1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Hannibal » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:46 pm

Fucking hidden erie questions.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:47 pm

Hannibal wrote:Fucking hidden erie questions.


Share?

User avatar
Hannibal
Posts: 2213
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 12:00 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Hannibal » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:55 pm

Eugenie Danglars wrote:
Hannibal wrote:Fucking hidden erie questions.


Share?


It was a "you're the attorney, make every relevant argument and counterargument about why these claims should be dismissed" or something like that. Somehow I didn't make the connection between a state disallowing a class action and the Shady Grove case that says the court should ignore that kind of thing because it conflicts with Rule 23.

Seriously can't believe I missed that. Heart wasn't really in the PT I'm guessing/hoping.

sknight323
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:39 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby sknight323 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:29 pm

Hannibal wrote:
Eugenie Danglars wrote:
Hannibal wrote:Fucking hidden erie questions.


Share?


It was a "you're the attorney, make every relevant argument and counterargument about why these claims should be dismissed" or something like that. Somehow I didn't make the connection between a state disallowing a class action and the Shady Grove case that says the court should ignore that kind of thing because it conflicts with Rule 23.

Seriously can't believe I missed that. Heart wasn't really in the PT I'm guessing/hoping.



Brutal. I'm hoping I didn't miss anything like that on my exam. I thought I caught a hidden pleading issue..hopefully nothing like that, though.

On my prof's exam last year, one of the questions just said "should A settle with B?" because we went over some basic litigation and settlement theory. He said only 10 people caught that there was not any PJ over the person offering the settlement.

User avatar
piccolittle
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby piccolittle » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:36 pm

Keep trying to write out practice questions but they take me forever because I pretty much get bored and distracted (plus taking time to think/flip through outline). Exam is on Friday. Should I be concerned that I don't know anything yet and these questions take forever? I feel like I'm not going to have a good sense of pace and timing until (hopefully) the day before the test. Grrr.

Also, how do you guys IRAC? I tend to write out the full definitions etc in one paragraph (like "a fraudulent misrepresentation is one which..." blah blah) and then apply it in a new paragraph (as in, "here, mattei will argue that the misrepresentation is fraudulent because the president knew at the time that she did not have a reasonable basis to know or assert its truth"). Does that make sense or do you guys work sentence by sentence (as in definition. rule. application. definition. rule. application)?

User avatar
ph14
Posts: 3224
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby ph14 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:47 pm

Feeling pretty good about civ pro. I think it probably has come at expense of my other classes though. I need to really get going on them.

User avatar
Eugenie Danglars
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby Eugenie Danglars » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:00 pm

ph14 wrote:Feeling pretty good about civ pro. I think it probably has come at expense of my other classes though. I need to really get going on them.


This is me, exactly.

nonprofit-prophet
Posts: 844
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:10 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby nonprofit-prophet » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:02 pm

piccolittle wrote:Keep trying to write out practice questions but they take me forever because I pretty much get bored and distracted (plus taking time to think/flip through outline). Exam is on Friday. Should I be concerned that I don't know anything yet and these questions take forever? I feel like I'm not going to have a good sense of pace and timing until (hopefully) the day before the test. Grrr.

Also, how do you guys IRAC? I tend to write out the full definitions etc in one paragraph (like "a fraudulent misrepresentation is one which..." blah blah) and then apply it in a new paragraph (as in, "here, mattei will argue that the misrepresentation is fraudulent because the president knew at the time that she did not have a reasonable basis to know or assert its truth"). Does that make sense or do you guys work sentence by sentence (as in definition. rule. application. definition. rule. application)?


Based on the sample answers my profs have supplied, I say go sentence by sentence. Exam writing is different from memo writing.

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:16 pm

do some states still use contributory negligence? I have in my notes that Li v Yellow Cab overruled CN, but I also have that some states still use it?

User avatar
NYC Law
Posts: 1569
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:33 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby NYC Law » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:17 pm

Property oh property, you are slowly destroying my soul.

protein
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:44 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby protein » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:17 pm

Okay I have a protocol question.

When the professor asks for best argument and then problems with the argument, and one of the problems is comparative negligence,
do you then do P's rebuttal to the comparative neg claim? I assume you have to flesh out the comparative negligence claim, and I was wondering if doing rebuttals would be going too far. (this is for a word limited question)

Thanks!

protein
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 3:44 am

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby protein » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:17 pm

thegrayman wrote:do some states still use contributory negligence? I have in my notes that Li v Yellow Cab overruled CN, but I also have that some states still use it?


some states still do, NC for one + some Southeastern US states

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:27 pm

civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:32 pm

rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?


isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:37 pm

thegrayman wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?


isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?



Ok, so, for the sake of argument- P, a CA citizen, sues in diversity, the D for a breach of contract arising out of the D's functionality and offices in Fla. He brings this case in Fla, and it would be acceptable due to minimum contacts? I just don't understand how this minimum contact test goes out of the window when P is domiciled in Fla. So when he's a Fla resident, the corp's functionality in the district is irrelevant and diversity is ok because only DE and MA matter.
Last edited by rocon7383 on Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:37 pm

rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?


I mean diversity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction do exist, assuming the amount in controversy is over 75,000. I believe you are confusing personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. shouldnt be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction technically. It may be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the contacts with florida, while they do have some, are not related to the claim. So unless the contacts were systematic and continuous to invoke general personal jurisdiction, there probably is not personal jurisdiction. Sounds like the contacts with miami would work if courts used the "muscle test" instead of the nerve test because the PPb is generally a place where general jdx is okay, but they use the Nerve test. And you even said the PPb is in MA.

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:43 pm

rocon7383 wrote:
thegrayman wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?


isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?



Ok, so, for the sake of argument- P, a CA citizen, sues in diversity, the D for a breach of contract arising out of the D's functionality and offices in Fla. He brings this case in Fla, and it would be acceptable due to minimum contacts? I just don't understand how this minimum contact test goes out of the window when P is domiciled in Fla. So when he's a Fla resident, the corp's functionality in the district is irrelevant and diversity is ok because only DE and MA matter.


I understand it like this (someone correct me if I'm wrong please)

subject matter jurisdiction is going to be based on diversity since it is a state cause of action (breach of contract). for diversity, they base it on domicile, so diversity exists.
personal jurisdiction is based on where the defendant can be brought into court without offending "fair play and substantial justice" or the myriad other tests out there. for PJ, you would look at the contacts with the forum state to see if it would be fair to make the D go there to litigate the suit.

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:44 pm

$peppercorn wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?


I mean diversity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction do exist, assuming the amount in controversy is over 75,000. I believe you are confusing personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. shouldnt be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction technically. It may be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction because the contacts with florida, while they do have some, are not related to the claim. So unless the contacts were systematic and continuous to invoke general personal jurisdiction, there probably is not personal jurisdiction. Sounds like the contacts with miami would work if courts used the "muscle test" instead of the nerve test because the PPb is generally a place where general jdx is okay, but they use the Nerve test. And you even said the PPb is in MA.


Ok, I guess i'm just getting effed up by confusing subject matter and personal. the question is sneaky, the majority of the company's employees and customers, PLUS most of its trucking routes are entirely within Fla. And the P, a Fla native, is suing in Fla based on diversity. I guess, because to me this stinks as systematic and continuous I am having a difficult time reconciling diversity.

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:46 pm

[/quote]

Ok, I guess i'm just getting effed up by confusing subject matter and personal. the question is sneaky, the majority of the company's employees and customers, PLUS most of its trucking routes are entirely within Fla. And the P, a Fla native, is suing in Fla based on diversity. I guess, because to me this stinks as systematic and continuous I am having a difficult time reconciling diversity.[/quote]

for sure, it sounds like the Q was made to highlight that little nuance. just keep in mind that SMJ and PJ are established using different tests

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:47 pm

thegrayman wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:
thegrayman wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:civ pro question.

P is someone who got hit by a car, owned by a DE(inc)/MA(PPb) corporation, in CA. P lived in CA at the time of the accident. The corporation also has offices and most of its lower level offices and customers in Miami(which is what i thought were minimum contacts?). P moves to Miami permanently and THEN sues over the action, based on diversity, and in MIA. Corp. moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. My book says their motion ahould be denied because diversity exists.

Can someone explain why minimum contacts and purposeful availment in Fl are irrelevant?

The book says: P is deemed a citizen of the state where she resides at the time the suit is filed, (so FL). So do they just completely ignore the minimum contacts? Why is this not being tried in DE or MA then?


isn't it because diversity is based on domicile, and the minimum contacts analysis is used only to figure out where you can sue?



Ok, so, for the sake of argument- P, a CA citizen, sues in diversity, the D for a breach of contract arising out of the D's functionality and offices in Fla. He brings this case in Fla, and it would be acceptable due to minimum contacts? I just don't understand how this minimum contact test goes out of the window when P is domiciled in Fla. So when he's a Fla resident, the corp's functionality in the district is irrelevant and diversity is ok because only DE and MA matter.


I understand it like this (someone correct me if I'm wrong please)

subject matter jurisdiction is going to be based on diversity since it is a state cause of action (breach of contract). for diversity, they base it on domicile, so diversity exists.
personal jurisdiction is based on where the defendant can be brought into court without offending "fair play and substantial justice" or the myriad other tests out there. for PJ, you would look at the contacts with the forum state to see if it would be fair to make the D go there to litigate the suit.



I think i'm seeing my mistake. so NEVER look beyond PPB and INC for diversity? Systematic and Continuous is never ok for diversity? Is that the consensus?

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:51 pm

For a corporation that is right. PPB and state of Inc. are the only domiciles. Individual has one domicile. Partnerships have domicile wherever any partner is domiciled. Systematic and continuous should only be mentioned when you are talking about personal jurisdiction

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:52 pm

rocon7383 wrote:I think i'm seeing my mistake. so NEVER look beyond PPB and INC for diversity? Systematic and Continuous is never ok for diversity? Is that the consensus?


for diversity
test is based on domicile, so for the corporation you base on incorporation and PPB (there are different tests to establish PPB). systematic and continuous contacts would be used to establish PJ.

perhaps the question wanted you to argue that although the corporation had employees and what not in FL, using some PPB test you establish that it is actually not domiciled in FL, even though it has sufficient contacts to establish PJ?

that is my guess

User avatar
rocon7383
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 10:02 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby rocon7383 » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:53 pm

thanks. Been a verrrrrry long day, brain is close to fully mush. Bed soon.

User avatar
$peppercorn
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:49 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby $peppercorn » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:54 pm

thegrayman wrote:
rocon7383 wrote:I think i'm seeing my mistake. so NEVER look beyond PPB and INC for diversity? Systematic and Continuous is never ok for diversity? Is that the consensus?


for diversity
test is based on domicile, so for the corporation you base on incorporation and PPB (there are different tests to establish PPB). systematic and continuous contacts would be used to establish PJ.

perhaps the question wanted you to argue that although the corporation had employees and what not in FL, using some PPB test you establish that it is actually not domiciled in FL, even though it has sufficient contacts to establish PJ?

that is my guess


The Supreme Court in Hertz said that the Principle place of business is the Nerve Center. No more two tests for "muscle" and "Nerve". So its basically only the place where the top executives and administration and and stuff takes place

thegrayman
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 5:56 pm

Re: 1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread

Postby thegrayman » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:57 pm

$peppercorn wrote:The Supreme Court in Hertz said that the Principle place of business is the Nerve Center. No more two tests for "muscle" and "Nerve". So its basically only the place where the top executives and administration and and stuff takes place


hmm we never covered Hertz, didn't know that though

I guess that makes civpro .0001% less confusing :D




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests