 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home |
Lucas Letter |
Education Offerings |
Events |
Offerings |
Requirements |
Boards |
Us |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home |
Lucas Letter |
Education Offerings |
Events |
Offerings |
Requirements |
Boards |
Us |
|
|
 |
 |
|
 CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS General Information Below are our Continuing Education course selections. Each hour of credit is one contact hour. A course that credits 3 hours will take three hours to complete, including reading the material and completing an examination on the material. Each course has to be purchased separately. After a selection is made, you will be directed to the PayPal site to complete the purchase. Upon completing the purchase, select the option to RETURN TO OUR WEBSITE. Upon returning you will be able to download the materials you purchased. Complete the attached examination and send it back to us. You have the option of e-mailing examination results (the preferred method), or you can print and send. If you have any questions or problems contact us at: 205-425-5200 or e-mail to lucas_j@bellsouth.net  MISSISSIPPI STANDARDS MISSISSIPPI STANDARDS OF PRACTICE Special Volume of The Lucas Letter – 1.0 Contact Hours Price $35.00 ETHICS FOR SURVEYORS ETHICS FOR LAND SURVEYORS Special Volume of The Lucas Letter – 1.0 Contact Hours Price $35.00 STANDARDS & ETHICS SPECIAL OFFER! GET BOTH - Mississippi Standards and Ethics for Surveyors: BOTH PROGRAMS $50.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scroll Down to Order
Boundary Establishment I (Apr.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Boundary Establishment II (May 2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Boundary Establishment III (June 2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Boundary Establishment IV (July 2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Boundary Establishment V (Aug.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Contracts I (Mar.2010): 1.5 Contact Hours** Contracts II (Apr.2010): 1.5 Contact Hours** Contracts III (May 2010): 1.5 Contact Hours** Deed Interpretation I (Aug.2008): 3.0 Contact Hours* Deed Interpretation II (Sept.2008): 3.0 Contact Hours* Ethics I (Sept.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Ethics II (Dec.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Ethics III (June 2010): 1.5 Contact Hours** Negligence I (Oct.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Negligence II (Nov.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Negligence III (Jan.2010): 1.5 Contact Hours** Negligence IV (Feb.2010): 1.5 Contact Hours** Retracement I (Dec.2008): 3.0 Contact Hours** Retracement II (Jan.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Retracement III (Feb.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Retracement IV (Mar.2009): 1.5 Contact Hours** Unwritten Rights I (Oct.2008): 3.0 Contact Hours* Unwritten Rights II (Nov.2008): 3.0 Contact Hours* NOTES: * The 2008 edition of The Lucas Letter was larger (3-pages) and covered 2 Court Opinions. Reader responses indicated that they spent on average about 3 hours reading the material and completing the test. ** Subsequent to the 2008 editions, The Lucas Letter content was cut back to a 2-page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion in order to achieve 1.5 contact hours, to read the material and complete a 10-question examination. Last Update: July, 2010 SEE BELOW Boundary Establishment I April 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Tyson v. Edwards, Florida 1983. In this edition we study how boundaries become "established" under the law and the role monuments play. Also discussed by the Court is the "survey method" and how it differs from the role of the lawyer, architect and engineer. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 8 pages. This 10-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50
Boundary Establishment II May 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Olson v. Jude, Montana 2003. In this edition we continue with our study on how boundaries become "established" under the law and the role monuments play. In this case, original monuments set by the original subdividing surveyor are called into question. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 10 pages. This 12-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50
Boundary Establishment III
June 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Dicus v. Allen, Arkansas 1981. In this edition "establishment" through the doctrine of estoppel is in play. Many of our other retracement doctrines are in play as well, such as original monuments, original surveyors and the further subdivision of sections. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 5 pages. This 7-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying. Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50
Boundary Establishment IV July 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
In this edition two short cases are studied together: Wirostek v. Johnson, Oregon 1973 and Mealey v. Arndt, Arizona 2003. The "establishment" doctrine in play is reliance. Monuments are primary and controlling when reliance is present. In one case reliance is present and in the other case it’s missing. See how this important doctrine can affect surveying retracement efforts. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 2 short Court Opinions consisting of 9 pages. This 11-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the two cases. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying. Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50
Boundary Establishment V August 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Huntington v. Riggs, Indiana 2007, resurrects the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence in the State of Indiana after a long "winter’s-nap," so to speak. Acquiescence is alive and well in Indiana and the Court refreshes this doctrine for the new millennium. In addition to the case-in-chief, we have included as a bonus Wingler v. Simpson, Indiana 1884; Adams v. Betz, Indiana 1906; Bubacz v. Kirk, Indiana 1930; and Freiburger v. Fry, Indiana 1982. These bonus cases along with the case-in-chief constitute the essential opinions under Indiana law on the doctrine of acquiescence. No Indiana surveyor (or any other surveyor) should be without these essential cases on acquiescence. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 11 pages. This 28-Page document (including bonus cases) has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief. The bonus cases are not tested. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying. Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 March 2010 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Weygand v. Deerwood Lake Land Co., Alabama 2001, is a case involving a civil engineer and contract guarantees and warranties based on a road surface failure. The companion case of Broyles v. Brown Engineering, Alabama 1963, is also covered for its opinion on contract guarantees and warranties. Can the professional service provider (land surveyors and engineers) make implied guarantees and warranties on their professional services? Read these cases and find out. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 15 pages. This 17-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the two cases covered. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 April 2010 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Hunter v. Wilshire, Alabama 2005, involves the issue of “good faith and fair dealings” in contracts. Also discussed in this case is the so-called “battle of the documents.” When two contracts executed at different times covering the same subject matter have conflicting terms, which one prevails? This case does not involve land surveyors directly but the contract issues are extremely relevant. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 5 pages. This 7-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the two cases covered. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 May 2010 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Ex Parte Howell Engineering and Surveying, Alabama 2006, involves an employment contract and the issue of “moonlighting.” Damages in these types of cases can be substantial and, as this case clearly illustrates, can include punitive awards. This case also implicates the issue of the restraint on the lawful practice of a profession. Even though this issue is somewhat driven by state statute, every state has such statutes and the courts treatment of these issues makes them rather universal in application. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 9 pages. This 11-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the two cases covered. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 August 2008 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 3.0 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Gilbert v. Geiger, Wisconsin 2008. The interpretation of a metes and bounds deed description that includes called for monuments, topographic features, and a 45-foot discrepancy is studied. The secondary and supporting case is Theriault v. Murray, Maine 1991, where called for monuments are missing and their role in the interpretation of the deed is called into question. This is a 3-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 9 pages. This 12-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the attached cases.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $30.00 Non-Subscribers $75.00 September 2008 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 3.0 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Elton v. Davis, Missouri 2003, involving the interpretation of a metes and bounds deed description where the deed doesn’t match the improvements. The secondary and supporting case is Hall v. Staley, North Carolina 2003, where parol evidence became the deciding factor in the proper interpretation of an ambiguous deed. This is a 3-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 9 pages. This 12-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the attached cases.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying
Subscribers $30.00 Non-Subscribers $75.00 September 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Watts v. Shannon and Leggins, Tennessee 2005, is a case with challenging ethical issues. The National Society of Professional Land Surveyor’s (NSPS) "Surveyor’s Creed and Canons," is used as a barometer by which to measure the actions of the parties, especially the surveyor. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 4 pages. This 6-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter, the case-in-chief and the "Surveyor’s Creed and Canons."
OBJECTIVES: To present everyday professional ethical issues based on actual court cases and opinions, resulting in real consequences for the professional(s) and the other parties involved
Non-Subscribers $37.50 December 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
In this edition, the ethical issue of "borrowing" the work of others is studied. Two relatively short cases are discussed. The first case, Adams v. North Carolina Board, North Carolina 1998, involves a land surveyor. The second case, Caito v. Rhode Island Board, Rhode Island 1998, involves a civil engineer. In both cases, the professionals involved "borrowed" the work of others in order to complete their own projects and neither one saw a problem with the practice. Did their respective Boards agree? Read the cases and found out. The NSPS "Surveyor’s Creed and Canons" is, once again, utilized as a barometer by which to measure the actions of the parties involved. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 9 pages. This 11-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter, the case-in-chief and the "Surveyor’s Creed and Canons."
OBJECTIVES: To present everyday professional ethical issues based on actual court cases and opinions, resulting in real consequences for the professional(s) and the other parties involved
Non-Subscribers $37.50 June 2010 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
In this edition, the ethics of providing cheap slip-shod services is under the microscope. The case-in-chief is Kendall v. Lowther, Iowa 1984. In this case the land surveyor provided cheap “location surveys” and “legal descriptions,” apparently without conducting actual on-the-ground surveys only to find out that, despite claiming to have warned his client to the contrary, the client relied on these “penny-wise and pound-foolish” services to convey property. The resulting mess sent all of the parties to court. The NSPS “Surveyor’s Creed and Canons” is, once again, utilized as a barometer by which to measure the actions of the parties involved, especially those of the surveyor. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 10 pages. This 12-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter, the case-in-chief and the “Surveyor’s Creed and Canons.” OBJECTIVES: To present everyday professional ethical issues based on actual court cases and opinions, resulting in real consequences for the professional(s) and the other parties involved.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 October 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Graves v. Downey, Maine 2005, is a classic case of surveyor negligence. When does a mistake constitute negligence? This question and more are asked and answered in this edition. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 4 pages. This 6-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 November 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief, Hanneman v. Downer, Nevada 1994, another classic case of surveyor negligence, this time in the PLSS context. When does a mistake constitute negligence? How is the "standard of care" established in court? Can a non-licensed individual testify as an expert on surveying matters? These question and more are asked and answered in this edition. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 10 pages. This 12-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 January 2010 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is the infamous case of Rozny v. Marnul, Illinois 1969. The Rozny case has been widely proclaimed as the death knell of the doctrine of privity of contract in the professional services arena, especially land surveying services since the case directly involves a land surveyor. As so often happens the land surveyor claimed to owe no duty to third parties who were not “privy” to the land surveyor’s contract with his client. Read the case and see how this worked out for the surveyor. Also included is the appellate court opinion that was ultimately appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court. Both opinions are essential reading. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 12 pages. This 14-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50February 2010 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief for this edition is Commonwealth Land Title v. CJM, P.C., Connecticut 2008. This case involves as-built services and surveyor certifications. How important is it to note what you haven’t done on your survey as well as what you have done? Can negligence result? This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 6 pages. This 8-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief. OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50Retracement I December 2008 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 3.0 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Farrell v. Gardner, Maine 2003, involves the classic situation when two surveyors render two different opinions of survey. This case deals with ambiguities in deeds and extrinsic evidence to resolve the conflicts. The secondary and supporting case is Lacic v. Tomas, Connecticut 2003, which also deals with ambiguities and an old fence line. Sometimes a fence is just a fence and an encroachment is just an encroachment. This is a 3-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 12 pages. This 15-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the attached cases.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $30.00 Non-Subscribers $75.00 Retracement II January 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Dykes v. Arnold, Oregon 2006. Again, we have two surveyors and two different results based on their varying approaches to the project. The basic question asked and answered by this case is: What does it mean to "retrace" a survey? This case has many of the surveying details that are often lacking in court opinions. It also deals with intent, ambiguities, and repose. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 17 pages. This 19-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 Retracement III February 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Knerr v. Mauldin, California 2006. In this edition, retracement is studied in the lot and block scenario. A modern-day surveyor attempts to correct all of the surveying errors of the past, sending the affected landowners into litigation. The companion questions of what are "original footsteps" and who is an "original surveyor" are in play. This edition also includes the bonus case of State of California v. Thompson, California 1971, which is cited in the case-in-chief. The bonus case is for informational purposes only and is not tested. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 4 pages. This 15-Page document (including bonus case) has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 Retracement IV March 2009 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 1.5 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Wood v. Starko, Tennessee 2006. In this edition, retracement is again studied in the lot and block context. Do original monuments in a subdivision hold over subsequently set monuments of the Federal Government? Basic questions of retracement are in play once again. This is a 2-Page Letter covering 1 Court Opinion consisting of 10 pages. This 12-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the case-in-chief.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $15.00 Non-Subscribers $37.50 Unwritten Rights I October 2008 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 3.0 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is the classic case of Adams v. Hoover, Michigan 1992. This case deals with the center of a section in the Public Land Surveying System (PLSS). The equitable principle of repose is in play. The secondary and supporting case is Zeglin v. Gahagan, Pennsylvania 2002, which also deals with the rule of repose. This is a 3-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 13 pages. This 16-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the attached cases.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $30.00 Non-Subscribers $75.00 Unwritten Rights II November 2008 Edition of The Lucas Letter – 3.0 Contact Hours
The case-in-chief is Dowdell v. Cotham, Tennessee 2007. This case deals with ambiguities in deeds and boundary by agreement or practical location. The secondary and supporting case is Jackson v. Bownas, Tennessee 2005, which also deals ambiguities, inconsistent surveys and an ancient fence. This is a 3-Page Letter covering 2 Court Opinions consisting of 18 pages. This 21-Page document has a 10-Question examination based on the text of the newsletter and the attached cases.
OBJECTIVES: To enhance professional competency and improve practitioner’s knowledge of the law as it relates to the practice of land surveying.
Subscribers $30.00 Non-Subscribers $75.00 Ohio 1st Quarter | | Return Home | The Lucas Letter | Continuing Education Offerings | Live Events | Publications | Seminar Offerings | State Requirements | State Boards | Contact Us | |
||
 |
 |