I am rule 8(a)

scottscott
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
YOU ARE RULE 8(a)!



You are Rule 8, the most laid back of all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While your forefather in the Federal Rules may have been a stickler for details and particularity, you have clearly rebelled by being pleasant and easy-going. Rule 8 only requires that a plaintiff provide a short and plain statement of a claim on which a court can grant relief. While there is much to be lauded in your approach, your good nature sometimes gets you in trouble, and you often have to rely on your good friend, Rule 56, to bail you out.



Which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Are You?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Rule 8(a) too.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    rule8a as well.
  • Reply 3 of 18
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    8a here.
  • Reply 4 of 18
    drewpropsdrewprops Posts: 2,321member
    YOU ARE RULE 12(b)! While you might be a defendant's best friend, you aren't exactly polite to others. You have seven separate grounds on which to dismiss a plaintiff's case. You are a bit paranoid, since if you fail to raise your 12(b)(2,3,4, or 7) in a motion or a pleading with one of the other 12(b) defenses or a 12(e) motion, you waive those objections for the rest of trial. It is clear that 12(b) is the biggest bully of the rules of the civil procedure. While it is true that many states have modeled their motions to dismiss off of rule 12(b), are you sure that you truly want to model your personality after such an obnoxious rule?



  • Reply 5 of 18
    the milkmanthe milkman Posts: 94member
    You are Rule 20, an important part of the Federal Rules' policy of permissive joinder. You are designed specifically to allow as many parties in an action as can be tried efficiently, and you'll include someone as long as there is some factual overlap between a claim involving them and the rest of the case at hand. You are popular, out-going, and are never far from friends. However, your overly gregarious nature and magnanimous approach to all things cause your closest friends to wonder that, even when you're surrounded by your compatriots, there is a part of you that feels cold and very alone.



  • Reply 6 of 18
    thoth2thoth2 Posts: 277member
    I am Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. I'll save all your buns when you inevitably muck it up with other Rules.



    Thoth.
  • Reply 7 of 18
    daverdaver Posts: 496member
    Chalk up another 8(a).
  • Reply 8 of 18
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    I think this quiz is heavily skewed towards Type-8a personalities. Even I scored as such but don't believe it is accurate necessarily. Some questions do not have any reasonable answers!



  • Reply 9 of 18
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    I AM RULE 11! I was designed to make sure that attorneys in federal cases make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. I was a real hardass in 1983, when I snuffed out all legal creativity from federal proceedings and embarassed well-meaning but overzealous attorneys. I loosened up a bit in 1993, when I began allowing plaintiffs to make allegations in their complaints that are likely to have evidenciary support after discovery, and when I allowed a 21 day period for the erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion. Sure, I keep everything running on the up and up, but it's clear that things would be a lot more fun without me around.
  • Reply 10 of 18
    ganondorfganondorf Posts: 573member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Moogs

    I think this quiz is heavily skewed towards Type-8a personalities. Even I scored as such but don't believe it is accurate necessarily. Some questions do not have any reasonable answers!







    I don't think it was intended to be a legitimate way to analyze one's personality.
  • Reply 11 of 18
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    YOU ARE 28 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1332! You are not a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure at all: you're the statute that allows the federal district courts to hear diversity of citizenship actions! You were drafted with the idea that an out-of-state party may be unduly prejudiced by appearing in a foreign state. People think that you're strange, and they try to minimalize your effects by requiring an amount in controversy and by being especially strict on the requirements for diversity. However, like that weird kid that nobody likes, you always show up to the party. Section 1332 is bizarre enough, it is even more bizarre that it provides an apt metaphor for your personality.



    GOD. That's sorta close. They didn't have Frisbee as a sport and I chose the Sex pistols for music. I love myself. Vote for me in 2004!



  • Reply 12 of 18
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Ganondorf

    I don't think it was intended to be a legitimate way to analyze one's personality.



    No, but it still would have been nice to have choices like:



    "Sure you can have a party, but if your beer spilling, chain-smoking buddies end up in my bedroom, I am going to hurt them. If they stain my bed, make my clothes smell of smoke or break anything, I'm going to hurt YOU."



    Or



    "Sure, I'll dance with you but you should know that I was just diagnosed with South American swamp fever. My doctor said he didn't think it was contagious, so I decided to hang out at the bar tonight... so where are you from?"





  • Reply 13 of 18
    inactionmaninactionman Posts: 618member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Paul

    I AM RULE 11! I was designed to make sure that attorneys in federal cases make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. I was a real hardass in 1983, when I snuffed out all legal creativity from federal proceedings and embarassed well-meaning but overzealous attorneys. I loosened up a bit in 1993, when I began allowing plaintiffs to make allegations in their complaints that are likely to have evidenciary support after discovery, and when I allowed a 21 day period for the erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion. Sure, I keep everything running on the up and up, but it's clear that things would be a lot more fun without me around.



    Same as me.
  • Reply 14 of 18
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    Yup, another rule 8(a).



    Interesting quiz. I would have a painting war with my crazy roommate so...
  • Reply 15 of 18
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    YOU ARE RULE 11! You were designed to make sure that attorneys in federal cases make reasonable inquiries into fact or law before submitting pleadings, motions, or other papers. You were a real hardass in 1983, when you snuffed out all legal creativity from federal proceedings and embarassed well-meaning but overzealous attorneys. You loosened up a bit in 1993, when you began allowing plaintiffs to make allegations in their complaints that are likely to have evidenciary support after discovery, and when you allowed a 21 day period for the erring attorney to withdraw the errant motion. Sure, you keep everything running on the up and up, but it's clear that things would be a lot more fun without you around.





    hmmm...
  • Reply 16 of 18
    dviantdviant Posts: 483member
    <-- Another 11....



    Let's all us 11's leave the party together so everyone else can have a good time.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Yeah, 11.



    Damn us all.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    YOU ARE RULE 15! You're a very helpful rule! You allow the attorney to amend their complaint once as a matter of course at any time before the answer is filed, and also allow amendments in other cases. If a claim relates back to the original transaction or occurrence outlined in the complaint, you can amend the complaint, even though the statute of limitations has run. Like a good friend, you're always there to help out in a bind.
Sign In or Register to comment.