See id.

In this grab-bag episode, Ryan and Luke discuss a wide range of topics including new years resolutions, gym memberships, illegal searches, and the absence of chicken futures markets. Take a listen! Links: Gym membership ArticlePolice Search Article

Luke and Ryan are finally back at it! This time with an episode on dogs, cats, and how they relate to the Constitution! Tune in to hear about why the Constitution doesn’t extend certain privacy protections to animal abusers. Huge thanks to Kayla A. Bernays and her excellent Law Review Note published in the Arizona Law Review. References:See generally Kayla A. Bernays, We’ve Still Got Feelings: Re-Presenting Pets As Sentient Property, 60 Ariz. L. Rev. 485 (2018) (discussing a trend to distinguish pets from inanimate objects in Fourth Amendment cases). Other Links:Find Travis DeRose’s Curiosityness here! You can also catch him on iTunes, Google Play, Youtube, and more. Thanks again, Travis!

In this episode, Ryan and Luke discuss some basic Administrative law frameworks, the definition of sandwiches, and serving alcohol gratuitously. Be sure to tune in!

In this episode, Ryan and Luke discuss some legal history around Thanksgivin(g), discuss some cases about chickens and turkeys, and explain what they’ve been up to the last couple of weeks! Tune in to their Thanksgiving episode!

In this episode, Ryan and Luke talk about amending the Constitution, and a host of legal ethics issues. They are studying for a test called the MPRE. Take a listen!

In this week’s episode, Ryan and Luke dive into some fun Halloween-inspired cases with haunted houses, tombstones, and chainsaws! Give it a listen! Resources: Stambovsky v. Ackley House See generally Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). See generally Purtell v. Mason, 527 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2008)See the Goldberg Segalla link here.The personal injury cases are also cited throughout the above link.

In this episode, Ryan and Luke discuss torts, sleds, and the time-value of money. The guys touch on what intent means for intentional torts, discuss the elements of negligence, and briefly cover tort reform with that infamous “hot coffee” case. Take a listen! Sled in a corner. Resources:See generally Vosburg v. Putney, 50 N.W. 403 (Wisc. 1891) (illustrating the eggshell skull rule). See generally Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) (discussing whether the Railroad Company was negligent). See, e.g., Liebeck v. McDonald’s, Am. Museum of Tort Law (last visited Oct. 12, 2018), https://www.tortmuseum.org/liebeck-v-mcdonalds. LINK TO GRAPHIC 3RD DEGREE BURN VIDEO from the New York Times. Fast forward to 5:00 minutes.

In this episode, Ryan and Luke look at some contract fundamentals: offer, acceptance, and consideration. They also briefly reflect on the recent Senate Judiciary hearings and what what it means for our system of democracy. Take a listen! Resources:See generally Hawkins v. McGee, 146 A. 641 (N.H. 1929) (discussing the contractually binding effect of a guarantee). See generally Lucy v. Zehmer, 84 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1954) (explaining the objective nature of contract formation).See generally Ardente v. Horan, 366 A.2d 162 (R.I. 1976) (noting that a conditional acceptance constitutes a counteroffer). See generally Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891) (discussing whether refraining from a particular behavior can constitute consideration in a contract).

In this episode, Ryan and Luke look at the Due Process Clause, explain the difference between procedural and substantive due process, and discuss what determines whether something is a fundamental right. Take a listen!

Ryan and Luke dive in to Part One of a two-part series covering the Fourteenth Amendment. In this episode, the team explores the Equal Protection Clause—hopefully with new and improved sound quality (thank god). Resources: U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. See generally Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, Shawnee Cty., Kan., 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (emphasizing that separate but equal is still not equal under the Equal Protection Clause). See generally U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) (suggesting, albeit implicitly, that a subordination approach may be permissible for semi-suspect classes, using sex as the example). See generally Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 136 S.Ct. 2198 (2016) (exploring the boundaries of affirmative action under the Equal Protection Clause). See generally San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) (examining whether classification based on socio-economic status should be subjected to strict scrutiny). See generally Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) (emphasizing that the basis for a Colorado law could only be explained by animus toward the gay community). See generally Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (determining that statutory or administrative sex classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny).See generally Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (holding that racial quotas violate the Fourteenth Amendment, but race as an admissions criterion may be permissible).

In this episode, Ryan and Luke talk about our goals for the pod, dive into Pierson v. Post, and reflect on why we went to law school. Take a listen! Resources: See generally Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. 175 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1805) (discussing how one gains a property interest in a wild animal).See generally E. A. Stephens & Co. v. Albers, 256 P. 15 (mentioning McKenzie Duncan, the fox).See generally Popov v. Hayashi, 2002 WL 31833731 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2002) (discussing who owns Barry Bonds’ home-run record baseball). See generally Bethany R. Berger, It’s Not About the Fox: The Untold History of Pierson v. Post, 55 Duke L. Rev. 1089 (2006) (exploring facts about Pierson v. Post from primary documents). Permalink