Best civil law books according to redditors
We found 50 Reddit comments discussing the best civil law books. We ranked the 15 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 50 Reddit comments discussing the best civil law books. We ranked the 15 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
He is getting this from The Case Against Impeaching Trump: Alan Dershowitz. This is not him coming up with crazy, It is him listing to 'his' experts. Dershowiz is beyond the pail with this argument.
Short answer: Freer
Long answer: Listen to the Richard Freer tapes before the relevant class and then again after and actually outline/take notes on the tapes. You likely have free access to the law school legends one through your school; the barbri 1L package also has videos of him which are what I used and my understanding is it's pretty much the same as the tapes. https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-School-Legends-Audio/dp/0314199780
Intro
Audiobook series on amazon
Archives for this post:
----
Archives for links in comments:
----
I am Mnemosyne 2.1, My face is tired. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
That sounds like a discount that you can negotiate whether or not you placed a deposit.
In my opinion these just smell like a rip-off. They use other students in the school to sell the program. They have all sorts of artificial deadlines and cut-offs. Buying into the program is partially sold on unrelated fringe benefits like a BarBri study guide, which you can get from Amazon for about $5 or special study sessions.
I naturally avoid any high pressure sales tactics that include artificial deadlines. I have found that they are almost always a bad deal for the consumer. If I was a 1L I would gladly pass on this "opportunity" and evaluate my many options when I actually needed the product that they are selling.
Whilst the incident may have left you with more than a bruise, that is not the legal question.
The legal question is, what injury did the breach of duty cause, and was that injury reasonably foreseeable?
A bruise from an incorrectly sent needle, probably.
An increase in the pain medication you were using - unlikely but depends on what the (correct) needle is usually used for and whether that would reasonably be in the contemplation of the company: was it 1) reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that you were even on pain medication, and 2) what is the cost of that; the pain actually suffered would be part and parcel of the bruise damage.
Anti-depressants: what is the damage for using anti-depressants? Did this wrong needle cause a new psychiatric injury? Eggshell skulls notwithstanding, it seems hardly reasonable to expect that a minor injury from the wrong needle has caused e.g. PTSD in the usual case (maybe if the medication was used to treat needle phobias?).
You say the company has accepted liability? You will need to be very sure as to the context of that liability - have they simply accepted breach of duty? Or have they also accepted the quantum of damages?
And the impacts on you mentally: English law will give little in the way of damages for distress in these circumstances - and by little I mean, usually £0 - unless you can show psychiatric injury. The pain and suffering damages would be subsumed into the award you receive for the bruising.
Realistically, unless there are extenuating circumstances in the relationship between you and the company - your medical history is unlikely to count for much here - then we're only looking at damages for the bruising.
Common law is simply a system of jurisprudence whose main facet is stare decisis. What you need to look at is damages under English law for personal injury - and the main publication on that is the Guidelines, published by the Judicial College, which you can buy here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guidelines-Assessment-General-Damages-Personal/dp/0198814526
To put it into perspective - a soft tissue injury that has resulted in bruising, that heals within a week or so, will see you get £550 max. I'm not sure where your injection site is or how extensive the injury was, but that is the kind of thing you're looking at.
£8,000 for wrong medicine depends on what injury they have suffered. For instance, that is similar to an award if I cut your finger off. I don't see minor bruising (unless accompanied by something else), attracting anything more than a low 3 figure award.
Your question here and your broader question is really hard to answer succinctly. There are whole classes taught on this. Here are a few points that may be helpful/resolve your curiosity, though.
First, another way of referring to following precedent is the principle of "stare decisis." That may be helpful in running google searches.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, in refusing to overturn Miranda (which, as you may guess, established Miranda rights) indicated that stare decisis is very important, and there must be a "special justification" to depart from precedent (but less so in the context of constitutional decisions): "While stare decisis is not an inexorable command, particularly when we are interpreting the Constitution, even in constitutional cases, the doctrine carries such persuasive force that we have always required a departure from precedent to be supported by some ‘special justification.'"
But not all justices, lawyers, and scholars agree. Most notably, Justice Thomas does not care much for stare decisis (in the context of both constitutional and statutory decisions). According to Justice Thomas, a court's job is to enforce the Constitution (or statute) itself, not any court's interpretations of those laws, so precedent carries very little weight: "When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it. This view of stare decisis follows directly from the Constitution’s supremacy over other sources of law—including our own precedents. . . . In sum, my view of stare decisis requires adherence to decisions made by the People—that is, to the original understanding of the relevant legal text—which may not align with decisions made by the Court. Thus, no 'special justification' is needed for a federal court to depart from its own, demonstrably erroneous precedent."
Ultimately, different justices may have their own views on how it should work--but, really, the bottom line is that nothing besides their own restraint prevents the justices from overturning precedent.
As to how exactly these reinterpretations of the constitution occur--as you note, the text of the Constitution itself hasn't actually changed--this is the subject of much scholarship and debate. If you're interested in learning more about it, I would research the idea of "living constitutionalism," and perhaps read this article/get this book (both by David Strauss, one of the most prominent proponents of the idea that our constitution is a "living document").
This might be a helpful resource if you want more information.
I did a bit more digging and found that he wrote this text
https://www.amazon.com/Toxic-Diversity-Race-Gender-America/dp/0814740006/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1479516088&sr=8-1&keywords=toxic+diversity
I imagine it is an expansion of the article. It has the Sommers seal of approval and even gets a credit from one of the guys it takes to task!
Because of America's broken legal system.
I'd recommend reading the original op-ed.
Then in turn, look at the book written by the author Posner cited, David Strauss, called The Living Consitution (Inalienable Rights).
Posner is NOT saying ignore the constitution. He is, however, against head in the sand originalism.
Title: A Practical Approach to Landlord and Tenant 8th Edition
Author: Simon Garner and Alexandra Frith
Amazon Link: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B073JCVDB2/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_nXe-BbDZAA65H
ISBN: 9780198802709
Payment: Paypal Preferred
Read any version of Imam Malik's Muwatta. It has a lot of great info into how early Muslims viewed Islam and the rulings it had. I would add Imam Shaffii work to understand how Muslims reconciled contradictory reports and built the modern framework of Islamic legal scholarship. This translation is surprisingly readable considering how tough this subject can be.
https://www.amazon.com/Epistle-Legal-Theory-Translation-Al-Shafiis/dp/1479855448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486488389&sr=8-1&keywords=epistle+of+legal+theory
You can read the Life of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaaq (translation by Guillaume) for the earliest biography we have while adding in
http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b9037.html
This book gives a broader survey of other stories of seerah while discussing authenticity of various stories. This is a work for and by Muslims, but it is honest in grading more favorable stories as weak if they are weak.
https://www.amazon.com/Individual-Criminal-Responsibility-International-Monographs/dp/0199560366
http://www.amazon.com/Civil-Procedure-School-Legends-Series/dp/0314199780/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1381594155&sr=8-3&keywords=civil+procedure+freer
Find an upper classman that has them and doesn't need them anymore.
One of the few study aids that is 100% worth the price of admission.
http://www.amazon.com/Materials-Federal-Indian-American-Casebooks/dp/0314200371/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335268547&sr=8-1
First page of the first chapter.
I would not "let" discrimination continue. The consequence of my ideology is freedom. Why after my explanation do you want to boil it down to a red herring argument of whether discrimination will run rampant?
I'm not in a game of concocting utopian societies. Where men are free, some shit is likely to happen.
Currently, it is law that a business may not discriminate, but it is not a good law if you think about it. Like I said, there are other consequences, a lot of which are outlined by Philip K. Howard in his books, The Death Of Common Sense and Life Without Lawyers. You can't force someone to feel a certain way, and if you make him act a certain way, he will find other ways to act out what he feels. For the damn reason that my business is mybusiness, I should have the right to refuse business to anyone for any reason. It's my fucking business, my fucking reason. For most of the world including myself, money is money and it doesn't matter who it comes from. For some idiot racists and bigots, they don't want certain people to have the comfort of their products or services. It's law that they can't make that choice because of arbitrary external indicators, so now because of that, they just have to say "Aw shucks I am too busy" or make up some excuse, just like racist employers day "we found a better candidate for the job." It's still their right, but they have to skirt the law and the discriminated can't protest because a photographer is busy (but they could if she was bigoted) or if an employer picked a better qualified person (but they could if the employer was racist.)
So yeah, it isn't a right, nor should it be. I'm a business owner, business is a two-way deal, and I have to agree to what terms we do business. If I don't agree, I can refuse, because you haven't given me money and you can't force me to take your money. How do you not get that?
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Impeaching-Trump/dp/151074228X
If you're interested in reading a bit about some details, you could try to borrow this book from the library. It is a textbook written by one of my law school professors about different legal systems. He gives a historical perspective, so you can see not only how they're different now, but how their origins are different.
Scholars categorize the world's legal traditions with some variation. In this book, the author discusses the Civil Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) - tradition, the Common Law tradition, and the Chinese Law tradition. (Sorry for that exposed URL: I couldn't hide it because the URL itself ended in a parenthesis).
Only the case law is hard to find (for state self-defense law including case see the now dangerously dated Self Defense Laws of All 50 States (but you can assume the case law only got worse)), but the Federal laws are all there on the Cornell site, and they host the regulations as well. Or for the book treatment, including the pro-gun laws which somehow were never incorporated in the U.S. Code (funny, that...), see Korwin's 2009 Gun Laws of America - 6th Edition, but be warned it doesn't have an index, you have to read it front to back. But it's by U.S. Code numbers, and the uncoded stuff is in the very back.