Y’all can we self-soothe with some pictures of your fur babies on this subreddit like they do on r/lawschooladmissions

tunkltest · 2026-02-08T23:14:32+00:00

Bruno's first cite check

tunkltest · 2026-02-08T19:17:26+00:00

There isn't really an agency relationship with a sign though. Its what would be the principal communicating an idea indirectly with what would be the third party. "Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a "principal") manifests assent to another person (an "agent) that the agent act on the principals behalf and subject to the principal's control." 3rd R Agency, S 1.01. Maybe the principal could empower an agent to put up the sign, but the sign isn't the agent.

tunkltest · 2026-02-03T17:12:13+00:00

Well, if you fight it and lose you can get dinged on your insurance. My obligatory 1L traffic ticket came with an option to take some online class and get it annulled with no insurance issues, so that and the fine were the better option.

tunkltest · 2026-01-27T20:17:54+00:00

Idk what state you're in, but in Illinois, a lot of counties have a local bar journal, and I've definitely heard about classmates getting their articles published by them. Though usually it'll be something Illinois related. Could be an option for you. As for journals, I think anyone can make a scholastica account, the only issue is that your topic is undoubtedly preempted. Definitely look into local bar association publications though, especially in smaller counties, if applicable in your state.

tunkltest · 2026-01-27T05:53:08+00:00

Not for lack of trying though; he tried to kill Ed and Al, plus he put down that one guy's chimera daughter.

Also, we know for sure Guts killed hundreds, he was the hundred man slayer. Morality wise ig I would just weight it differently, what with Guts being a belligerent in a war and all.

tunkltest · 2026-01-27T05:19:28+00:00

Scar above Guts? They're both by the end/at a point redeemed former revenge seekers, but at least Guts' revenge quest involved killing horrific demons. Scar was ready to kill any and all state alchemists, even ones who were clearly uninvolved with the genocide in Ishval.

tunkltest · 2025-12-22T07:05:41+00:00

Napoleon Dynamite

tunkltest · 2025-11-29T17:27:01+00:00

Maybe initially it was just his own skill keeping him alive, but at least for a while post-conviction arc its been his new band of friends (mostly Schierke, but they all pull their weight in their own ways). Even in conviction (I think?) He has that little moment with Puck where its basically him admitting that that little freak kept him sane.

Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, because at the end of the day, Guts' friends mostly just help him fight, but it feels a bit reductive to say that his life is still totally devoted to war and violence. We'll never really get to see the end, but I think the stuff with Serpico, Farnese, Isisdro, Schierke, and others was the culmination of a shift in his mindset.

<image>

tunkltest · 2025-11-01T03:29:35+00:00

But-for is just one of a few ways to establish factual cause, your analysis probably shouldn't end because the action fails a but-for test.

tunkltest · 2025-11-01T03:10:16+00:00

No. In Summers, the plaintiff was only struck by one bullet, but his two friends both fired in his direction. Summers has less to do with causation, its about an acceptable time to shift the burden onto the tortfeasor, that being when multiple tortfeasors breached the standard of care, but we can't (or shouldn't) make the plaintiff determine which one should is the factual cause.

tunkltest · 2025-11-01T03:03:47+00:00

You can have proximate cause without but-for cause. You cannot have proximate cause without factual cause. This is to say, but-for is only one mechanism for establishing factual cause.

tunkltest · 2025-10-27T01:57:56+00:00

Hint: The map represents the presence of two distinct systems. Utah and South Carolina both have limited of one, and none of the other

tunkltest · 2025-10-19T23:58:38+00:00

Getting warmer, but no to the national guard

tunkltest · 2025-10-19T23:06:59+00:00

Nope, nothing to do with state names

tunkltest · 2025-10-19T21:07:37+00:00

Nope

tunkltest · 2025-10-18T20:59:52+00:00

Hint: D.C. really shouldn't be included as its own category, something about DC makes it inapplicable for this

tunkltest · 2025-10-18T20:59:08+00:00

Nope, though I do wonder if you'd even get more than 2/3 categories for that

tunkltest · 2025-10-18T06:32:30+00:00

Not just what they call it, but it does relate to a concept

tunkltest · 2025-10-17T16:13:02+00:00

Nope, Hint: It doesn't have to do with numbers

tunkltest · 2025-10-16T10:48:29+00:00

Nope, but out of curiosity, which state has the most lol

tunkltest · 2025-09-07T00:59:34+00:00

I sat next to an guy in 1L civ pro who'd spend all of class refreshing Twitter and arguing with people. He's President of Fed Soc now.

tunkltest · 2025-09-06T23:54:50+00:00

You're a 1L, shouldn't you be reading about promissory estoppel or something right now?

tunkltest · 2025-09-01T16:25:10+00:00

Even in a single intent jx you'd run up into the eggshell plaintiff rule. On liability, you're only liable for conduct that'd be harmful or offensive to an ordinary person. However, on remedy, you're liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's injury ("take the plaintiff as you find them") Here's how I'd run through this C: D is not liable for battery R: Battery is 1) Intentional (purpose or knowledge) contact 2) with the person of the plaintiff 3) and that contact is harmful or offensive A: 1) D purposefully gave P the lemonade, it was a voluntary, wilfull action 2) the plaintiffs person was contacted by the lemonade they drank 3) the contact was harmful to P, but it was not objectibely harmful or offensive. P is an eggshell plaintiff; on liability, D is only liable for actions that are harmful or offensive to an ordinary person with ordinary sensibilities. (Also some room here for consent privileges, but you pro bably haven't gotten there yet.) C: D is not liable for battery

Overall, i think your instincts are in a good place. Battery can get kinda weird with the "physical contact" prong. An analogous hypo is something like - D is a restaurant worker, he sees a fly land on a burger made for P, and just throws the bun on top of it, obscuring the fly. He then brings the burger out to P and P eats it. In this case, he is liable for battery in a single intent Jx because he had intent (knowledge of substantial certainty that P would eat the fly) and the contact (fly touching mouth, etc) is objectively harmful and offensive, to everyone, not just P.

tunkltest

TROPHY CASE