BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
shepdawg
Posts: 477
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby shepdawg » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:37 pm

Matteliszt wrote:
Congrats. Did your pace program have you taking the simulate MBE this early? Mine isn't for like 3 weeks.

Yeah. We have been done with MBE subjects for over almost 2 weeks now, because we started May 2.

User avatar
tfer2222
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby tfer2222 » Tue Jun 18, 2013 7:42 pm

shepdawg wrote:
Matteliszt wrote:
Congrats. Did your pace program have you taking the simulate MBE this early? Mine isn't for like 3 weeks.

Yeah. We have been done with MBE subjects for over almost 2 weeks now, because we started May 2.


May 2? damn. must be a CA taker?

We didn't start until the 28th.

AMCD
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 11:33 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby AMCD » Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:18 am

No, CA we started around the 21st May. Just finished property today -- last MBE subject. Have the full day MBE practice on Friday, essays on Thursday. Gulp.

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:57 am

Not doing so hot on these practice essays. It's a wee bit demoralizing. I'm going to hold off on submitting anything else to BarBri for grading until I've learned more of the law.

td6624
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby td6624 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 2:59 pm

i'm ok with the essays that fall within mbe subjects

beyond that....................... nope. i'll fix it eventually.

User avatar
bgdddymtty
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby bgdddymtty » Thu Jun 20, 2013 6:05 pm

Pretty happy with a 21/25 on the Con Law PRE, since that's been one of my weaker subjects.

I'm really upset about question #14, though. I won't post a spoiler in this forum in the interests of those who haven't yet taken the quiz, but feel free to give my complaint an "opportunity to be heard" here.

User avatar
AgentSCo
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:25 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby AgentSCo » Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:47 pm

I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

BCLS
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:40 am

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby BCLS » Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:49 pm

AgentSCo wrote:I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.

I read the CMR and the lecture handouts. Also make a few flashcards for some big topics.

User avatar
tfer2222
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:20 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby tfer2222 » Thu Jun 20, 2013 7:58 pm

AgentSCo wrote:I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.


I make a short outline of the handout and then make flashcards. its a pain but i usually have a lot of of it decently memorized after doing it.

just passively reading the CMR, or any other outline for that matter, does nothing for me. i have to be doing something active.

User avatar
AgentSCo
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 6:25 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby AgentSCo » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:12 pm

tfer2222 wrote:
AgentSCo wrote:I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.


I make a short outline of the handout and then make flashcards. its a pain but i usually have a lot of of it decently memorized after doing it.

just passively reading the CMR, or any other outline for that matter, does nothing for me. i have to be doing something active.


This sounds like a better approach for me. I'm a pretty slow reader, so whenever I go through the CMR, I feel like I'm spending too much time for only picking up a couple new nuggets of information.

User avatar
bgdddymtty
Posts: 697
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:59 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby bgdddymtty » Thu Jun 20, 2013 8:28 pm

AgentSCo wrote:
tfer2222 wrote:
AgentSCo wrote:I'm curious what people have been doing for "Review X." Specifically, are people reading through lecture notes, reviewing the CMR, or going through flashcards? I've been doing a mix of all three and feel like I'm not really absorbing the material, so hopefully people can share some suggestions if a particular strategy's working for them.


I make a short outline of the handout and then make flashcards. its a pain but i usually have a lot of of it decently memorized after doing it.

just passively reading the CMR, or any other outline for that matter, does nothing for me. i have to be doing something active.


This sounds like a better approach for me. I'm a pretty slow reader, so whenever I go through the CMR, I feel like I'm spending too much time for only picking up a couple new nuggets of information.
The CMR thing might work for some people, but I feel like it's almost guaranteed to be a massive waste of time. A professor who has been in this field for (in most cases) decades and lecturing to bar candidates for years has prepared an outline of all of the things that they think are likely enough to be tested to be worth your time. Sure, there might be something that shows up on the bar that they missed, but how much extra time are you going to spend looking for and learning those extra esoteric points?

dudders
Posts: 467
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:56 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby dudders » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:34 am

Anyone have any idea how we're supposed to be doing on essays at this point? I'm in an MEE state and my Barbri scores so far have been 2, 2.5, and 3. Ick.

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby usuaggie » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:50 am

dudders wrote:Anyone have any idea how we're supposed to be doing on essays at this point? I'm in an MEE state and my Barbri scores so far have been 2, 2.5, and 3. Ick.


UBE state (MEE, MPT, MBE) and I have had a 3, 3, 3.5



is your name from HP? I like it.
Last edited by usuaggie on Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby usuaggie » Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:52 am

Just received my first graded MPT and I am really annoyed. This is the extent of the comments.

Grade: 4.0
-Heading doesn't make sense
-well drafted
-also well drafted
-good job. good fact analysis



that's it. 8 pages of writing, four comments, none of them really explaining anything.

RodneyBoonfield
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:49 pm

I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?

td6624
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby td6624 » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:51 pm

in that scenario D had assumed the duty or whatever when he said he was getting help

or something

right? that's different than attempting to rescue and making a mistake that makes the injury worse. saying you're going to go help and then forgetting isn't like trying to help and screwing up.

i'm not feeling like being articulate today.

friday.

td6624
Posts: 551
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby td6624 » Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:55 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.


actually i don't even think i understand what this means, practically speaking

so

nevermind me

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:17 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?


I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby 5ky » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:43 pm

kaiser wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?


I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)


there's also two other particular points that are important here

1. you're under a duty to rescue (and subject to liability for negligent rescue) if you're the one who put P in danger. this specifically applies to P's question. the bit about him undertaking and then forgetting to follow through is basically superfluous.
2. you're under a duty to rescue (and subject to liability for negligent rescue) if you have a special relationship with the person in danger (parent-child, common carriers)

i'm not going to go through the entire PRE torts video, but if you pinpoint the timestamp in the video, i'd be interested to hear what you're referring to (about rescuers not being liable for negligence)

User avatar
Matteliszt
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:38 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby Matteliszt » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:45 pm

kaiser wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?


I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)



This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:48 pm

I'm assuming a bunch of people on here are NY BarBri folks. Can someone do me a huge favor? I do the fillable PDF's, but my corps. PDF accidentally got erased. I'd love to not have to re-watch 6 hours of video since I would be super behind. Can someone PM me about possibly emailing their corps. PDF handout? I would REALLY appreciate it, and I'd owe you bigtime.
Last edited by kaiser on Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
5ky
Posts: 6344
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:10 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby 5ky » Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:50 pm

Matteliszt wrote:

This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?


see my above post. also, negligent supervision is really not actionable too often. it's covered on the last page of the torts CMR (slight majority of states have abolished parent-child immunity but most still don't allow children to sue merely for negligent supervision). for NY this also means that a third party claim of negligent supervision is a nonstarter

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:07 pm

kaiser wrote:I'm assuming a bunch of people on here are NY BarBri folks. Can someone do me a huge favor? I do the fillable PDF's, but my corps. PDF accidentally got erased. I'd love to not have to re-watch 6 hours of video since I would be super behind. Can someone PM me about possibly emailing their corps. PDF handout? I would REALLY appreciate it, and I'd owe you bigtime.


Bump

RodneyBoonfield
Posts: 309
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:54 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby RodneyBoonfield » Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:25 pm

Matteliszt wrote:
kaiser wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?


I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)



This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?



Yeah this is all what I thought. But after the lecturer made the rescue distinction re: the doctors and nurses, he then when on to discuss another exception stating specifically that rescuers (1) were protected from negligence when making a rescue; and (2) would have a cause of action against the D when performing a rescue. Maybe he misspoke or meant to relate this back to the doctors/nurses, but if that is the case he did not make it clear.

kaiser
Posts: 2940
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

Postby kaiser » Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:27 pm

RodneyBoonfield wrote:
Matteliszt wrote:
kaiser wrote:
RodneyBoonfield wrote:I was hoping someone could clear up this question for me: I am currently watching the lecture for the PRE questions for torts. The lecturer stated that D injured P (but was not negligent) and then undertook to go get help for P but forgot, and was liable for injuries to P sustained from P waiting out there over night and contracting pneumonia. 2 minutes later the lecturer then stated that rescuers are not liable for negligence in the rescue.

These two concepts conflict to me. Can someone explain?


I think you misheard or misunderstood the point about rescuer liability for negligence that occurs during rescue. Here are the rules as I understand them, as per my notes, supplemented with the CMR material:

-No affirmative duty to rescue
-If you undertake rescue, must act reasonably in doing so (which is why D forgetting about the guy after he said he would get help is clearly negligent, and why D is liable for the marginal, additional injuries resulting from the negligence)
-It is professionals like doctors and nurses who are generally protected from ordinary negligence that occurs while they are attempting rescue --> One of the Q explanations specifically said that this doesn't extend to everyday people (which is why I'm not sure where you got the point you noted in your post)



This is right. Basically as soon as you start to rescue you are under a duty to do so reasonably. I'm unsure about Doctors/Nurses, but the exception I recall and have seen tested the most is Firefighters/police officers.

You also have a duty to rescue if you put the P in the danger, or a special relationship.

Correct me if I am wrong - but I believe the special relationship negligence would be negligent supervision (kid wanders into traffic and gets plowed by a car, parent was negligent for not rescuing b/c he has a duty to supervise) is this correct?



Yeah this is all what I thought. But after the lecturer made the rescue distinction re: the doctors and nurses, he then when on to discuss another exception stating specifically that rescuers (1) were protected from negligence when making a rescue; and (2) would have a cause of action against the D when performing a rescue. Maybe he misspoke or meant to relate this back to the doctors/nurses, but if that is the case he did not make it clear.


He did misspeak on the lecture, and made it sound like Good Samaritan statutes generally apply to anyone attempting rescue, whereas the CMR says that is not the case. I ended up getting a MC question wrong on that point because of it, but filled in the gap




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cdotson2, d4d5c4, Itwasluck, pillowsoftcurls and 6 guests