1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[uvahooo]

So. How do you know if you did well?

Do you guys have good feelings about your exam?

[uwb09]

Bit of a theoretical Civ Pro question:

Lets say you have a choice of law issue involving a FRCP, if you determine that it isn't on point through a narrow reading, shouldn't you technically run it through the Erie analysis to see if the court can still apply it?

We stopped at Hanna, and our teacher essentially told us that if the FRCP isn't on point, then you should just apply state law. It seems that more often than not, a narrow reading of the FRCP that knocks it through Erie should come out this way anyway, but is she just dumbing down the analysis for us?

That's funny, the "Erie" question from our final was basically defendant wanting the federal court to enforce the transferee state's choice of rule law, and the plaintiff wanted the transferor forum's law to apply.

I basically just ran it through the venue change choice of law test (if coming from proper venue, then transferor venue law applies) and threw in a cite to some case where a plane crashed in MA, and the plane company wanted to defend all suits there, but a lot of survivor families were in PA and wanted to sue there because of better substantive law regarding award limits.

My understanding was that the court basically ruled that screw MA state choice of law rules, when a defendant moves from a proper venue to another venue, under FRCP venue change, the transferor forum laws will apply, since that venue was perfectly fine to begin with.

I talked to some other people in my section, who I believe to be pretty smart/on point, and they all put the same thing, so who knows.

Either we all messed up, or sometimes it can just be that easy?

[beach_terror]

Bit of a theoretical Civ Pro question:

Lets say you have a choice of law issue involving a FRCP, if you determine that it isn't on point through a narrow reading, shouldn't you technically run it through the Erie analysis to see if the court can still apply it?

We stopped at Hanna, and our teacher essentially told us that if the FRCP isn't on point, then you should just apply state law. It seems that more often than not, a narrow reading of the FRCP that knocks it through Erie should come out this way anyway, but is she just dumbing down the analysis for us?

What do you mean "isn't on point through a narrow reading?" If you find that the FRCP doesn't actually cover the rule, then you need to determine what the federal rule is what is its source (not FRCP but the rule based on precedent or whatever). Then you run it through Erie.

Gasperini v Center for Humanities, Inc. deals with an issue like this

Just that if you read a federal rule broadly enough, it can be on point even when it's arguably not. Cases like Ragan and Burlington seem to show that the court can read broadly or narrowly when it comes to these kind of issues.

And yeah, we stopped short of Gaserpini.

[dailygrind]

So. How do you know if you did well?

Do you guys have good feelings about your exam?

i spent the whole time typing and making points, the only question is how many of those points were dead and how many were on point. i don't think there's really any great way to tell.

[beach_terror]

I think the crux of my question is just because the FRCP is not "on point" just means that the Supremacy clause doesn't trump the state law (because then they're not dictating "identical" subject matter). If it's not "on point", and therefore it isn't an issue governed by the supremacy clause, shouldn't you then run that through the Erie analysis to see if the court can still apply the rule?

All in all, it seems that the other aspect of Hanna would then kick in because it would lead to inconsistent results, and then possibly forum shopping depending on the rule. However, isn't it still "proper" to take it through the Erie analysis.

[09042014]

Bit of a theoretical Civ Pro question:

Lets say you have a choice of law issue involving a FRCP, if you determine that it isn't on point through a narrow reading, shouldn't you technically run it through the Erie analysis to see if the court can still apply it?

We stopped at Hanna, and our teacher essentially told us that if the FRCP isn't on point, then you should just apply state law. It seems that more often than not, a narrow reading of the FRCP that knocks it through Erie should come out this way anyway, but is she just dumbing down the analysis for us?

What do you mean "isn't on point through a narrow reading?" If you find that the FRCP doesn't actually cover the rule, then you need to determine what the federal rule is what is its source (not FRCP but the rule based on precedent or whatever). Then you run it through Erie.

Gasperini v Center for Humanities, Inc. deals with an issue like this

Just that if you read a federal rule broadly enough, it can be on point even when it's arguably not. Cases like Ragan and Burlington seem to show that the court can read broadly or narrowly when it comes to these kind of issues.

And yeah, we stopped short of Gaserpini.

Well then you run the non statute Hanna test.

[beach_terror]

oomf, just refer to my last post - that's what I'm getting it (I think, who knows at this point)

[eandy]

I am really sick--fever, coughing, chest congestion, etc. It's zapping all of my motivation to do work for my last final on Monday.

[Thirteen]

Brain = fried

Ditto. Unsure how I'm supposed to attempt to learn contracts now.

I feel y'all.

Thankfully, i've got a motivating lyric from a freeway record in my head. what's interesting, the rapper who gives the lyric was in a group called the Young Gunnerz. The lyric? "Pop broke his pivot got addicted to work/ Man, they say it's shame, but as they say it's the game!" He goes on to rap, "I never made it to them five on fives, they was playing [NBA] Live, / I was trying to stay live / trying to stay alive!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKJoDKepl-w

"Moms workin', 11:30 the curfew, I was tryna stay til 5..."

Full Effect, great song from a classic CD. Also, the rapper is Young Chris from the Young Gunz.

Is it Wednesday yet?

[keg411]

We're probably getting a policy question for CivPro.

[traehekat]

Any decent strategies for MC exams generally? Contracts specifically?

(Have I asked this before? Am I going crazy?)

[Charles Barkley]

I want to die.

[Holly Golightly]

So. How do you know if you did well?

Do you guys have good feelings about your exam?

lol, pretty sure I blew civpro. Crim was easy, but it was easy for everyone. Not even going to attempt to speculate.

[Holly Golightly]

I want to die.

[kalvano]

Any decent strategies for MC exams generally? Contracts specifically?

(Have I asked this before? Am I going crazy?)

Guess correctly.

[Charles Barkley]

I want to die.

No joke.

[bostonian]

I want to die.

No joke.

The degree to which I have stopped caring about contracts is astounding.

[Charles Barkley]

I want to die.

No joke.

The degree to which I have stopped caring about contracts is astounding.

That's what i'm studying now.

I did a practice exam problem, focusing on why the option was enforceable due to a firm offer. While the offeror was a merchant, the promise was not in writing.

Probably would've gotten no points if that was an actual exam.

Sigh.

At least I know i WON'T do that on the final.

[Holly Golightly]

I want to die.

No joke.

The degree to which I have stopped caring about contracts is astounding.

Jealous.

[180orbust]

If you thought the exam was hard, and you think you did a good job explaining in your answer why it was hard, then you probably did well.

Here's a studying tip that helped me during 1L year: go through your outline and for each item on the outline, try to come up with a scenario where the issue on your outline would be implicated. In other words, write a question/fact pattern for each item in your outline. Then make sure you can answer the question. It helps get you in the mind of the professor, and its a good way to make sure you understand how the legal issues relate to different fact patterns. This study method also has the benefit of being methodical and comprehensive, and it is guaranteed to alert you to any concepts you think you know but it turns out you don't really know. Its more efficient than random practice tests that only touch on 4-5 issues.

Good luck. The more you study, the more you'll enjoy your winter break!

[uvahooo]

If you thought the exam was hard, and you think you did a good job explaining in your answer why it was hard, then you probably did well.

Here's a studying tip that helped me during 1L year: go through your outline and for each item on the outline, try to come up with a scenario where the issue on your outline would be implicated. In other words, write a question/fact pattern for each item in your outline. Then make sure you can answer the question. It helps get you in the mind of the professor, and its a good way to make sure you understand how the legal issues relate to different fact patterns. This study method also has the benefit of being methodical and comprehensive, and it is guaranteed to alert you to any concepts you think you know but it turns out you don't really know. Its more efficient than random practice tests that only touch on 4-5 issues.

Good luck. The more you study, the more you'll enjoy your winter break!

you don't think law school exams are predictable? I think I did well on my exams.. but everyone tells me that is inversely related....

[Charles Barkley]

If you thought the exam was hard, and you think you did a good job explaining in your answer why it was hard, then you probably did well.

Here's a studying tip that helped me during 1L year: go through your outline and for each item on the outline, try to come up with a scenario where the issue on your outline would be implicated. In other words, write a question/fact pattern for each item in your outline. Then make sure you can answer the question. It helps get you in the mind of the professor, and its a good way to make sure you understand how the legal issues relate to different fact patterns. This study method also has the benefit of being methodical and comprehensive, and it is guaranteed to alert you to any concepts you think you know but it turns out you don't really know. Its more efficient than random practice tests that only touch on 4-5 issues.

Good luck. The more you study, the more you'll enjoy your winter break!

you don't think law school exams are predictable? I think I did well on my exams.. but everyone tells me that is inversely related....

I think the notion that the grades are inversely related is horse shit.

Note - I'm a 1L.

[gwuorbust]

you don't think law school exams are predictable? I think I did well on my exams.. but everyone tells me that is inversely related....

cause I'm sure these people have such large sample sizes

[180orbust]

If you thought the exam was hard, and you think you did a good job explaining in your answer why it was hard, then you probably did well.

Here's a studying tip that helped me during 1L year: go through your outline and for each item on the outline, try to come up with a scenario where the issue on your outline would be implicated. In other words, write a question/fact pattern for each item in your outline. Then make sure you can answer the question. It helps get you in the mind of the professor, and its a good way to make sure you understand how the legal issues relate to different fact patterns. This study method also has the benefit of being methodical and comprehensive, and it is guaranteed to alert you to any concepts you think you know but it turns out you don't really know. Its more efficient than random practice tests that only touch on 4-5 issues.

Good luck. The more you study, the more you'll enjoy your winter break!

you don't think law school exams are predictable? I think I did well on my exams.. but everyone tells me that is inversely related....

I don't think they are predictable for 1L's during fall semester. For me, my performances was a direct function of how much I liked my professor. I did best on the ones I thought were most difficult. Among my friends, I found that some people were good at predicting, some people were 100% inverse, and most people were only correct about some of their exams. In sum, unless nothing you saw on the exam seemed familiar to you at all, then I wouldn't place too much stock in your predictive ability. Its based on whether the material you focused on is what the professor wanted you to focus on, and that's not really something you can figure out unless you talk with a bunch of classmates who took the same exam. I do not recommend that you talk to your classmates about the exam--nothing good can come of it. It will either make you feel shitty, or it will make your classmate feel shitty.

Law school exams are designed to be difficult. If you recognize the difficulty of the exam you are taking, then it means you are spotting the issues and don't know how to make sense of them. This is a good thing; the professor wants you to be confused, and this gives you the opportunity to write a lot about why you are confused. After explaining in thorough detail why you are confused, you should then consult policy arguments to come to a conclusion.

If you thought an exam was easy, then its either because you didn't grasp the subtle complexities of the issues, or its because you're really smart. You should spend the majority of your exam-writing time on the problems that seem most difficult to you.

I hope this is helpful to you. You want to embrace the difficulty and uncertainty. The more unclear the conclusion is, the more points are available to you in clearing away the fog. Just make sure that the fog is based on the stuff you studied during the semester, and you don't get carried away talking about something implausible or far-fetched.

[180orbust]

If you thought the exam was hard, and you think you did a good job explaining in your answer why it was hard, then you probably did well.

Here's a studying tip that helped me during 1L year: go through your outline and for each item on the outline, try to come up with a scenario where the issue on your outline would be implicated. In other words, write a question/fact pattern for each item in your outline. Then make sure you can answer the question. It helps get you in the mind of the professor, and its a good way to make sure you understand how the legal issues relate to different fact patterns. This study method also has the benefit of being methodical and comprehensive, and it is guaranteed to alert you to any concepts you think you know but it turns out you don't really know. Its more efficient than random practice tests that only touch on 4-5 issues.

Good luck. The more you study, the more you'll enjoy your winter break!

you don't think law school exams are predictable? I think I did well on my exams.. but everyone tells me that is inversely related....

I think the notion that the grades are inversely related is horse shit.

Note - I'm a 1L.

My grades were inversely related.

Note: this does not mean that you shouldn't study so as to maximize the chances that you feel like you bombed it.