thanks professor
So i'm reviewing my notes after first week of law school and i emailed this question to one of my professor:
"Hi Professor,
I just had a question about the Riggs case that maybe you could help me with.
In the last paragraph of the majority opinion, the judge mentions that the killing is as "if he had met the testator and taken his property by force", in which case Elmer would have no title to it. Is the court trying to categorize the murder as a kind of "taking by force"? After all, if we assume that Francis Palmer was going to change his will, Elmer might as well have physically forced Francis to give over the property. Can the situation be reasoned this way? Was this what the court was trying to do? If so, does this circumvent the need for intentionism (since taking by force seems to be one of the statute's allowed reasons for revoking wills) or just merely move it to another level? Thanks!"
The response?
"Thanks much--you have the court right. Not sure if it's convincing,
because the statute doesn't specifically create this exception.
Interesting -- not sure!"
i spent like 10 minutes writing that question, and that's the response?!?!........ it was amusing though, just not helpful.
This week has been wayyy tooo long. I realized the first day that I didn't know the very basics of the US legal system, like state vs. federal court system, who has precedent and jurisdiction over what, what the heck common law was. Well, to be accurate, i knew that i didn't know these things but i realized this was going to be a problem because law school wasn't going to teach it to me. We started immediately with some random case and it's almost impossible to read and really understand the cases when you don't even know what the court structures are. By the second day, i really think i knew more law than about 90% of americans. they are just so good at pounding information into your head. Not organized at all, but still information. I know the exact federal procedure for delivering a summons (like whether you should leave the summons with a family member, or post it on door, or slip under door...) but i still have no idea what the hell the 14th amendment was trying to do.
"Hi Professor,
I just had a question about the Riggs case that maybe you could help me with.
In the last paragraph of the majority opinion, the judge mentions that the killing is as "if he had met the testator and taken his property by force", in which case Elmer would have no title to it. Is the court trying to categorize the murder as a kind of "taking by force"? After all, if we assume that Francis Palmer was going to change his will, Elmer might as well have physically forced Francis to give over the property. Can the situation be reasoned this way? Was this what the court was trying to do? If so, does this circumvent the need for intentionism (since taking by force seems to be one of the statute's allowed reasons for revoking wills) or just merely move it to another level? Thanks!"
The response?
"Thanks much--you have the court right. Not sure if it's convincing,
because the statute doesn't specifically create this exception.
Interesting -- not sure!"
i spent like 10 minutes writing that question, and that's the response?!?!........ it was amusing though, just not helpful.
This week has been wayyy tooo long. I realized the first day that I didn't know the very basics of the US legal system, like state vs. federal court system, who has precedent and jurisdiction over what, what the heck common law was. Well, to be accurate, i knew that i didn't know these things but i realized this was going to be a problem because law school wasn't going to teach it to me. We started immediately with some random case and it's almost impossible to read and really understand the cases when you don't even know what the court structures are. By the second day, i really think i knew more law than about 90% of americans. they are just so good at pounding information into your head. Not organized at all, but still information. I know the exact federal procedure for delivering a summons (like whether you should leave the summons with a family member, or post it on door, or slip under door...) but i still have no idea what the hell the 14th amendment was trying to do.