Top Law Schools

crossarmant wrote:Property exam finally over! 4 hours, handwritten, closed book, I am so glad to be done with that. Now for ConLaw, pretty much have to learn everything all over again because I've been single-mindedly devoted to Prop for the past 5 days. 4 days to cram a 2000 page casebook into my head as well as a 1200 page Chemerinsky in there too....

I just want to drink tonight.

Hey, I had a 4 hour closed book Property exam today too! Took it on a laptop though. Good on us for getting through, eh? Con Law. Gawd. Keel me naaooo.

first final in 1.5 hours ahhhh.

ugh I forgot to buy ear plugs. I hate myself.

ilovesf wrote:first final in 1.5 hours ahhhh.

KICK SOME ASS

HELP NOW; Civ Pro

Rules Enabling Act: "can't abridge modify or enlarge a substantive right"

What constitutes "substantive right"?

Thank you

TheFutureLawyer wrote:HELP NOW; Civ Pro

Rules Enabling Act: "can't abridge modify or enlarge a substantive right"

What constitutes "substantive right"?

Thank you

Rights conferred by substantive law (i.e., that aren't procedural). You're getting into Hanna 2 here, if IIRC,

What's the difference between procedure/substantive rights, LOL? The answer is it's impossible to come up witha bright line rule. Statute of limitations differences--> technically procedural, but can do some fucked up things to a person's substantive rights to possess land for certain periods of time. A useful way to think about it is whether the law exists for non-procedural reasons (i.e., not having to do with efficiency, autonomy, or fairness in litigation).

But basically, this is a super hard test to pass. In Burlington, the court even held that when procedural rules 'incidentally' affect substantive rights, even those will be permissible.

Some examples of hard to call cases: attorney-client privilege differences (technically affects courtroom procedure, but has an effect on behavior outside the courtroom that has nothing to do with fairness in litigation)

Right to recover attroneys fees: Techincally this deals with admin matters so you'd think it's procedural. But it could turn out that it has a substantial impact on the rights claimed by the loser.

I think you should exploit this amiguity on the exam and argue for both sides. I'd recommend (if it's a close call) falling on the side of "invalid under REA." If it's arguably procedural, I'd still say it has a substantive impact on states' rights. You could argue against that for a more bright line rule and talk about the need to separate 'procedure' from actual laws that affect people's lives outside the courtroom.

It's substantive if it affects primary behavior.
Otherwise, it's procedural.

Does anyone have a worthwhile ConLaw outline or flowchart to share? I have made mine from class notes and Chemerinsky but I kinda want something to compare it too. I am so dreading this exam on Monday night.

crossarmant wrote:Does anyone have a worthwhile ConLaw outline or flowchart to share? I have made mine from class notes and Chemerinsky but I kinda want something to compare it too. I am so dreading this exam on Monday night.

i have a rough draft of mine if you want to exchange. my test is on Tuesday evening. So I'm going to use today and tomorrow to clean it up, but I've impact briefed most cases we covered (still need to finish field preemption section)

Decided to get two outlines from a student that are solid. Now I just need to memorize them, since I know how to apply the material for most of the classes.

merc280 wrote:Decided to get two outlines from a student that are solid. Now I just need to memorize them, since I know how to apply the material for most of the classes.

I've found the absolute best way to memorize outlines from other students is to retype them using your own words and your own formatting.

I have no idea what to do for Con Law right now.

Can anyone provide a quick answer to this, I'd greatly appreciate it:

If the original claim is:

x ----> y

Then Y counterclaims from the same transaction or occurence (compulsory - 13(a)):

y ----> x

But in the original claim of x-->y, Y impleads Z (CA), a non-diverse party from X (CA)

1. Because X and Z are not diverse, is diversity destroyed and therefore no SMJ? I argued yes, someone else argued no.
2. If SMJ is destroyed in the first suit, does the question of whether the compulsory counterclaim stays in federal court depend on whether there is an independent basis for jurisdiction, thus if the counterclaim didn't rely on 1367, it will be able to stay in federal court notwithstanding the original claim being dismissed for lack of SMJ?

Thanks.

akili wrote:I have no idea what to do for Con Law right now.

At this point, pre-write your answers for the topics you discussed in class. Have cases written out in rule form. With a checklist in mind (at the top of each category a little list with the cases you have written out below with one word response).

I'm starting to do this, this morning, and it's going surprisingly super quickly for con law--much quicker

Based on my syllabus, I'm pre-writing the following topics:


1. State Action (with an additional sub paragraph on how far congress can go in regulating private action--> brief rule for 13 (2), 14 (5), and 15(2) sections)
2. Commerce Clause (with a subparagraph about commerce clause issues with the 14th Amendment a la McClung)
3. Dormant Commerce Clause
4. Necessary and proper clause
5. 14, 5
6. EPC
7. Econ. Sub Due Process
8. Soft Sub Due Process
9. Brief rules written out for the different standards of review

Guchster wrote:

akili wrote:I have no idea what to do for Con Law right now.

At this point, pre-write your answers for the topics you discussed in class. Have cases written out in rule form. With a checklist in mind (at the top of each category a little list with the cases you have written out below with one word response).

I'm starting to do this, this morning, and it's going surprisingly super quickly for con law--much quicker

Based on my syllabus, I'm pre-writing the following topics:


1. State Action (with an additional sub paragraph on how far congress can go in regulating private action--> brief rule for 13 (2), 14 (5), and 15(2) sections)
2. Commerce Clause (with a subparagraph about commerce clause issues with the 14th Amendment a la McClung)
3. Dormant Commerce Clause
4. Necessary and proper clause
5. 14, 5
6. EPC
7. Econ. Sub Due Process
8. Soft Sub Due Process
9. Brief rules written out for the different standards of review

i know you had no way of knowing this, but you are woefully underestimating how little we learned in con law

angrybird wrote:

Guchster wrote:

akili wrote:I have no idea what to do for Con Law right now.

At this point, pre-write your answers for the topics you discussed in class. Have cases written out in rule form. With a checklist in mind (at the top of each category a little list with the cases you have written out below with one word response).

I'm starting to do this, this morning, and it's going surprisingly super quickly for con law--much quicker

Based on my syllabus, I'm pre-writing the following topics:


1. State Action (with an additional sub paragraph on how far congress can go in regulating private action--> brief rule for 13 (2), 14 (5), and 15(2) sections)
2. Commerce Clause (with a subparagraph about commerce clause issues with the 14th Amendment a la McClung)
3. Dormant Commerce Clause
4. Necessary and proper clause
5. 14, 5
6. EPC
7. Econ. Sub Due Process
8. Soft Sub Due Process
9. Brief rules written out for the different standards of review

i know you had no way of knowing this, but you are woefully underestimating how little we learned in con law

I wrote out little intro paragraphs for Commerce and Dormant Commerce, but that's about where we stopped on your list. Maybe I'll write out ones for Necessary and Proper and Privileges and Immunities

I honestly have no idea what some of the other things on your list are. That's how little we learned, haha.

Sorry that wasn't helpful.

Tell us what you learned and we'll try to give you a strategy for salvaging what time you have left. Any details about the format of your exam would be helpful

Guchster wrote:Sorry that wasn't helpful.

Tell us what you learned and we'll try to give you a strategy for salvaging what time you have left. Any details about the format of your exam would be helpful

Oh no! It was still helpful. Sorry if I sounded ungrateful.

We mostly focused on Commerce & Dormant Commerce Clause. I'm about 95% sure they will both be on the exam. We have done a little War Powers, Removal/Appointment, Privileges & Immunities (mostly as compared to DCC), and preemption

It's a 3 hour essay exam, open notes.

Civ Pro in 2 hours.
pre-wrote my answer: "tl;dr"
I'm thinking A+

reasonable troll wrote:Civ Pro in 2 hours.
pre-wrote my answer: "tl;dr"
I'm thinking A+

Best of luck to you! CivPro is luckily one of those classes where if you get the concepts, the curve definitely works in your favor.

Guchster wrote:At this point, pre-write your answers for the topics you discussed in class. Have cases written out in rule form. With a checklist in mind (at the top of each category a little list with the cases you have written out below with one word response).

I'm starting to do this, this morning, and it's going surprisingly super quickly for con law--much quicker

Based on my syllabus, I'm pre-writing the following topics:

1. State Action (with an additional sub paragraph on how far congress can go in regulating private action--> brief rule for 13 (2), 14 (5), and 15(2) sections)
2. Commerce Clause (with a subparagraph about commerce clause issues with the 14th Amendment a la McClung)
3. Dormant Commerce Clause
4. Necessary and proper clause
5. 14, 5
6. EPC
7. Econ. Sub Due Process
8. Soft Sub Due Process
9. Brief rules written out for the different standards of review

Would you mind giving me an example of what you mean, like one of your "pre-writings" for like Necessary & Proper or something? I've never done pre-writings, I've always just done full-practice exams so I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

CivPro2isFun wrote:Can anyone provide a quick answer to this, I'd greatly appreciate it:

If the original claim is:

x ----> y

Then Y counterclaims from the same transaction or occurence (compulsory - 13(a)):

y ----> x

But in the original claim of x-->y, Y impleads Z (CA), a non-diverse party from X (CA)

1. Because X and Z are not diverse, is diversity destroyed and therefore no SMJ? I argued yes, someone else argued no.
2. If SMJ is destroyed in the first suit, does the question of whether the compulsory counterclaim stays in federal court depend on whether there is an independent basis for jurisdiction, thus if the counterclaim didn't rely on 1367, it will be able to stay in federal court notwithstanding the original claim being dismissed for lack of SMJ?

Thanks.

I'm not totally sure, but I think SMJ would not be destroyed in this case. Everything would be fine as long as X didnt try to bring any claims against Z. If the original defendant is impleading a party and, thus, becoming a third party plaintiff, then he may do so if it passes the same case/ controversy aspect of 1367. I think you might be worried about the exceptions contained in 1367(b), but those apply only to claims by the original plaintiff. So you don't really need diversity between X and Z because X is the original plaintiff. But, if X were to try to assert claims, even arising from the same case or controversy, against Z then there would not be SMJ over those claims and they would be improper (unless based on 1331). I think the underlying rationale here is just the efficiency of letting Y assert his claim against Z because it makes sense if the suit is properly brought by X against Y. If I just rambled nonsense some one please correct me.

crossarmant wrote:

reasonable troll wrote:Civ Pro in 2 hours.
pre-wrote my answer: "tl;dr"
I'm thinking A+

Best of luck to you! CivPro is luckily one of those classes where if you get the concepts, the curve definitely works in your favor.

Guchster wrote:At this point, pre-write your answers for the topics you discussed in class. Have cases written out in rule form. With a checklist in mind (at the top of each category a little list with the cases you have written out below with one word response).

I'm starting to do this, this morning, and it's going surprisingly super quickly for con law--much quicker

Based on my syllabus, I'm pre-writing the following topics:

1. State Action (with an additional sub paragraph on how far congress can go in regulating private action--> brief rule for 13 (2), 14 (5), and 15(2) sections)
2. Commerce Clause (with a subparagraph about commerce clause issues with the 14th Amendment a la McClung)
3. Dormant Commerce Clause
4. Necessary and proper clause
5. 14, 5
6. EPC
7. Econ. Sub Due Process
8. Soft Sub Due Process
9. Brief rules written out for the different standards of review

Would you mind giving me an example of what you mean, like one of your "pre-writings" for like Necessary & Proper or something? I've never done pre-writings, I've always just done full-practice exams so I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

Here's my example for the spending power:

X statute is based on Congress’s spending power, derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can use its spending power to encourage state action so long as (1) the spending is in pursuit of the general welfare, (2) requirements on states are unambiguous, (3) conditions attached to the funding are related to the spending, and (4) the conditions do not conflict with other constitutional requirements. Dole.

Then I have a "things to consider for each condition:" section underneath, as a reminder so I don't miss things for each element.

Con Law seems to be very conducive to doing this pre-written rule statements like this

dabomb75 wrote:

crossarmant wrote:

reasonable troll wrote:Civ Pro in 2 hours.
pre-wrote my answer: "tl;dr"
I'm thinking A+

Best of luck to you! CivPro is luckily one of those classes where if you get the concepts, the curve definitely works in your favor.

Guchster wrote:At this point, pre-write your answers for the topics you discussed in class. Have cases written out in rule form. With a checklist in mind (at the top of each category a little list with the cases you have written out below with one word response).

I'm starting to do this, this morning, and it's going surprisingly super quickly for con law--much quicker

Based on my syllabus, I'm pre-writing the following topics:

1. State Action (with an additional sub paragraph on how far congress can go in regulating private action--> brief rule for 13 (2), 14 (5), and 15(2) sections)
2. Commerce Clause (with a subparagraph about commerce clause issues with the 14th Amendment a la McClung)
3. Dormant Commerce Clause
4. Necessary and proper clause
5. 14, 5
6. EPC
7. Econ. Sub Due Process
8. Soft Sub Due Process
9. Brief rules written out for the different standards of review

Would you mind giving me an example of what you mean, like one of your "pre-writings" for like Necessary & Proper or something? I've never done pre-writings, I've always just done full-practice exams so I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean.

Here's my example for the spending power:

X statute is based on Congress’s spending power, derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can use its spending power to encourage state action so long as (1) the spending is in pursuit of the general welfare, (2) requirements on states are unambiguous, (3) conditions attached to the funding are related to the spending, and (4) the conditions do not conflict with other constitutional requirements. Dole.

Then I have a "things to consider for each condition:" section underneath, as a reminder so I don't miss things for each element.

Con Law seems to be very conducive to doing this pre-written rule statements like this

this is excellent

mine are unnecessarily long and too many facts, right now, so I'm hesitant to send this to people in their condition. But i'll send it to you guys probably by tomorrow or sat.

Guchster wrote:

dabomb75 wrote:Here's my example for the spending power:

X statute is based on Congress’s spending power, derived from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress can use its spending power to encourage state action so long as (1) the spending is in pursuit of the general welfare, (2) requirements on states are unambiguous, (3) conditions attached to the funding are related to the spending, and (4) the conditions do not conflict with other constitutional requirements. Dole.

Then I have a "things to consider for each condition:" section underneath, as a reminder so I don't miss things for each element.

Con Law seems to be very conducive to doing this pre-written rule statements like this

this is excellent

mine are unnecessarily long and too many facts, right now, so I'm hesitant to send this to people in their condition. But i'll send it to you guys probably by tomorrow or sat.

That is amazing, thank you. Gives me a better idea of what I should be doing with this exam, I should try to do this as well for all of my subjects in ConLaw. It just seems like such a nasty exam and I am dreading it a lot.

And Guch, thank you for offering to send me those. I could probably use to start pre-writing answers, I feel like my answers sort of wander on exams as I see more and more things crop up.

Done with Ks, onwards to con law on Monday! It seems like a lot of us have con law next. So I have a question maybe you guys can help me. In Morrison v US the court doesn't apply a rational basis test, something which Breyer really takes issue with in the dissent. In Raich they do apply it. Is the reason they chose not to apply it in Morrison just because it was a non economic activity so they didn't use the same test, or am I missing something?