1980, April 15: Blackacre
title:
Blackacre: 1980, April 15
creator:
School of Law
date:
1980-04-15
description:
Student newspaper of the School of Law.
description:
acre volume xi LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICl\GO • SCHOOL OF LAW number 12 apri/15, 1980 Financial Aid paperwork deadline near by Char Reinhold and Catherine Long The scholarship opportunities announced in the last issue of Blackacre are not the only forms of financial aid available to the fmancially strapped law student. Federal, state and scholarship aid programs are still available to law students, according to Eugene Knight, Director of University Financial Aids. Although many of the deadlines for filing have passed, students should take advantage of the remaining programs. Scholarships. based on the GAPSFAS (Graduate and Professional School Financial Aid Service) form, were due in the Financial Aid office March 1. The scholarships are determined jointly by the Financial Aids office and the law school, based on need, grades and class rank. Roughly 10 per cent of the day students receive this kind of scholarship aid. But despair not, for there are other ways to obtain aid and deadlines for application for these programs have not yet passed. Applications for Federal loan programs are still available, for example. "lf students are interested in these," Knight said, ' 'they should file their F AF (Financial Aid Form) by the end of April or the beginning of May. The programs open to law students include the NDSL (National Direct Student Loan), the Work-study program and the FISL (Federally Insured Student Loan). All of these are based on the individual student's need assessment made by the Federal government and the school. The NDSL is a low interest (three per cent) loan made to students through the Federal government. Law students may borrow up to a limit of 510,000 under this program. Repayment begins nine months after graduation, and the amount of the payment depends on the amount originally borrowed. Deferrment of payment is possible. College work-study is also a federal program available to law students. The federal government pays 80 per cent of a student's salary if the student holds an approved, education-related job. The amount of money a student may earn in a year is determined by the individual needs of each student, as well as the type of job the student gets. " Both NDSL and work-study are awarded only tv students who have filed the FAF," said Knight. Work-study jobs are also available for the summer. But Knight warns, "If you have a job starting May lst, you should have flied your F AF by April 1. It takes at the least two to three weeks to process a 'clean· form." State loan programs are also available to lllinois students, and these are often the most-requested form of aid. The IGLP (Illinois Guaranteed Loan Program) was instituted in 1965 to provide low-interest (seven per cent) loans to students. The major difference between the IGLP and the federal NDSL program is that the student must seek out a lender to make the IGLP loan. "After finding a bank or savings and loan that will lend you the money under the IGLP, processing the form could take anywhere from four to six weeks,'' Knight said. Repayment schedules are similar to the NDSL in that they begin nine months after graduation. There is also a limit on the amount of money a student may borrow for one academic year under the IGLP. No student may borrow more than $5000 for an academic year, and the total loan must not exceed $15,000 for all years, both undergraduate and graduate. Further, the individual lender may· also impose a lower limit on the amount the student may borrow. And a student may borrow only from one lender at a time. Knight said that only eight states do not have their own student loan programs. Dean Manloek applaud• blued ealliD recent .eDior-facaJty buketball game. More oa pqe foar. ~ Though theoretically mid-AprU, the weather now Is no warmer than It was for St. Patrick's Day. More parade photos on page s ix. photos courtesy Loyola Public Relations These eight states are covered under the FISL. If your horne state does have a loan program, you may not use the federal plan. All applications for the IGLP are processed at the lllinois office in Deerfield, and take 30 days to process. Knight cautioned students to "flll out the application with care, o~ the program will reject the application and return it for further information. Also, students shouldn't fill in any part of the application that is marked 'lending institution' or 'financial aid office' as it only creates problems. Only fill in the 'applieant' portion." · · When asked if the high interest rate would affect the IGLP, Knight said, "Lenders are getting 15 per cent interest on the IGLP. This attracts lenders to this type of loan. Yet every bank has its own limit to the amount of loans they will make, and students may find it difficult if the interest rate goes up any further." Knight ernphasize.Q the importance of filing forms early 'to get the most benefit out of the programs. "You never know until you file exactly what you'll get. I see the F AF as a good mental exercise for students, so why not do it?" Also, there is a bill before Congress to raise the borrowing limits on state loan Securities moot court programs, like the IGLP. " While the state administers the programs, Congress is responsible for setting the limits and repayment plans," Knight said. Due to the steadily rising costs of education, the loan programs have not kept pace with tuition increases. Therefore some students run out of money, and face the limit of $15,000 before the completion of their education. The bill would raise the limit to $25,000 for both graduate and undergraduate borrowing, but it has yet to emerge from committees in either house. Another problem with the IGLP is that a student may only borrow from one lender throughout his or her academic career. H your lender leaves the program, you may not seek another loan from a different bank. The student's only recourse is to have Lender A buy his note from the original lender, and continue to borrow fro111 the new bank. However, Knight does not anticipate lenders leaving the program. In fact, most lenders that started with the program are still in it, some for 15 years. Knight added, "Students seeking financial aid should stop by our office in Room 611 of Lewis Towers for information and materials ... the sooner the better. We' ll be open all summer. If anyone has any questions, please contact our office." Loyola team flogs Fordham Loyola upset host team Fordham University in the first round of the Irving R. Kauffman Securities Law Moot Court Competition held last week in New York City, but failed to make the final rounds when they lost to St. John's University. Mark Barinholtz teamed up with Linda Kagan to defeat the Fordham University aggregate in the initial argument of the competition, sending the partisan hometown onlookers back into the streets disappointed. In Loyola's second argument Barinholtz joined Gloria Block ·in arguihg the competition problem against St. John's. St. John's eked out a victory in · what was called a "very close" oral argument. Because of the loss to St. John's Loyola was precluded from advancing into the final rounds. William and Mary was the eventual winner of the three day competition, with a second team from Fordham finishing in second place. In all, fourteen teams competed in the competition. The competition problem involved a sophisticated securities investor who is accused of failing to excercise due care in a private placement securities transaction. The Kauffman Securities Competition is held annually; students interested in participating in next year's competition should contact the Moot Court Board for details. Journal editors picked Nancy Dowd has been selected to be the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Journal for the 1980-1981 school year, the Law Journal has announced. Thomas O'Malley has been tabbed to be Executive Editor, while Frank Pawlak will assume the post of Symposium Editor. Kristine Elmlund, Lisa Marco and Rosie Rees will be Lead Article Editors. Laura Laplaca-Ritzen will be Managing Editor. Jan Brunken, Carey Cooper, Maryann Hayes, Jan Loughlin, Karen Lyons, Dominick Savaiano and Barbara Stuetzer will be the Student Articles Editors. BLACKACRE April lS, 1980 page two New state Mental Health Code brings On October 10, 1973, Governor Dan Walker fontled the Governor's Commission for Revision of the Mental Health Code of Dlinois. The Commission's selfstated goal was "to insure that all mentally disabled persons are given the equal protection of the laws, that they are treated fairly and humanely, with the least possible restriction on their freedom. "[I] In late 1976, the Commission submitted it's report to the Governor. The report was then embodied in a series of bills introduced on a bi-partisan basis into the 1977 session of the legislature. As a result of the Governor's Commission's efforts, the new Dlinois Mental Health and Development Disabilities Code was enacted into law by the Illinois General Assembly on January 1, 1979. This article will focus on the new Code's definition of a " person subject to involuntary admission,'"' [2] and its relation to the clear and convincing evidence standard of ;?roof applicable to civil commitment hearings. n. Involuntary Admission A. Standard Under the new Dlinois Mental Health Code, a person cannot be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility unless he or she meets two criteria. First, the person must be determined to be ' mentally ill. '[3[ The Code left this term undefined but the Governor's Commission recommended that its meaning be determined by the courts "on a case-by-case basis. "(4) Some commentators have pointed out that the use of such an expansive medical concept as mental illness "to separate the committable from the non-committable"f5] is to increase the danger of the term mental illness from becoming "simply a label placed on behavior which, although frigh. oftert not criminal, is annoying, burdensome or frightening. "[6] Thus because the term mental illness can encompass a wide variety of psychological conditions, the diagnosis of which is largely a subjective determination, its use as a legal concept to justify the deprivation of liberty inherent in civil committment, is disturbing. However, insofar as the new Dlinois Mental Health Code provides an individual with a right to an independent psychiatric examination "by a physician, qualified examiner, clinical psychologist or other expert of his choice,"[7] a person does have the ·opportunity to challenge the state's diagnosis by raising a reasonable doubt as to its validity. In addition to being "mentally ili[B] the person must "because of his illness ... (be) reasonably expected to inflict serious physical harm upon himself or another in the near future."[9] or, due to his illness, be "unable to provide .for his basic physical needs so as to guard himself from serious harm."[IO] Although the Governor's Commission proposed an additional requirement of a ''recent overt act or threat"[ll] in order to more concretely establish dangerousness or helplessness, the Legislature chose not to adopt such a narrow standard. Rather the Code adopted that the reasonable expectation of dangerousness "must be based upon an explicit medical opinion regarding the patient's future conduct, and cannot be based upon a mere finding of mental illness."[14] Thus while Dlinois courts have recognized that something more than mental illness is required before a person can be found subject to involuntary admission, the Legislature has refused to carry this recognition to the point of requiring that an individual have committed an overt act or made a significant threat before he can be deemed dangerous and therefore legally committed. Rather the new Dlinois Mental Health Code embodies the Sansone court's judgement that: ... due process does not require that a person be charged with a specific dangerous overt act. but that there be a nexus between the facts asserted and a finding of 'in need of mental treatment. '[15] With the substitution of "subject to involuntary admission"[16] for the phrase "in need of mental treatment," the above quote is the basis for the standard for involuntary civil commitment set out in the new Code. This standard necessarily means that some individuals will be subject to, in effect, preventative detention by the state solely on the basis of unverifiable predictions of future dangerousness. This has been termed ''the problem of false positives- identifying as dangerous many individuals who will not display any dangerous behavior."[17] The question remains whether such a statutory result is constitutional in light of both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the Sansone court's assertion to the contrary. For: ... unlike other members of society the mentally ill may be incarcerated for the protection of the community because of their potential for doing harm rather than because of the harm which they have caused. The equal protection clause demands that such disparate treatment be justified. [18] Given the fact that "psychiatrists are generally inaccurate predictors, "[19] a good argument can be made that the imposition of an overt act or significant threat requirement is not only essential to protect the individual from the arbitrary, albeit benevolent action of the state in this area, but would also provide a more rational means of separating the committable from the non-committable. Insofar as involuntary co~itment constitutes a substantial deprivation of liberty, albeit in the best intersts of the individual and-or society, .. . an argument could be made that the limitation of commitment to individuals who are almost certain to act dangerously is not only desirable as a matter of policy, but also constitutionally compelled. [20] However as the court in U.S. ex ref Matthew v. Nelson[21] pointed out, "(n)o study has ... attempted to discover the extent to which a recent overt act requirement would reduce the incidents of -=-F- Forum the standard of reasonable expectation of dangerousness as frrst articulated in People v. Sansone, [12]. In Sansone, the court said that : " ... a decision to committ based upon a medical opinion which clearly states that a person is reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct, and which is based upon the experience and studies · of qualified psychiatrists, is a determination which can be ptoperly be made by the State. [13] The Sansone court specified however by Genny O'Toole incorrect predictions of dangerousness." [22] That court upheld, as not violative of due process, that portion of the lliinois statute which authorized the involuntary commitment of a person if such person is reasonably expected to intentionally or unintentionally physically injure himself or other persons at the time of this determination or within a reasonable time thereafter. Interestingly enough, the Matthew court did leave open the possibility that something akin Jo, the overt act requirement would ilpply in those cases where the psychiatric determination necessary to support the finding of reasonable expectation that the statute requires could not be made in the absence of an overt act ... In those cases, the evidence will not justify a determination of dangerousness. "[23] The court went on to say that a finding of This guy is weinl. But is be really dangerous? The new Mental Health Code creates a new standard for commitments. dagerousness in an individual case where the facts did not warrant it could be challenged ''by individuals who seek a review of their incarceration on specific constitutional grounds. "[24] However insofar as the Matthew plaintiffs were attempting to have the statute struck down as unconstitutional per se, they were unsuccessful. The court pointed out that "the remedy lies in the protection of the individual's right in each commitment proceeding, or a challenge to a pervasive practice of state officers if one exists, not in striking down the statute." (25) The Matthew plaintiffs had also argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague in the absence of an overt act requirement. The c~urt disagreed however. "The statute does not give the trier of fact an unstructured discretion to commit the mentally ill person. It requires a specific finding ... that the person is expected, at the time of the deteimination or. within a reasonable time thereafter, intentionally to inflict physical injury upon himself or another person. "[26] As to section 119-(2), the court noted that this clause had not yet been authoritatively interpreted. However the court did venture to say that: ... [ w ]e should think that in most, if not all, cases in which commitment is sought on this ground, evidence of some prior act or omission which demonstrates the alleged inabilfty will be necessary. [27] In 1975, the Supreme Court somewhat spoke to the issue of appropriate standards for state civil commitment statutes in 0 'Connor v. Donaldson. In holding Donaldson's fifteen year involuntary confinement in a mental ·institution to be unconstitutional, the court employed what one commentator characterized as "a barely articulated due process balancing approach. "[29] The Court expressly declined to consider the question whether a mentally ill person could be confined by the state on the sole ground of dangerousness to self or other. Most certainly the state has a legitimate if not compelling interest in protecting its citizenry, including the mentally ill person himself, from harm. However, the question remains whether the state can make a valid finding of dangerousness to self or others in the absence of an overt act requirement. Although the Supreme Court did not consider this issue in Donaldson, numerous lower courts have come out strongly in favor of such a ~equirement in the civil commitment context. The major case in this area is Lessard v. Schmidt. [30] In that case a three-judge federal district court in Wisconsin concluded that the involuntary confinement of an individual could only be justified in those cases where there was an " extreme likelihood that if the person is not confined he will do immediate harm to himself or others. "[31] The Lessard court further stated that dangerousness could only be proved "upon a finding of a recent overt act, attempt or threat to do substantial harm to oneself or another." [32] As one commentator noted, "the court evidently regarded overt dangerous behavior as necessary to establish a sufficiently high probability of harm."[33] The precedential effect of the Lessard decision is uncertain, insofar as the Supreme Court has twice vacated the case on other grounds. Since Wisconsin subsequently enacted a revised statute which requires an overt act, the issue has become moot in the state. However the Lessard decision has had a major impaact on the formulation of commitment criteria in other judicial decisions and by state legislature. In lllinois, the Governor's Commission recommended that "the criterion of dagerousness or helplessness be made more explicit by requiring a recent overt act or threat or demonstrable course of behavior in every case where dangerousness or helplessness is to be shown. "[34] The Commission supplied two reasons for the imposition of such a requirement: .. . first, a showing of a recent overt act or threat permits some objective evaluation of both the nature and quality of the danger present. Absent such a requirement, subjective impressions and opinions, no matter how well informed. may be taken as fact. Second, given the deprivation of liberty at stake, the Commission believes that in any case where such an intrusion is justifiabl~. ample occurrences will exist to support the need for intervention. [35] The Co,mmission ~s view was conclusively rejected by the legislature when it enacted Continued on the next page r I BLACKACRE April IS, 1980 page tblee procedure and liberty to Cuckoo's Nest continued from previous page the new Mental Health Code in January. 1979. There are at least two valid arguments in favor of an overt act requirement in the civil commitment context. They are sufficiency of the evidence, and due process interest balancing.[J6] The first argument, sufficiency of the evidence, relates to the level of proof which is required at commitment hearings. If the applicable standard of proof is greater than a preponderance of the evidence, as is the case in Illinois, then some recent overt dangerous behavior would have to be shown in order to meet that higher burden of proof. In lllinois, Section 3-808 of the new Mental Health Code provides that "no respondent may be found subject to involuntary admission unless that finding has been established by clear and convincing evidence. "[37) In addition, "no respondent may be found subject to involuntary admission unless at least one psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who has examined him testifies in person at the hearing."(JB] Thus the testimony of that examining psychiatrist or clinical psychologist must clearly and convincingly establish the dangerousness of the individual before the court can order his involuntary commitment. The question of what constitutes "clear and convincing evidence" in civil commitment proceedings was considered by illinois courts prior to the adoption of the current Mental Health Code. In In re Whitehouse, the court said that in order to satisfy the clear and convincing evidence standard, "A fact must be established 'in certain, definite and unequivocal terms and be so convincing that it will leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the court."' [ 40] In People v. Sansone[41], the court held that what must be established by clear and convincing evidence are "the facts upon which a medical opinion is based."(42] In addition, ''the medical testimony upon which the decision to commit is based must be clear and convincing."[4J] What remains to be clarified, however, is the extent to which clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness to self or others can be established in the absence of a statutory requirement of a recent overt act ot significant threat. Indeed, in some appellate decisions where the state had failed to produce adequate evidence of dangerousness, the element of proof that seemed to be lacking was some overt dangerous behavior on the part of the respondent. In In re Phillips [44], the Court found that the State had not produced clear and convincing evidence that the respondent, as a result of her mental disorder, could not care for her physical needs or might physically harm herself or others. The Court thus rejected the State's argument that because the respondent refused to take medication for her mental condition, and would have uncertain living arrangements if released, that commitment was justified. 'in this case there was no overt act committed or significant threat made by the respondent which would have demonstrated either her dangerousness to others or her inability to care for herself. In In re Fields[ 45], it was held that while the State need not prove with certainty that a patient would be dangerous in the future, it must be shown that he is reasonably expected to engage in dangerous conduct in the future. In that case the State's evidence, consisting of respondent's threat to jump out of a window, her failure to co-operate with medical treatment, and inappropriate behavior on the street, was determined not to have demonstrated her potential for danger to herself, and thus fell short of the quantum of proof necessary to sustain a finding of need of medical treatment. Thus although under current Dlinois law "the mere establishment of a mental problem is not an adequate basis upon which to confine a person who has never harmed or attempted to harm himself or another,"(46) a determination of mental illness may serve as the foundation upon which a reasonable expectation of dangerousness can be built. The second argument in favor of a statutory overt act requirement is one which has been termed due process interest balancing. [ 47) Its proponents suggest a balancing test to be employed by courts and legislators when considering appropriate standards for civil commitment. The goal of this test would be to ensure that involuntary commitment is "allowed only when the magnitude of the harm feared times the probability of its occurrence is greater that the burden caused by the committed individual's Joss of liberty." [ 48] This test necessarily contemplates that only in those cases where a recent history of overt dangerousness, whether in the form of acts or threats, is demonstrated, will commitment be constitutionally justified. lll. Conclusion Although the court in U.S. ex rei Matthew v. Nelson[49) acknowledged the validity of the arguments just presented, it held that to impose an overt act requirement in every case would unduly burden the state in its effort to protect both the mentally ill individual and society. There are instances in which a psychiatrist can determine from a psychiatric clinical examination that a mentally ill person is reasonably expected to injure herself or another even though the person's history does not include a recent overt act ... These cases may be relatively few. but they are not so insignificant that they can be discarded in our evaluation. (50] Nonetheless, where the deprivation of an individual's liberty is concerned: The benevolent intention of the state does not ... shield its use of the parens patriae authority from the constitutional requirements of substantive due process. [51) Those requirements demand not only that the state action in question be reasonably related to a valid state goal, but also that the state be able to demonstrate that its action promotes a compelling state interest. It is arguable whether the state can be said to have a compelling interest in the civil commitment of an individual whose dangerousness has not been clearly and convincingly demonstrated. It is only logical, if not yet empirically demonstrat- Memo from the Dean ed, that a person's propensity for dangerousness can best be established by some recent history of overt dangerous behavior. The risk posed by a commitment standard such as that set out in Section 1-119 of the new Code is that courts will allow the state to bootstrap a finding of a reasonable expectation of dangerousness on the determination that a person is "mentiiliY ill". In order to provide an adequate constit- 1. Report, Governor's Commission For Revision of the Mental Health Code of Illinois (hereinafter "Report, Governor's Commission"), Preface, p. vi (1976). 2. Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 91'/., §1-119 (1979). 3. ld. 4. Report, Governor's Commission, p. 14. 5. Developments in the Law, Civil Commitment of the Mentally fll, 87 HARV. L. REV. (Part 11) 1190, 1204 (1974). 6. Id. 7. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 911!., §3-804. 8. Id. §1-119. 9. ld. 10. Id. §1-119(2). 11. Report, Governor's Commission, p. 14. 12. 18 Ill.App.3d 315, 309 N.E.2d 733 (1974). 13. 18 lll.App.3d at 323 (emphasis added). 14. ld. 15. 18 Ill.App.3d at 324 16. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 911/., §1-119. 17. The Failure of Psychiatric Predic· tions of Dangerousness: Clear and Convincing Evidence, 29 RUTGERS L. REV. 1084, 1090 (1976). 18. 87 HARV. L. Rev. 1190, 1229. 19. 29 RUTGERS L. Rev. 1084, 1085. 20. 87 HARV. L. REV. 1190, 1241, Fn. 213 (emphasis added). 21. 461 F.Supp. 707 (N.D.lll. 1978). 22. 461 F.Supp. at 710, n. 6. 23. Id. at 711. 24. 461 F.Supp. at 713. 25. Id. at 711. utional protection against unwarranted commitments, the Illinois statute ought to require that dangerousness be clearly shown in the form of an overt act or significant threat. In the absence of such a statutory requirement, the impermissible presumption that a person who is " ment· ally ill" is likely to be dangerous as well, will continue to exist if not thrive in this state. 26. Id. 27. ld. at 712. 28. 422 u.s. 563 (1975). 29. Note, Overt Dangerous Behavior as a Constitutional Requirment for Inovluntary Commitment of the Mentally fll, 44 U.CHI.L.REV. 562, 567 (1977). 30. 349 F.Supp. 1078 (E.D.Wis. 1972), vacated and remanded for a more specific order, 414 U.S. 743, order on remand, 379 F.Supp. 1376 (1974), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 421 U.S. 957 (1975), order reinstated on remand, 413 F.Supp. 1318 (1976). 31. 349 F.Supp. 1078 at 1093. 32. Id. 33. 44 U.CHI.L.REV. 562, 570. 34. Report, Governor's Commission, p. 14. 35. ld. 36. 44 U.CHI.L.REV. 562, 575. 37. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 91 •;., §3-808. 38. Id. §3-807. 39. 56 Ill.App.3d 245, 371 N.E.2d 990 (1977). 40. 56 Dl.App.3d at 249. 41. 18 lll.App.3d 315, 309 N.E.2d 733 (1974). 42. 18 Ili.App.3d at 326. 43. Id. 44. 62 Ili.App.3d 408, 379 N.E.2d 97 (1978). 45. 60 Ili.App.3d 869, 377 N.E.2d 301 (1978). 46. 18 Ili.App.3d 315 at 323. 47. 44 U.CHI.L.REV. 562, 590. 48. Id. 591. 49. 461 F.Supp. 707 (N.D.Ill. 1978). SO. 461 F.Supp. at 711. 51. 87 HARV. L. REV. 1190, 1210. MtUdock offers course planning suggestions As a result of a request initiated by the students to separate the first year Constitutional Law course into two semester course of two units each ~em ester, certain other basic changes are being made in our cirriculum. Instead of the four hour Con Law course being taught in the spring, with Criminal Law being taught in the fall, the change to a 2-2 program requires that Criminal Law be moved to the spring semester so as to keep in balance the number of hours each semester that first year students are required to complete. Since the same faculty members often teach Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure, this \n tum has caused Criminal Procedure to be moved from the spring to the fall semester. In the past, we had recommend~d the following set of courses as a core program for the second year of law school study for day students: Fall Code I (Negotiable Instruments) Corporations Federal Tax Spring Criminal Procedure Estates Evidence As a result of the aforementioned cirriculum changes, I suggest that the core program for next year might more likely look something like this: Fall Corporations (4) Criminal Procedure (3) Tax (3) Spring Estates (3) Evidence(4) Secured Transactions and Creditor's Rights (4) The foregoing assumptions (and scheduling must proceed based on certain assumptions) are predicated upon the following. Most second year students will probably want to take Criminal Procedure in their third rather than their fifth semester since it would follow immediately upon the first year Constitutional Law courses and the second semester Criminal Law course. Furthermore, while negotiable instruments has been delineated as Code I in the past, and Secured Transactions has been delineated as Code II, this has been more predicated on the fact that Professor Lamey (now retired) formerly taught these two courses and the courses were invariably oversubscribed. Accordingly, everyone attempted to take these courses as soon as he or she could with the result that most third semester students took Code I in the fall and most fourth semester students took Code II in· the spring. The numeration did not indicate a necessary sequencing. Assuming that most third semester students wil1 take Criminal Procedure, along with corporations and Federal Tax, past experience would indicate that, for many students, the balance of the third semester curriculum will be filled out from among Negotiable Instruments, Appellate Advocacy and Real Estate. The course in Secured Transactions and <..reditor's Right's offered in the fall by Professor Kalevitch will be primarily oriented for third vear (fifth semester) students. Accordingly, we will be offering two sections in Negotiable Instruments and Real Estate, as well as two sections of the fall core courses (corporations, Criminal Procedure, Federal Tax), and we will also offer four sections of Appellate Advocacy, limited in enrollment to twelve students. In the spring, I would anticipate that most students would continue to take Estates and Evidence and would also add the experimentally combined course of Secured Transactions. and Creditor's Right's .. As a corporate lawyer, my bias is that all students should have a heavy exposure to commercial law courses such as Sales, Negotiable Instruments, Secured Transactions and Creditor's Rights. Reality dictates that every student will n~t take each of the aforesaid courses. Accordingly, because in the past not all the students taking Creditor's Rights have had previously the course in Secured Transactions, a certain amount of Creditor's Rights had to be devoted to a review of Article IX of the Uniform Commercial Code with the attendant loss in coverage of Creditor's Rights. continued on page seven BLACKACRE April IS, 1980 page four SBA Election Sup ement candidates for president -,r-~lrlil IL:t~~lr. ............................................ . In recent years SBA has devoted much time and effort to the areas of parties, mixers, and picnics. These serve many important functions: they introduce incoming students to a lighter side of law school; they give everyone a chance to relax and meet faculty; they generally promote cameraderie that other functions fail to provide. It's important that we continue to appropriate a large share of the budget for these activities. Equally important, however, we must devote time and money to other programs as well. Due to an anticipated increase in available funds, the coming year holds the promise of expanding SBA duties. The SBA could work toward and encourage the administration to develop a minority admissions program. Chicago's Black and Hispanic neighborhoods are growing daily, and their demands for legal representation reflect this growth. Loyola must keep pace with the times. SBA should also make efforts to revive last year's plans for a free legal clinic designed to give students the opportunity to work on law-related problems of low-income community people. The prospects are expensive, but worth the effort. Furthermore, first year orientation in the Fall is one of the most important single activities at this school. The SBA must insure that this one day is a major success. Plans for an addition to the law school curriculum have been slowed. However, the administration and faculty have shown interest in offering a 2-hour practical course in counseling, negotiating and drafting based on a ' 78-'79 proposal by Prof. Geraghty. One person from SBA should see that such a course is offered beginning in the Spring of '81 or the Fall of tlie next school year. ·. I understand that Dean Murdock may be interested in raising the student activity fee from $4 to $6. The SBA Board must do what it can, before the year is out, to see that student government receives its fair share of the increase. Also, I am in complete agreement with an idea which many have voiced, that money be raised this year for early financing of the student directory next year. The aim would be to get the directory out by late September. In addition, the law school should once again organize its own blood drive instead --Of-participating in the university's drive. There seems to be more interest when the blood drive is our own. I believe that the prospect of the SBA and Blackacre working together offers great potential. H Blackacre would be willing to allow it, one SBA member could be responsible for fllling an SBA "space" in the newspaper with information or commentary written by himself or other SBA representatives. · Finally, something ought to be done about the sound and ''weather'' in this new building. In regard to the internal workings of the SBA, I will strive to make the organization vital and more visible than it has been in the past. Hopefully, the officers will work together to motivate the representatives to make timely announcements and participate in specific SBA projects. I believe that I can provide the leadership necessary to maintain this cohesiveness. I've been an SBA member for two years. In that time I've been chairman of a law school blood drive and a member of various SBA committees. I've taken an active part in the SBA's major functions and have shown a willingness to devote the necessary time. My cooperation with the administration should not be difficult since I've dealt personally with each of the deans on many occasions. I urge you to take seriously the elections of each SBA Board position. AU four positions are equally important. I respectfully seek your support. Tom Dwyer [2D] Kathy 0' IL:t.~kirk .................................... . 1 S.B.A.-- Student Bar Associaion. Most of us know what it is, but how many know what it does? In addition to filling the pop machine and sponsormg social events, it has many other purposes. While it is not student government as one might have encountered in high school, the SBA fills that gap. More importantly, I believe, a difference can be found in the fact that it is called the Student Bar Association, a fledgling professional organization. Its most visible activities are the social events it sponsors. However, there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes. The SBA acts as liaison between the students and the facutly/administration. Several standing committees organized to deal with day-to-day matters are staffed by students and faculty. Ideally, the students should be members of the student body at large. Practically speaking, they are SBA members and a few friends who they can recruit. An active SBA should be able to involve more students in these decision-making bodies to achieve the maximum benefit to all concerned. Courses to be offered, class and exam scheduling and hiring new faculty members are just a few of these areas. I would like to see an'expansion into formulating a grievance procedure. To speak to whoever will listen on an ad hoc basis is grossly inadequate. This is the point at which the SBA should depart from other student organizations. It is after all the Student BAR Association which shares many of the goals of professional socieities we will join when we are pursuing our careers. Generally, these goals are 1) maintaining the competence of the legal profession and 2) instituting a sense of social responsibility in its members by making legal services more available to under-represented sectors of the community. As students, we aren't concerned with maintaining competence of the profession by sponsoring continuing legal education seminars. Instead it is our responsibility to expose the students to as many aspects of the law as possible, including different subject matters and significant developments there as well as career options available to those possessing a law degree. This can be accomplished by inviting a variety of speakers to the school, sponsoring tours of the local courts and government agencies and making available information of seminars sponsored by the local bar which are open to students. The second goal is achieved by sponsoring and assisting in the organization of the Street Law Program, the Committee on Women's Issues and similar activities. This is a worthwhile start but should by no means be the end of Loyola's involvement. I believe we have a third goal not shared by the non-student bar associations, i.e. Placement. This is where I've expended my energies in the past year. All the hard work and sacrifice amount to nothing if we are unable to find satisfying employment once we've completed our legal education. There is a solid foundation on which to build. Loyola alumni are well respected members of the legal community and willing to help us in our efforts to secure permanent employment. ''Placementfest'' was a step in the right direction. I hope to continue in this vein with a view toward improving the interviewing process here. To sum up: We are Loyola School of Law and will carry that with us throughout our careers. The more we do to improve the education we receive, and improve the standing of Loyola in the eyes of the legal community, the more valuable each individual degree becomes. I would like to have the opportunity to set a tone of professionalism within Loyola and to pursue that during my tenure as President of the Student Bar Association. Kathy 0 'Dekirk [2D] vice-president Karen Lampin It has been suggested facetiously that I am running merely to "collect the 'old' Vote." However humorous on its face , there is some truth to the suggestion. My candidacy in part was motivated by what I believed was a need to represent and articulate the concerns of this " silent," albeit substantial minority, whose differing needs presently appear ill-considered or simply ignored. Beyond mirroring the concerns of my "special interest group," however, I am concerned with the development of the SBA as a more effectual liaison organization between students and faculty and between students and administration. All of us, regardless of chronological age, should envision the SBA as something more than a·social planning committee or a " trouble shooting" organization. While this is not intended to denigrate those functions , there is an apparent, more pressing need for cooperative planning and Michael McGoey In the time hallowed phrase of American politics, I have now "cast my bat into the ring." The weighty responsibilities which flow as natural appurtanances to this symbolic act are not lost on me. The office of SBA Vice-President, in war and peace, requires a clarity of vision, a strength of character, and a quality of leadership that only John Wayne, that sterling example of American manhood, bas displayed in this century. I know that I cannot hope to approach his enduring legend, that I do not have to to battle the "Big C," and that I am not yet dead. Speaking of death, it must not be forgotten that as Vice-President, I will be a mere heartbeat away from the presidency. This is not meant as a veiled warning, but merely as an indication that if our fearless leader·~ bullet-proof vest should appear in the SBA mailbox with a smelly cod wrapped inside, I will be ready to pluck from the gutter the dangling re~s of power. Let it not be said that I lack a coherent platform. I intend to run upon the platform that originally launched me down the political ways: "Vote for me." This phrase~- simple, direct-- conveys concisely the .meaning of my political philosophy: that I have no idea what I will do until I get interchange in more substantive areas, such as policy formulation and curriculum development. At various times in my career I have been student, teacher, or administrator. For SBA and student purposes, I would hope that this experience and perspective would enable me to make the SBA a joint partner with students , faculty and administration in the development and achievement of what should be our mutual purposes. Karen Lampin [ID] there, but once there I will do whatever I want or whatever is easiest, whichever comes first. This is no mean promise. The pressure of dealing ad hoc with a miniscule budget and pressing matters of state, e.g., Iran, Nukes (no linkage intended), inflation, hostile interest groups, hostile voters, etc. is tremendous. You need not worry, for even though "heavy lies the head which wears a vice-crown," I won't let it get to me. I have observed closely Jim Parker's style of leadership and quality of contribution to the current SBA executive, and promise to "go public" if he does not "vote for me." Thank you. Michael E. McGoey [JE] secretary Bill Dossas I am running for Secretary of the SBA for several reasons. First, I have been working for five years for a large corporation. I have led groups of designers, and I have managed construction jobs. I can organize and I can provide leadership. Second, I am a night student, and thus, will provide needed representation for the night group. Third , since I have experience in the business world, I would provide extensive input to SBA functions, business as well as social. Finally, I would like to Kathy Pantle Know all persons by these presents, my name is Kathy Pantle (hereinafter referred to as the party of the first part) and I am a first year day student running for the office of SBA Secretary ("Secretary" ). Whereas the election for SBA officers will take place on this 16th day of April, A.D. 1980, the party of the first part respectfully submits and petitions the student body to elect the party of the first part as said Secretary. In consideration of said votes, the party of the first part promises to deliver the SBA student directory on time, organize a well-run booksale, and make sure that information about student activities and affairs is available to all students. The party of the .first part also alleges that she is hardworking and industrious, having been involved in undergraduate BLACKACRE April 15, 1980 page five work at preserving Loyola's good name. Bill Dossas [JE] student activities while also working a part-time job. Any breach of aforesaid promise will subject the party of the first part to liquidated damages to be determined by the Thirteenth Circuit Court. Kathy Pantle [lD) vote in the SBA election Wednesday, April16 vote early and often treasurer My name is Taps Gallagher and I am running for the Student Bar Association's executive office of Treasurer. I am currently a first year night student with plans to transfer to the day program in September. I will not bore you with the repititious promises and exaggerations. Although I cannot advocate that if I am elected "there will be a chicken in every pot,'' I do hope to fulfill the role of a true representative of the students. The office of treasurer entails a great amount of time and effort dealing with the financial structure of the SBA. I feel I can allocate as much time as is needed to fulfill my obligation to you-- the student body here at Loyola. Recommendations I hope to propose ~d see carried out include the establishment of a student/faculty grade evaluation board, with its primary concern being those grievances brought by students over grade structures. I also hope to bring about some physical changes , e.g. a much-needed change machine in the second floor lounge. The money allocated to be used by the SBA will be utilized to its capacity-- it is up to the officers of the SBA to promote functions and wisely spend those funds. The idea of the monthly student/faculty mixers established by this year's SBA is a good one. The cohesive- Taps· Gallagher ness of the student body should be strengthened-- both the day and night students should get to know each other both academically and socially. These mixers and other events can readily provide that needed forum. In closing, I do feel I can do a good job and am willing to work. I look to you, the student body, for support in making the 1980-81 academic year one of the best ever at Loyola. Taps Gallagher [JE] -~,~~~., "~::.-./ Nancy Lyon The Treasurer of the Student Bar Association is primarily responsible for balancing its books and detailing its income and expenses. Additionally, the Treasurer should be interested in formulating budget and spending policies for the organization. I understand these duties and know that I am capable of fulfilling them. It is important that the Treasurer be able to work with people: the students, the officers and representatives of the SBA and the law school administration. I have the time and the desire to work with and for the students and to be part of a team effort for the SBA. I also recognize the importance of working with the administration but remaining independent if we are to achieve our goals. In the past years various activities and services have been organized by the Treasurer. These include the maintenance of the soda machine and the coordination of the used book sale. I pledge to keep both of these services and to possibly make them more advantageous to the law school community. I have the qualifications necessary for the position of Treasurer of the SBA. I have an undergraduate degree in business administration and accounting, have had working experience in bookkeeping and banking and was treasurer of an undergraduate athletic association. I also know that I can work with people to be a part of a team effort for you, the students of the law school. I am running for Treasurer of the Student Bar Association and would appreciate you voting for me, Nancy Lyon. Nancy Lyon [2D] ~---------------~-~ - - ~ St. Patrick's Day Parade photos courtesy Loyola Public Relations $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ~ Your income after graduation ~ ~ - tFt ~ tFt a~ *how to conserve the money you earn tFt ~ ~ tFt ~ tFt a *insurance, investments, -financial planning ~ ~ tFt ~ tFt ~ a seminar ~ ~ tFt tt Wednesday, April 30 in room 240 from 9-11a.m. ~ ~ tFt ~ tFt ~ tFt ~ tFt ~ tFt tt James Reinhart, President, Reinhart & Associates ~ ~ tFt a Jerry Mikitka, President, Capitol Directions, Inc.; ~ ~ tFt tt Ron Gebert, President, Gebert & Associates ~ ~ tFt ~ Larry Edelheit, C.P.A. a ~ tFt $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$~$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ BLACKACRE AprlllS, 1980 _page RVeD Randy Wilt doesn't in volleyball grudge match On Friday, April 11 the most exciting Volleyball game ofthe decade was played. Featured in the great grudge match were two groups of third year law students reunited into their powerhouse volleyball teams of two years ago. On one side of the net was the tremendously powerful and tall team, the Solar Eclypse. This team was captained by the strategic minded Rob Cushing and boasted such volleyball greats as Vytas Ambutas~ Bill O'Reilly, Jim Parker, Pat McSweeny and Jim Reilly. (John Donahue was there too but since it took him so long to mention my name I refuse to mention him). Also aiding in the Solar Eclypses' effort to prove that their overtime tournament win in 1977 was no fluke, were Sue Berkun, Sharon Finegan, and Noreen Daly. Serving as opponents to the awesome Solar Eclypse were the revenge-minded Law school squad ''Claws'' way to university IM crown by Tim Gianos CLAW, the law school's representative in the Loyola University Basketball League, finished the season undefeated and won the playoffs. Beginning the season unrated and placed in the toughest block, CLAW survived division play beatine: two highly touted clubs by one point in the first minute of play. During the season victories, CLAW utilized its height and quick men to the fullest, employing a full-court zone press and using a "run and gun" offence. CLAW continued its distinctive style of full court play in the semi-ftnals routing ADG, one of the pre-season favorites. During that game Vytas Ambutas, John Doyle, and Art Aufmann dominated ADd's big men, by blocking many shots and collecting many offensive rebounds. Bill Clifton, Mark Resnick, Kim Visbaras and Jim Fay complimented the front line by deft outside shooting and playing a ball-hawking defense. CLAW sealed ADG's fate, when the team spread into a four-corner delay offence, running out the final two minutes of the game and killing off any chance of an ADG rally. Two hours later, CLAW entered the championship game a heavy underdog, facing the defending champ, Average White Team(A WT), who have won the title two out of the last three years. Known for their superior quickness, A WT was suppose to blow CLAW off the court with it's fast break. But CLAW surprised the standing room only crowd and the A WT by changing it's strategy. Instead of playing its full court pressure game, CLAW played a pestering 2-3 zone defense and a methodical slowdown offense. After making their adjustments, CLAW blistered the nets, shooting well over 50 percent. Vitas picked up many easy lay-ups, while John Doyle, Mark Resnick and Art Aufmann hit long range jump shots. Kim Visbaras and Bill Clifton came off the bench to continue CLAW's marksmanship from the floor. Also, CLAW completely shut down A WT's running offense, allowing A WT only one fast break the entire game. However, the defending champs made their own adjustments late in the second half, by pressing man-to-man the full court. As a result, A WT rallied, erasing CLAW's seven point lead down to two. But John Doyle and company were not to be denied. After calling time out, CLAW ran its four-comer offence with floor leader Doyle at the helm. Finally, with a minute to play, Mark Resnick went on a scoring binge, hitting a 20 ft. jumper, making a crucial foul shot, and scoring an easy lay-up. Consequently, Resnick iced the game and CLAW cruised to the University Championship with a 33-28 victory. Defectors v. Drane-- again The Spring IM 4-man basketball season is drawing to a close and, as predicted here earlier, Drane will take on the Defectors in the season finale, to be held Wednesday, April 16 at 5:30 in the LT Gym. Henry Daar's Defectors squad earned a berth in the championship game by defeating Well Hung Jury, a first year team, while Drane gained entry to the final game by quashing Quashed Motions. Drane is led by Vytas Ambutas, and features John Doyle and Mark Resnik. John J.D. Donahue is also carried on the Drane roster. Besides Daar, the Defectors feature Gary Feireisel, Steve Goebel, Donald T. Galla.eher and Jim -Faught. Wednesday's game will be the second championship match-up between the two teams. Last semester, the Defectors edged Drane 25-24 for the championship. Earlier this season, the Defectors dealt defeat to Drane by an identical margin. However, Donahue maintains that it would not be wise to bet the mortgage money on a Defectors repeat. Nevertheless, Las Vegas odds at presstime were-- you guessed it-the Defectors by one. A wards program April 24 Recipients of the American Jurisprudence Student Awards, the Little, Brown Student Awards and the Prentice Hall Student Awards will be honored at a ceremony on April 24, at 5:00p.m. in the Lecture Hall, according to Professor Thomas Haney and Assistant Dean Jim Faught. The awards will acknowledge those students who have achieved the highest grade in selected courses, or sections of courses, as chosen by their professors and will also salute the winners of the intraschool moot court competition. The student awards are the result of a proposal made earlier in the school year by Professor Haney, who had noted that most other law schools give these awards, which are provided by the publishers whose names are attached to the awards. Haney and Faught s~id they hope to make the ceremony a semi-annual event. All students are urged to attend. Wine and cheese will be served after the program. Dean's memo, cont. Because these subjects tie so well together, we are offering this coming year a combined four hour course of Secured Transactions and Creditor's Rights. Since the impetus for creating a security interest in goods under Article IX is to give the creditor a prior position in the debtor's goods when a creditor's proceeding, such as bankruptcy, is instituted, such a combination would seem to make sense. Our past experience also indicates that there is a heavy demand for Remedies in the spring and, accordingly, two sections of this course will also be offered, as well as two sections of the aforesaid spring core courses. Last Row Angries. This team was originally formed in response to the thoughtless disregard given them by Cushing and his cohorts in forming what they felt was the ultimate volleyball team. Although the entire original team could not be rounded up for this grudge-match, Jim McFadzean, Bill Banet and Michele Grimaldi were absent, the Last Row Angries fielded a team more than sufficient to dispatch with the mighty Solar Eclypse. Representing the reunited Last Row Angries was a short, but cunning group of players, which included Jackie Crooks, Laura Addleson, Mark Butterman, Micky and Bobby Herst and ever-awesome Randy Wilt, of whom this author just cannot say enough. After a brief warm-up period the game commenced. Serving for the revengeminded Angries was the powerful and much improved Laura Addleson. Throughout this match her powerful serves and skillful floor play shined through as the beacon which led the Last Row Angries to ultimate victory. The first game was close with the lead see-sawing back and forth until Randy Wilt, stepping into the server's box, proceeded to pick out the Eclypse's weaknesses with his serves and opened up a commanding 14-9 lead. Needless to say the Angries soon finished this early trouncing. The Solar Eclypse badly embarassed by the sound thrashing they received in the first game, came back with a vengeance and convincingly won the second game. Hard-driving spikes for Ambutas, O' Reilly, Donahue and Parker as well as the well placed tips and sets of McSweeny, Cushing and Reilly typified this win and had the Solar Eclypse convinced they were unstoppable. Whoever said history repeats itself certainly knew of what he spoke. Just as \t was two years ago, going into the third and deciding game, each team had a convincing victory under their belt and each was ready to fight-to-the-death to claim the final ultimate victory. The Solar Eclypse behind the serving of Vytas Ambutas jumped to an early lead but this soon disappeared. Bobby Herst demonstrated for all his serving ability and rapidly wrenched this lead from the Eclypse. As in the early stages of the first game, the lead see-sawed back and forth. Each team wanting victory and fearing the agony of defeat. The tension was high! In the end fate won out and the better team, the Last Row Angries, those people so thoughtlessly jilted so long ago, snatched the laurels of victory and proved finally to all that they were the Best Volleyball Team . The Last Row Angries play in the third game was awesome. The two Herst brothers played amazingly tough and had the opponents dazed with their twin-play. Mark Butterman, who came out of retirement for this game, once again displayed his great spiking ability and even showed his teamates how to look good when totally missing a set. Jackie and Laura spent the game digging out spikes and setting their teamates for winners. Truly the Last Row Angries had lost - but they'd lost none of their championship honed playing ability. After the game, in the true tradition of sportsmen and sportswomen (that was for Ms. Cooper) the Solar Eclypse, though beaten and near exhaustion, congratulated the winners and in keeping with the fine law school tradition REFUSED TO BUY DRINKS FOR THE WINNERS. Thus ended the volleyball battle of the decade and perhaps the century. The Last Row Angries proved once and for all that size isn't everything and that Hell hath no fury like a last row of students jilted. P.S. Dave Hambourger called a great game! Your totally unbiased reporter Randy Wilt 1.' ... \.0 ~Q.ouo o~ ,..'( S-r"'-" .. i;'i ~ "-•" ~~ A.N 0"' .,.""'"",. ~'"'~ tp .... EAQ.L'f oo~ '(o~ rfi.ED 4>1 ED""'"'"'o"" '('o C:>£"1" A.>\£40 ••• U ~~:::.,._ AL ... .A.i"- "'~ A frtl<oll"l' ~ ... I "~~'(to s:",l,~T '"" ot•\. c.u. f.~ _I ~ '"" Sc.~OOl. VA.~O•a.ll.wJ S-tuOE.o~TC.o..,''\" PQ.E••or .. -r!' ~\" ~A<fO\!ia_ A. olD t <;c.O..o\1" .. £ o ~o 41. ~"AIL~ "{"o <,EH 0 tl. '"' "1"0 4 ~JooNc.o( C.e~~L'-il 0"T ~. ~ , Wo-r"'"' <. ... M-E '--'"''"1" s:"OIID ,\. ~··· A.ND Now t{-Es. bOIIIC:> -r-0 I <:. ~ow.-re . / f]~ ~nii~•~- """"'"'' E "1\\AT. J.Fni. A-.~ ~ .. ~/lSA<.L•'"•'e:s.. I S"fA.u&.£'( \!r A S.,<.c.£•S . lof\U.T'~ \\E C.<>'"'" "<'<> DO At>TEil \.4w Sc.lloe'- jl :· BLACKACRE Apri11S, 1980 page eight Tentative Fall 1980 schedule Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Fed. Tax §1 Fed. Tax §1 Labor Law Spencer 240 Con. Law §2 Spencer 240 Con. Law §2 Fed. Tax §1 Connelly 240 Contracts § 1 Bonavich 240 Bus. Planning 9:00 to 9:50 Contracts § 1 Bonavich 240 Spencer 240 Haney 260 Neg. Instruments §1 Haney 260 Contracts §1 Grippo 260 Neg. Instruments §1 Braithwaite 110 Neg. lnstruments §I Haney 260 Trial Practice I Braithwaite 110 Braithwaite 110 Ozmon 124 . Corps. §1 Corps. §1 Corps. §1 Corps. §I Real Estate §I Labor Law Gratch 240 Gratch 240 Gratch 240 Gratch 240 Connelly 240 Real Estate §I Crim. Pro. §1 Real Estate §I Crim. Pro. §I Cooper 260 10:00 to 10:50 Cooper 260 Carey 260 Cooper 260 Carey 260 Legal History Bus. Planning Legal History Juvenile Law Legal History Juvenile Law Curtin 124 Grippo 260 Trial Practice I Cur ·n 124 Geraghty 124 Curtin 124 Geraghty 124 Ozmon 124 Civil Pro. §2 Civil Pro. §2 Prof. Resp. Civil Pro. §2 Labor Law Amaker 240 Prof. Resp. Amaker 240 Kelly 240 Amaker 240 Connelly 240 Fam. Law Kelly 240 Fam. Law Crim. Pro. §I Fam. Law Bus. Planning 11:00 to 11:50 Bonavich 260 Bonavitch 260 Carey 260 Bonavich 260 Grippo 260 Antitrust Antitrust Antitrl\St Trial Practice I Rogers 140 Rogers 140 Rogers 140 Ozmon 124 Property §1 Property §1 McCormack 240 Prof. Resp. McCormack 240 Properry §I I st Amendment Kelly 240 lst Amendment 12:00 to 12:50 Geraghty 260 1st Amendment Geraghty 260 FACULTY MEETING McCormack 240 Cred. Rts. & Sec. Trans. Geraghty 260 Cred. Rts. & Sec. Trans. Estate & Gift Tax Kalevitch 140 Kalevitch 140 Rhodes 260 Civil Pro. §1 Civil Pro. §I Michael 240 Michael 240 Civil Pro. §I Cred. Rts. & Sec. Trans. Estate & Gift Tax Cred. Rts. & Sec. Trans. Michael 240 Kalevitch 140 Rhodes 260 Kalevitch 140 FACULTY MEETING Labor Law Local Govt. Law Local Govt. Law Cooper 260 1:00 to 1:50 Norton 230 Norton 230 Local Govt. Law Estate & Gift Tax Norton 230 Rhodes 260 - Corps. §2 Labor Law Gratch 240 Cooper 240 Contracts §2 Corps. §2 Contracts §2 2:00 to 2:50 Contracts §2 Torts §2 Rogers 260 Gratch 240 Rogers 240 Rogers 260 Appel260 Corps. §2 Torts §2 Labor Law Corps §2 Gratch 240 Appel260 Cooper 260 Gratch 110 Property §2 Con Law §1 Property §2 Property §2 Curtin 240 Shoenberger 240 Curtin 240 Curtin 240 Fed. Income Tax §2 Fed. Income Tax §2 Con. Law §1 Fed. Income Tax §2 3:00 to 3:50 Kilbridge 260 Crim. Pro. §2 Kilbridge 260 Shoenberger 240 Kilbridge 260 Inti. Sale of Goods Norton 260 Inti. Sale of Goods Crim. Pro. §2 Intl. Sale vf Goods Haney 140 Haney 140 Norton 260 Haney 140 Real Estate §2 Torts §1 Real Estate §2 Real Estate §2 Cooper 260 Theis 240 Cooper 260 Torts §1 Cooper 260 App. Adv. §1 Crim. Pro. §2 App. Adv. §3 Theis 240 Neg. Instruments §2 4:fXJ to 4:50 Purcell140 Norton 260 TBA 230 App.Adv. §4 Theis 240 Neg. Instruments §2 App. Adv. §2 Neg. Instruments TBA 140 Theis 240 TBA 140 Theis 240 Products Liab. Prof. Resp. Pension/ Profit Sharing Favoritti 110 Sfikas 110 Grayck 140 App. Adv. §4 App. Adv. §1 App. Adv. §2 Trial Prial I TBA 140 Purcell 140 Ozmon 124 Legal Research §1 TBA 140 Legal Research §1 Legal Research §2 5:00 to 5:50 Legal Research §2 Staff 240 Staff 240 Staff 240 Adv. Legal Research Staff 240 App. Adv. §3 Doyle 230 TBA 230 Neg. Instruments Fam. Law Property Crim. Pro. Braithwaite 240 Bonavich 260 McCormack 240 Purcell 240 Civil Pro. Prof. Rcsp. Contracts Real Estate Amaker 260 Torts Sfikas 110 Kalevitch 260 Kennedy 260 Products Liab. Appel240 Fed. Income Tax Antitrust Favoritti 110 Est. & Gift Tax Kilbridge 110 Rogers 140 Fed. Income Tax Rhodes 140 Kilbridge 260 Local Govt. Law Legal Research Pens./Prof. Sharing Trial Practice I Juvenile Law 6:00 to 6:50 Norton 230 Staff 240 Grayck 140 TBA 230-124 Geraghty 140 Street Law Patent Law Trial Practice D Kelly 124 Laff 230 Carey, Fed. Bldg. Corps. Property Corps. Spencer 240 McCormack 240 Spencer 240 Neg. Instruments Torts Contracts Real Estate Civil Pro. Braithwaite 240 Appel240 Kalevitch 260 Kennedy 260 Amaker 260 Fam. Law Fed. Income Tax Con. Law Crim. Pro. Con. Law Bonavich 260 Kilbridge 260 MichaelllO Purcell 110 Michael 110 Estate & Gift Tax Juvenile Law App. Adv. Antitrust Local Govt. Law Rhodes 140 Geraghty 140 Orbon 140 Rogers 140 Norton 230 Trail Practice I 7:00 to 7:50 Patent Law TBA 230-124 Laff 230 Trial Practice 0 Street Law Carey. Fed. Bldg. Kelly 124 Corps. Property Corps. Neg. Instruments Spencer 240 . Contracts McCormack 240 Spencer 240 Braithwaite 240 Real Estate Civil Pro. Fam. Law Kalevitch 260 Kennedy 260 Amaker 260 Bonavich 260 Legal Research Con. Law Crim. Pro. Con. Law Estate & Gift Tax Staff 240 MichaelllO Purcell 110 Michael 110 Rhodes 140 App. Adv. Antitrust Local Govt. Law Trial Practice I Orbon 140 Rogers 140 Norton 230 TBA 230-124 8:00 to 8:50 Patent Law Trial Practice D Laf£230 Carey, Fed. Bldg.
subject:
Loyola University Chicago
subject:
School of Law
subject:
Students
subject:
legal news
subject:
local
description:
Blackacre
relation:
University Archives Publications Collection
description:
PDF
rights:
Loyola University of Chicago. Contact the Loyola University Chicago Archives & Special Collections for permission to copy or publish.
identifier:
blackacre4151980.pdf
source:
blackacre4151980
type:
text
language:
English
publisher:
Loyola University Chicago Archives and Special Collections https://www.luc.edu/archives
description:
https://www.luc.edu/archives
