"You have no jurisdiction over me, civ pro exam!"
So in honor of completing my very first law school exam ever I decided to make this lame (aka awesome) civ pro/labyrinth joke just for my fellow lawblrs out there.  I couldn’t help myself, probably because I’ve gone partially insane from trying to memorize about 100 cases (studied for civ pro for three days straight and still managed to forget the holding of one of the most important cases).  ANYWAYS, if you haven’t seen the movie Labyrinth (go watch it.  now.), the original quote reads “You have no power over me.”  Which is also strangely appropriate for civ pro (personal jurisdiction anyone?)  -______-

"You have no jurisdiction over me, civ pro exam!"

So in honor of completing my very first law school exam ever I decided to make this lame (aka awesome) civ pro/labyrinth joke just for my fellow lawblrs out there.  I couldn’t help myself, probably because I’ve gone partially insane from trying to memorize about 100 cases (studied for civ pro for three days straight and still managed to forget the holding of one of the most important cases).  ANYWAYS, if you haven’t seen the movie Labyrinth (go watch it.  now.), the original quote reads “You have no power over me.”  Which is also strangely appropriate for civ pro (personal jurisdiction anyone?)  -______-

"The [U.S. Supreme] Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to correct confusion within state courts unless that confusion falls within its jurisdiction"

— thank you Civ Pro book for clarifying that issue

eamcintyre:

Cliff notes of this Erie Doctrine flow chart: Federal courts hearing a state law case because the parties are from different states have to use substantive state law but can use federal procedural law.
And how do you tell if a law is procedural? Well, you follow this handy-dandy flow chart, which is mostly useful, except for one part.
To quote the justices in Hanna v. Plumer, to tell if a law is procedural, you must ask the question, “Does the law *really* regulate procedure?”
I mean COME ON. What kind of guidance is that? I would love to hear those oral arguments: “Your honor, this statute is procedural because it really regulates procedure. Really really really really regulates procedure. Promise.”

Oh really?

lol this is actually really useful… it makes everything so clear…

eamcintyre:

Cliff notes of this Erie Doctrine flow chart: Federal courts hearing a state law case because the parties are from different states have to use substantive state law but can use federal procedural law.

And how do you tell if a law is procedural? Well, you follow this handy-dandy flow chart, which is mostly useful, except for one part.

To quote the justices in Hanna v. Plumer, to tell if a law is procedural, you must ask the question, “Does the law *really* regulate procedure?”

I mean COME ON. What kind of guidance is that? I would love to hear those oral arguments: “Your honor, this statute is procedural because it really regulates procedure. Really really really really regulates procedure. Promise.”

Oh really?

lol this is actually really useful… it makes everything so clear…

(via illegalities)

Tea kettle? Check.

Orange tea?  Check.  Pajamas?  Check.  Civ Pro text?  Check.  Ready for battle?  Check!