing Children Sunday, Nov 27 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:17 pm
Children are special, and not just in the “let me pinch your cheeks way.” The law imposes a higher duty on landowners in regards to trespassing children. We’ll look at what has been called the “attractive nuisance” doctrine, as well as see it applied to two cases involving swimming pools. We’ll also look at privileged individuals (ie police or letter carriers) and what duties they receive in Ohio.
Elliot v. Nagy
Bennet v. Stanley
Torts #40: Licensees and Invitees Sunday, Nov 27 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:15 pm
Licensees and invitees are owed elevated duties. What are those duties, and under what circumstances can you flip one status to another?
Balmore v. Elmore
Campbell v. Weathers
Whelan v. Van Natta
Torts #39: Trespassers Sunday, Nov 27 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:13 pm
Generally a trespasser is owed practically no duty by a possessor of land. That duty is slightly elevated if the trespassers in question are frequent and tolerated by the landowner. We’ll see how this plays out for two trespassers, one from 1896 and the other from 2005.
Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth RR Co.
Humphrey v. Glenn
Torts #38: Intro to Property Duties Sunday, Nov 27 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:09 pm
The law has traditionally given significant deference to property owners, not requiring much of a duty towards those that are on their land. What duties are required, and how are those duties determined? This episode will begin our several episode discussion of property-based duties.
Taylor v. Olsen
Salevan v. Wilmington Park, Inc.
Torts #37: Bystanders Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:56 am
What duty is owed to bystanders? Or better said, under what circumstances can a bystander to the “main negligence” recover for their own emotional pain from witnessing the accident?
Thing v. LaChusa (no link available)
Dillon v. Legg
Graves v. Estabrook
Torts #36: Purely Emotional Damages Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:52 am
Can you recover for purely emotional damages? The answer is increasingly becoming “yes.” We will examine the history of purely emotional damages, and see the transformation of the impact rule along the way.
Daley v. LaCroix (no link available)
Torts #35: Duty to Act, Warn, or Protect II Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:46 am
We continue our discussion of the duty to act, warn, or protect another from a third party by examining two cases involving bars.
Rhudy v. Bottlecaps (PDF)
Delgado v. Trax Bar and Grill (no link available)
Torts #34: Duty to Act, Warn, or Protect I Monday, Nov 7 2005
1L and Neil Wehneman and Torts and University of Cincinnati College of Law 3:30 am
Generally the common law will assign no duty to act, warn, or protect others from the conduct of a third party. However, the law has carved out some exceptions based on “special relationships.” One such special relationship is between a psychiatrist and her patient. We will examine that duty with a case that has been called “the Palsgraf of its generation.”
Hegel v. Langsam (no link available)
Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California