Tubal-Cain

Heh.

Where to begin. Perhaps with the fact that I'm sitting here updating this on a Friday evening? Fear not; my crew and I just tend to roll out fairly late.

Anyway, it was great going home for Fall Break this past weekend and seeing the family and friends. It almost made me forget for a few days how much things have changed since I started law school. But it also reminded me that some things never change.

Last Thursday, something unprecedented happened, and it was pretty damn cool. I was called on in Contracts, and after responding to the barrage of questions hurled my way by the professor, something happened that I'd never witnessed before in law school. People applauded. Now, when we have guest speakers, the class applauds when they are finished speaking. Even some days when the professor does a particularly compelling job teaching the class he will be met with applause at its conclusion. But never had I seen the class applaud the routine response of another classmate that had been called on. Honestly, I don't know why they applauded. I felt it was pretty common sensical what I was being asked and anyone else could have done equally well or better than I did. I think it was more in the presentation than the actual substance; I was nailing the questions immediately after he was done asking them. Nevertheless, it made me feel pretty good.

Yesterday I was pulled over by an officer of the law (and I use the term loosely) while on my way to Torts in the morning. The reason? Failure to display two license plates. That's it. My registration and inspection stickers are good. Nor was I speeding or engaging in any other sort of moving violation. I worked for a Municipal Court for 8 months, so I was vividly aware that it is unlawful in Texas to display only a rear license plate. However, being a first semester law student, I don't exactly have time to go seeking out the nearest Volvo dealership, scheduling an appointment to have a front bracket installed to hold a front plate, taking my car there, dropping it off, waiting for the labor to be performed, and paying the fee with money that I don't have. Well, that's not exactly true. I could do all that. But it would be at the expense of study and preparation for one or more classes, as there is always something that can be done to further clarify what's going on in any given class. So naturally, having driven my vehicle for years in Texas, passing hundreds of police officers, and having never been stopped for displaying only one license plate, I made the choice most consistent with my perceived cost-benefit analysis (that being not getting a front plate installed). I tried to explain this to the officer when he asked why there was no front plate. I didn't lie to him and feign ignorance of the law. That didn't matter. He still gave me a citation. My research puts it at about $180 that could be put toward a myriad of better uses than lining the municipal pockets of the City of Balcones Heights. Now, however, my hand is forced and I will be getting my front plate installed on Monday morning (at which time exactly there will be a town hall meeting on campus with the Dean of the law school that I wanted to attend...). I will then take the proof of swift compliance to the prosecutor and hope for a dismissal. In Coppell, nine times out of ten swift compliance for this specific ticket and others similar yielded a dismissal from the prosecutor, so I am hopeful.

Then Torts itself was rather engaging, once I actually got there. One of the cases in the assigned reading for yesterday was Mayhew v. Sullivan Mining, Co. 76 Me. 100. Barrows, J. authored the opinion and included a reference to Tubal-Cain:

"If the defendants had proved that in every mining establishment that has existed since the days of Tubal-Cain, it has been the practice to cut ladder-holes in their platforms, situated as this was while in daily use for mining operations, without guarding or lighting them, and without notice to contractors or workmen, it would have no tendency to show that the act was consistent with ordinary prudence, or a due regard for the safety of those who were using their premises by their invitation"

The poor soul whom the professor called on for this case did not know who Tubal-Cain was when asked. Our professor got livid. He turned bright red and started screaming at the entire class at the top of his lungs. "IF YOU COME ACROSS A SINGLE WORD THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU GET UP OFF YOUR ASS AND YOU LOOK IT UP." Our Torts professor is normally pretty intense, but this level of veracity took us all a little bit by surprise. Personally, I wanted to laugh out loud during the diatribe, but I figured he might be prone to pick on me frequently in the near future if he saw me snickering out of the corner of his eye while he was screaming at the class. Overall, the message itself was a good one, though in my opinion the method of delivery was just a trifle superfluous. 1Ls at St. Mary's are split into four sections, A, B, C, and D (D being the evening program students), each of which have all the same classes and professors. I am in section B. However, our Torts professor teaches both section A and section B and tries to harmonize them as much as possible. Section A had class with him after our class, so needless to say when they walked into Torts today, every one of them knew who Tubal-Cain was. I'm considering attending the law school Halloween party as him.

And this morning in Property was fairly eventful as well. We are studying the law of estates right now, specifically future interests, and even more specifically the Rule Against Perpetuities. The material is so abstract, dense, and foreign that it really is not an exaggeration to say that it's like trying to learn a foreign language. I feel like a disproportionate amount of my time is spent trying to grasp the material in Property, at the expense of my other classes. As my Dad well knows, during Fall Break I devoted Monday entirely to the reading and understanding of Property, specifically a certain case: Stoller v. Doyle, 100 N.E. 959. Out of ALL the cases I have read thus far throughout my legal education, this one is BY FAR the worst. Trying to make sense of it is like trying to swim your way out of quicksand. Trying to confront it head-on is like standing at the bottom of a mountain trying to stop an avalanche. Trying to extract a rule of law from it is like trying to find a working time machine in a junkyard. But enough with the similies; I shall show you what I mean. Take this excerpt from the opinion in the case:

"The trial court did not err in holding propositions of law that by the first deed the children of Frank Doyle acquired a contingent interest in the real estate and that the later deed to him could not affect that interest. The argument for the defendant in error at that time was that the first deed vested in Frank Doyle title in fee simple to the premises, and that the condition restricting alienation and the attempted limitations on the fee were repugnant to the estate granted and therefore void. It was not then and is not now claimed that the restraint upon alienation was valid, but it was contended that there was no repugnancy between the granting clause and the conditional limitations because the statutory form of deed did not include such words as were necessary to transfer an estate of inheritance at common law, and therefore the estate granted could be limited by express words or by construction or operation of law."

Um, what?

I'm PROFESSIONALLY STUDYING this stuff. It's my JOB to understand what the hell this is saying. And it took me roughly 8 hours, accompanied by consultation with a plethora of outside sources, human, electronic, and textual.

And sure as shit, when we get to that case this morning in Property (our 8am class, I might add), our Professor goes, "hmmm... Mr. Dubinsky, would you favor us?" That's what it's like to be me. The most cryptic, unintelligible, dense mass of gibberish yet encountered and I get called on to enlighten the class. Figures.

I nudged my friend as I stood up, having predicted this ever since reading the blasted thing. So I got up and fumbled through the case and pretty much kicked its ass. I read my meticulously-crafted brief and answered all of the professor's questions more-or-less correctly. It's a massive relief knowing that I'm safe from being called on in that class for a bit. The cool part was that no less than 15 people today told me how well I did. Even one guy said that when the professor was looking at the seating chart, everyone in the class was sitting silently, thinking "please please PLEASE don't call on me for this case." Probably the most rewarding I've felt in law school thus far is feeling like I have a firm grasp on the law of future interests.

Finally (sorry this is so long), tomorrow is the Battle of the Rattles. All the separate sections get together with the 2Ls and 3Ls for some friendly athletic competition and drunken spectating. There are tournaments of soccer, football, and tug-o-war. It's BYOB and there will be free food and friends/family members/loved ones are encouraged to attend. It should be a lot of fun.

Anyway, it is time for me to abandon my post in cyberspace and go out to celebrate the completion (I'd say domination, personally) of yet another week of law school. Booyah.