|
TheMadMilkman posted:Ghosts? Your property class must not have touched on Stambovsky v. Ackley yet.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 13:54 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:45 |
|
Tipps posted:Just another day in weirdlaw. Relevant ghost law
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 13:56 |
|
Pretty sure there have been real estate cases where failing to disclose that the house for sale was believed to be haunted has been found to be a material defect that needs to be disclosed, as it has the reasonable potential to interfere with the buyer's use and enjoyment of the home.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 13:57 |
|
two posts right after mine talking about the same thing. Someone called me a gunner in this thread when I first got excited about Stambovsky. E: class action firm still hasn't got back with me. not surprised. saw a job posting in Gainesville for a part time lawyer at a LL/tenant clinic for 22/hrs a week at $35-50/hr that I might through an application at. Just have to find a way to get to gainesville and a place to crash 3 nights a week.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:01 |
|
Listen buddy, I can't be expected to know the minutia of US Ghost Law up here in the Canadian arctic!
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:07 |
|
Tipps posted:Listen buddy, I can't be expected to know the minutia of US Ghost Law up here in the Canadian arctic! It’s all good. It’s a common case used at the beginning of property classes because it illustrates some aspects of property law very well while being a little bit fun. I mean, what 1L doesn’t get a little excited at legally haunted house?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:11 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It’s all good. It’s a common case used at the beginning of property classes because it illustrates some aspects of property law very well while being a little bit fun. I mean, what 1L doesn’t get a little excited at legally haunted house? I wasn't [at similar things]
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:12 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I mean, what 1L doesn’t get a little excited at legally haunted house? Hey, wait, I know the answer to this one! "One who shouldn't be in law school," right?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:15 |
|
Thanks to this thread I now know that ghost insurance exists and is nowhere near as cool as it should be
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:18 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:two posts right after mine talking about the same thing. Someone called me a gunner in this thread when I first got excited about Stambovsky. Tinder up a UF student.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:19 |
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Tinder up a UF student. Either way I'm going to go ahead and shoot them my resume/cover letter/reference list and roll the dice on it. I figure it's a long shot, but I deal with LL/tenant stuff at the clinic from time to time. Plus it's totally worth it to go work there a couple of days a week since they actually pay worth a drat.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:27 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Your property class must not have touched on Stambovsky v. Ackley yet. Oh hey, that was the case that started the discussion. I couldn't remember the name and couldn't be bothered to search for it. To be fair, this was 12 years ago, and I don't practice law, so I don't remember squat.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:57 |
|
Update to my ethical issue. I told my immediate supervisor, who also supervises NA. He was irate. Not at someone leaving, but at NA keeping it a secret. Turns out we have an agency policy that requires you to disclose if you're interviewing outside the agency for private practice. You know, to prevent conflicts? Anyway, it's now being passed up the ladder. And I'm absolved of any further responsibilities. There's a good chance NA will be let go today. He'll probably be pissed off but that's how it goes. If he had told admin, they may have been more amenable.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:05 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Update to my ethical issue. dusted. You absolutely did the right thing.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:07 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Update to my ethical issue. This is the correct course of action and result. Though the "require to disclose interviews" seems problematic. Once the job is taken, sure, but otherwise seems ripe for retaliatory action.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:23 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Update to my ethical issue. IANAL but this seems like a good call
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:25 |
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:This is the correct course of action and result. It's probably more "if you're interviewing at one of the firms that we routinely see across the aisle" rather than moving across state and done entirely for conflict/taint reasons.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:25 |
|
Toona the Cat posted:IANAL but this seems like a good call Goddamn it Toona we don't deserve this kind of quality.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:36 |
|
lol
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:37 |
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:This is the correct course of action and result. yeah though if you're in government, it seems less problematic. if it were a private firm you betcha i'd ignore the gently caress out of that rule.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:48 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It's probably more "if you're interviewing at one of the firms that we routinely see across the aisle" rather than moving across state and done entirely for conflict/taint reasons. They want to make sure you're walled off from those firms. There is absolutely retaliation though. I've seen it happen. And I work at the AG, so there isn't a firm in Texas that doesn't have at least one case with us. But our niche sees that same 20 firms primarily. Anyway, the "don't be the highest level person in your bureaucracy with a secret" advice really hit home so thanks for that!
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:49 |
|
that said i'd probably have done the same thing as that guy even in government, you'd have to be loving insane to inform your employer you're interviewing before having a job lined up. but, uh, keep your mouth shut about it.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:52 |
|
joat mon posted:Not on him, either. Take that back, you jackass.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:54 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:They want to make sure you're walled off from those firms. There is absolutely retaliation though. I've seen it happen. And I work at the AG, so there isn't a firm in Texas that doesn't have at least one case with us. But our niche sees that same 20 firms primarily. No sweat. I learned that one the hard way, but it really makes sense when you think about it. poo poo rolls down hill. Best to sidestep it as much as possible.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:03 |
|
HDD, how did you know he is leaving? Might have missed that. Lol if he told you.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:34 |
|
Look Sir Droids posted:HDD, how did you know he is leaving? Might have missed that. Lol if he told you. Mutual friend warned him I think
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:42 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:No sweat. I learned that one the hard way, but it really makes sense when you think about it. poo poo rolls down hill. Best to sidestep it as much as possible. The "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" philosophy.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:44 |
|
Hoshi posted:Mutual friend warned him I think That friend deserves a drink, I think.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 17:36 |
|
Hoshi posted:Mutual friend warned him I think That's exactly correct. Mutual friend only informed me because it would gently caress up my trial schedule and life to not know I'm about to first chair this case. Also he was worried about ethics too (he also works in the agency but not our division). The answer is keep your mouth shut, and if you start applying to firms wall yourself off.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 18:49 |
|
Cohen pled Also haven’t heard back at all from class action firm. Also
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 18:51 |
|
cant believe my good friend hot dog day number ninety and one is a fuckin snitch
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 19:18 |
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Cohen pled PEE BARGAIN TIME
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 19:20 |
|
At my agency you're supposed to remove yourself from any cases if you're applying for jobs with the opposing side. Which is obviously a huge tell if you tell your boss that you can't work on evicting the war widow being represented by the firm, but you don't technically have to tell them you're interviewing.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 19:27 |
|
Tipps posted:Listen buddy, I can't be expected to know the minutia of US Ghost Law up here in the Canadian arctic! I'm sure there enough ghost cases on CanDIE.org.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 20:02 |
|
Louisiana lawyers, making sure I’m reading your rules right. I don’t speak civil code. For subpoenas, the objection period for the opposing party is 15 days?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 20:27 |
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Louisiana lawyers, making sure I’m reading your rules right. I don’t speak civil code. For subpoenas, the objection period for the opposing party is 15 days? 15 days for the person subpoenaed to send an objection to the lawyer or party requesting the subpoena, though it is officially limited to subpoenas duces tecum. I don't think there is an actual right for a party to "object" to a subpoena not issued to them. I mean you can send a letter, but legally, by itself, you can't rely on that letter for anything. The person subpoenaed is still under subpoena. An opposing party (that is not also the person subpoenaed) needs to file a motion to quash the subpoena and/or a motion for protective order. Though there isn't a formal time limit, obviously ASAP is a good idea. The subpoena should be suspended pending adjudication of the motion(s) and I typically include in my order setting such a motion for hearing an order by the court explicitly staying the subpoena.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 20:55 |
|
poo poo. We got subpoenaed and I want to get out of responding without having to do anything. If you’re a third party do you have to file your objection with the court or just respond to the issuing party? Or call plaintiffs counsel to see if they’ll do me a solid.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:19 |
|
Look Sir Droids posted:poo poo. We got subpoenaed and I want to get out of responding without having to do anything. If you’re a third party do you have to file your objection with the court or just respond to the issuing party? If you are a third party, send them an objection letter (or call them AND send a letter). Then they have to file a motion to compel if they really want your stuff, and you don't have to do anything else.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:31 |
|
Tipps posted:Just another day in weirdlaw. Send an inter-office memo reminding employees that the nightmare of being trapped in eternal limbo is nothing compared to the late stage capitalist hellscape the workers currently inhabit. Imply the spirits are the ghosts of previously fired employees who died of easily treatable diseases after being cut off from the company’s health insurance plan. Reassign Disruptor to a position that ONLY works in the haunted parts of the building in the hope she’ll either quit or can be fired for cause.
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:32 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:45 |
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:If you are a third party, send them an objection letter (or call them AND send a letter). Then they have to file a motion to compel if they really want your stuff, and you don't have to do anything else. Thanks!
|
# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:50 |