December 2005
Monthly Archive
News and Views #9: A Major Expansion Monday, Dec 12 2005
Neil Wehneman and News and Views 2:57 am
I am pleased to announce a major expansion to Life of a Law Student. Life of a Law Student will be opening up the platform for other law students to record their classes, providing full support and covering all relevant expenses. No podcasting experience is necessary.
Additionally, I am pleased to announce the addition of Amit Varia to the Life of a Law Student team, who will be coordinating all technical details of the project.
Civil Procedure I #36: Joinder Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:29 pm
There will often be multiple potential plaintiffs, defendants, or causes of actions arising from any given controversy. Joinder allows the courts to adjudicate all of these claims at once, in order to promote efficiency. However, not all claims or parties can be joined.
Rule 18
Rule 20
Kedra v. City of Philadelphia
Insolia v. Phillip Morris, Inc.
Civil Procedure I #35: Counter-Claims Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:28 pm
Why should the plaintiff have a monopoly on accusations? Our civil system allows a defendant to level their own accusations against the plaintiff as a counter-claim.
Rule 13
Wigglesworth v. Teamsters Local Union No. 592
Civil Procedure I #34: Amending the Pleadings Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:26 pm
Not every pleading (be it complaint, answer, or otherwise) is perfect. Sometimes a party will want to amend their pleading. As with everything else, we have rules that control these amendments.
Rule 15
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino, Inc.
Civil Procedure I #33: The Defendant Responds Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Civil Procedure and Civil Procedure I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:24 pm
The plaintiff is not the only one who gets to send paperwork flying in a civil dispute. A defendant has a chance to file an answer to the complaint. However, there a number of rules that govern the answer, which we will discuss in this episode.
Rule 8
Rule 12
David v. Crompton & Knowles Corp.
Contracts #34: Expectation Damages Tuesday, Dec 6 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 6:22 pm
We now examine one of the most frequent ways of determining damages:the expectations of the injured party. We will discuss and apply the expectation damages calculation formulated by the famous Prof. Farnesworth.
Turner v. Benson
Handicapped Children’s Education Board v. Lukaszewski
Contracts #33: Express Conditions Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 9:08 am
Express conditions are a way for the parties to structure which duties come due when. Oftentimes the non-occurrence of an express condition will prevent a contract from even being formed in the first place. We will also contrast express conditions with contractual duties, inasmuch as the doctrine of substantial performance is concerned.
Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon, & Co.
JNA Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, Inc.
Morin Building Products Co. v. Baystone Construction, Inc.
Contracts #32: Changed Circumstances Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Contracts and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 9:06 am
Change happens. Sometimes, that change is sufficient for a court to release one party to a contract from their duties. We will examine frustration, impracticability, and impossibility in this episode.
Karl Wendt Farm Equipment Co. v. International Harvester
Mel Frank Tool & Supply, Inc. v. Di-Chem Co.
Constitutional Law I #39: Gender Discrimination II Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:58 am
Race and sex are similar in many respects, yet are different in other respects. We will compare and contrast the two protected statuses, then walk through a recent Supreme Court case concerning the Virginia Military Institute. That case will solidify (and possibly heighten) the quasi-suspect / intermediate standard of review.
United States v. Virginia
Constitutional Law I #38: Gender Discrimination I Monday, Dec 5 2005
1L and Constitutional Law and Constitutional Law I and Neil Wehneman and University of Cincinnati College of Law 8:56 am
We now transition from race to gender. We will begin by looking at the history and intent of the 14th Amendment as it relates to gender. We will then examine the beginning of a heightened standard of review in regards to gender discrimination.
Bradwell v. Illinois
Reed v. Reed
Frontiero v. Richardson