1L of a Ride — McClurg’s bestselling book about how to navigate the first year of law school is assigned as recommended or required reading at law schools throughout the country. Read the Amazon Reviews.
NEW!!! The 1L of a Ride Video Course is a 13-part series featuring McClurg and award-winning law professors Chris Coughlin, Meredith Duncan and Nancy Levit. Available separately or bundled with a print or e-copy of the book.
Meanwhile, to maintain their sanity, loved ones may want to take a look at The “Companion Text” to Law School: Understanding and Surviving Life with a Law Student. Named an Amazon Editors’ Favorite Book of the Year!
Grains such as barely and wheat used to make beer contain gluten, although grains such as sorghum, buckwheat, rice, and milletbeers can be used to make gluten-free beer.
During the middle of our products liability coverage in first-year Torts, a student sent this photo of a beer carton boasting in bold capital letters “CRAFTED TO REMOVE GLUTEN.”
The beer was of interest to the student, who suffers from celiac disease. Persons with celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder, cannot consume gluten because their bodies will mistakenly react to gluten as if it were a poison.
But then she came to the fine print at the bottom of the box, which says:
* Product fermented from grains containing gluten and crafted to remove gluten. The gluten content of this product cannot be verified, and this product may contain gluten.
As the student commented, “I have no clue what the manufacturer is even trying to say.” Given the danger gluten presents to some consumers, surely the disclaimer deserves more prominent billing on the label.
Needless to say, the student passed on buying the beer.
Check out some sample video clips for the new 1L of a Ride Video Course (West Academic Press 2016) based on McClurg’s bestselling law school prep book of the same name. In addition to McClurg, the 13-part series features award-winning law professors Christine Coughlin (Wake Forest), Meredith Duncan (University of Houston), and Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City).
Each video is roughly ten minutes, followed by a short self-assessment quiz. The videos include:
1. Introduction to the Video Course 2. Planning Ahead and Biggest Fears 3. Structure and Role of U.S. Courts 4. Socratic and Case Methods 5. Overview of First-Year Curriculum 6.
Here’s another “rolling tort”; i.e., a dangerous condition on a road or highway.
We look at these things lightly at Lawhaha.com, but large objects that come loose from a vehicle present a substantial risk of injury or death to those traveling behind.
Other examples of Rolling Torts are here, here, and here. Or just sift through the entries under “Spot the Tort.”
–Thanks to Larry Peters.
This sign warning “Do Not Feed Hallucinogens to Alligators” would be amusing if it were real, but it’s not.
Complicating life at Lawhaha.com, where we love to post interesting warning labels and signs, is the proliferation of fake, Photoshopped samples.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell. University of Memphis first-year law student George Scoville sent me the alligators picture. It looked a bit sketchy. Research led to a Reddit post detailing indicators that the picture is fake, including, for example, a Shutterstock watermark on the mushroom.
But George had also sent a second similar photo: “Do Not Give the Bison Psychoactive Substances.” This one
What would this guy have to say about it?
When a defense lawyer in a defective building case says “scare and kill” when he means to say “care and skill,” is that just being tongue-tied, or is it a Freudian slip?
From a judge friend comes this:
In a recent motion hearing in a multi-party construction case, the attorney for the developer of the allegedly defective building intended to refer in his argument to his client’s “care and skill” in constructing the involved building. He got a little tongue-tied, however: instead of referring to his client’s construction method as involving “care and skill,”
A lawyer friend in Jacksonville, FL sent along this funny story about a plaintiff who objected to his complaint being dismissed “with prejudice”:
At a mediation, a settlement agreement was reached, so the mediator formalized it in a written document. The plaintiff’s lawyer was going over each of the terms in the document with the plaintiff. When they got to the term that stated “Plaintiff will dismiss the Complaint with prejudice,” the client looked up and adamantly stated, “I will not! I am not prejudiced, and believe everyone is equal under the eyes of God.”
For non-lawyers, “dismissed with prejudice” is a
Insurance law expert and all-around funny, clever guy Randy Maniloff has come up with a fun test for spelling out the names of 10 famous U.S. Supreme Court cases using only emoji. How did this come about? He explains in his latest issue of Coverage Opinions:
The other night I was out to dinner with my 9 year old daughter. As we waited for her mac & cheese to arrive I decided to give her a lesson on the Supreme Court. I figured I’d start with the basic operation of the federal judiciary. From there move on to some landmark Supreme Court cases.
I guess we’ll have to take this one lying down because no standing or sitting is allowed. From a former student comes this sign at a baseball field in Burns Park, North Little Rock, Arkansas.
What is the sign really trying to convey? No loitering in this area? No people in this area? Under a strict construction, could you lie down in the area and be in compliance with the sign’s directive?
–Thanks for Shayne Smith.
Andrew Jay McClurg, In Search of the Golden Mean in the Gun Debate, 58 Howard Law Journal 779-809 (2015).
The American gun debate is stuck and has been for a long time. Both sides remain trapped by their own hyperbolic rhetoric and reasoning fallacies, with the result that partisans are being heard only by those who already agree with them. This essay asserts that there is such a thing as “reasonable middle ground” in the gun debate and seeks to prove it by analyzing five specific measures that have the potential to reduce gun violence without infringing legitimate Second Amendment rights:
(1) bolstering federal support for
Uh-oh, Christmas is over and the old man in the red suit decided to retaliate over the lawsuit filed against him by the children of the world. Originally appeared in the December 2001 issue of the ABA Journal.
Santa Strikes Back
BY ANDREW J. McCLURG
Readers may recall that holiday cheer was dampened two years ago when the children of the world filed a class action against Santa Claus (Santa Suit, Jan. 2000). That action remains pending as thousands of judges who have received gifts from the defendant continue to recuse themselves. Now
Children’s rights is a popular issue these days. One reason is that it is an impossible issue to oppose. A person can not stand up and say, “I oppose children’s rights.” Such a person would be reviled, especially by children. Of course, in our society we carry everything to extremes. Holiday cheer received a jolt yesterday with the announcement of a new lawsuit:
Low-clearance warnings can help avert unintentional head-banging (as opposed to purposeful head-banging to, say, Metallica).
In the U.S., we shout these warnings (Danger! Watch Your Head!) like we shout everything. But the Brits take a more proper, refined approach, as shown by the sign on the right, taken in a London pub.
The only thing missing is an “Old Chap” at the end, as in “Please Do Mind Your Head, Old Chap.”
Thanks to Pat Crowell.