Top Law Schools

phonepro wrote:I just did the SFE and got a 64.

I got a 135 on simulated MBE, and was banking on killing the MBE b/c I suck significantly at the essays, and have put them off the entire 2 months. Now I don't feel confident at all.

Le sigh.

10x in both con law and property O_o

Yeah, I've been constantly in the 60% range on all of the multiple choice stuff, so I feel you there. Planning to do the SFE tomorrow, so we'll see if I can even hit 60%. Multiple choice can DIAF. I might have to buy this NCBE Set #2 thing after all (can you just buy one set)?

Also, for anyone who has put off the essays, it's pretty easy to sit down and do a ton in one/two days.

SFE was hard as hell. I wouldn't be freaking out over that.

By all indications, the MPQ2 mixed sets are most representative of the MBE. If you're doing poorly on those, I might consider worrying. Otherwise, relax.

clashjones87 wrote:For UBE jurisdictions, do we need to know both common law and UPC for Wills or just UPC? Thank you

Please, someone?

On the MBE, when is products liability determined through the negligence standard and when is it determined through strict liability? Does it depend on whether or not it is unreasonably dangerous when it is put into the stream of commerce?

mirodh wrote:On the MBE, when is products liability determined through the negligence standard and when is it determined through strict liability? Does it depend on whether or not it is unreasonably dangerous when it is put into the stream of commerce?

It all depends on what the claim itself is. A party could bring a strict liability or regular negligence action against a retailer or manufacturer. Just apply your understanding of the appropriate concept based on what the actual lawsuit says. If strict liability, all that matters is that the product had a defect (whether a manufacturing defect, or a design defect), that the defect rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary consumer, and that the product was place into the stream of commerce in that defective condition. If its a negligence claim, we look into what kind of care the manufacturer or retailer took.

I'm sort of just assuming that on the actual MBE they would tell you or at least strongly imply whether the person was bringing a negligence or a strict liability action. Some of the Barbri questions don't and then when you get to the answer explanations they pull the classic Barbri, "Well, A would be best for a strict liability action, but C would be best for a negligence action, so, you know, C is right."

clashjones87 wrote:

clashjones87 wrote:For UBE jurisdictions, do we need to know both common law and UPC for Wills or just UPC? Thank you

Please, someone?

UBE = MEE. Barbri MEE question answers discuss both common law and UPC. My lecturer taught both. I am going to go with both.

Stinson wrote:I'm sort of just assuming that on the actual MBE they would tell you or at least strongly imply whether the person was bringing a negligence or a strict liability action. Some of the Barbri questions don't and then when you get to the answer explanations they pull the classic Barbri, "Well, A would be best for a strict liability action, but C would be best for a negligence action, so, you know, C is right."

I don't think I've ever seen this? Every question I can think of they tell you on the facts that plaintiff is bringing on either a theory or negligence or strict liability or both. I get all bungled up when they bring in warnings on the product.


Kaiser did you do this half day or full day exam? Should I bother?

Should I even bother doing the MPQ2 mixed sets? I did a full simulated MBE from the S & T Emmanuels book the other day and felt decent about my raw score. But since I'm still in panic mode, curious if I should do it. Or should I just keep memorizing?

http://venusandmarsonadate.wordpress.co ... -bar-exam/

worth it

Glock wrote:

clashjones87 wrote:

clashjones87 wrote:For UBE jurisdictions, do we need to know both common law and UPC for Wills or just UPC? Thank you

Please, someone?

UBE = MEE. Barbri MEE question answers discuss both common law and UPC. My lecturer taught both. I am going to go with both.

That's what I'm seeing in my lecture notes too. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

Matteliszt wrote:

Stinson wrote:I'm sort of just assuming that on the actual MBE they would tell you or at least strongly imply whether the person was bringing a negligence or a strict liability action. Some of the Barbri questions don't and then when you get to the answer explanations they pull the classic Barbri, "Well, A would be best for a strict liability action, but C would be best for a negligence action, so, you know, C is right."

I don't think I've ever seen this? Every question I can think of they tell you on the facts that plaintiff is bringing on either a theory or negligence or strict liability or both. I get all bungled up when they bring in warnings on the product.


Kaiser did you do this half day or full day exam? Should I bother?

I did a bit of the half day. Was doing pretty crappy and got discouraged so I said screw it. That was before I did those 3 NCBE tests. If those are representative, then I'm not spending any more time on MBE.

kaiser wrote:

Matteliszt wrote:

Stinson wrote:I'm sort of just assuming that on the actual MBE they would tell you or at least strongly imply whether the person was bringing a negligence or a strict liability action. Some of the Barbri questions don't and then when you get to the answer explanations they pull the classic Barbri, "Well, A would be best for a strict liability action, but C would be best for a negligence action, so, you know, C is right."

I don't think I've ever seen this? Every question I can think of they tell you on the facts that plaintiff is bringing on either a theory or negligence or strict liability or both. I get all bungled up when they bring in warnings on the product.


Kaiser did you do this half day or full day exam? Should I bother?

I did a bit of the half day. Was doing pretty crappy and got discouraged so I said screw it. That was before I did those 3 NCBE tests. If those are representative, then I'm not spending any more time on MBE.

Are you just working on the 500000000 variations of Domestic Relations essays Barbri gave us then?

Matteliszt wrote:

kaiser wrote:

Matteliszt wrote:

Stinson wrote:I'm sort of just assuming that on the actual MBE they would tell you or at least strongly imply whether the person was bringing a negligence or a strict liability action. Some of the Barbri questions don't and then when you get to the answer explanations they pull the classic Barbri, "Well, A would be best for a strict liability action, but C would be best for a negligence action, so, you know, C is right."

I don't think I've ever seen this? Every question I can think of they tell you on the facts that plaintiff is bringing on either a theory or negligence or strict liability or both. I get all bungled up when they bring in warnings on the product.


Kaiser did you do this half day or full day exam? Should I bother?

I did a bit of the half day. Was doing pretty crappy and got discouraged so I said screw it. That was before I did those 3 NCBE tests. If those are representative, then I'm not spending any more time on MBE.

Are you just working on the 500000000 variations of Domestic Relations essays Barbri gave us then?

Yeah, doing a fair share of all the damn domestic relations essays (and wills, omg so many wills essays). Been focusing on domestic relations, corporations, and wills/trusts, since I feel like 2 of those will have an essay, or at least be major parts. Past a certain point, its the same issues over and over, so I feel a bit better now, since I was super behind on essays and NY material before today.

kaiser wrote:
Yeah, doing a fair share of all the damn domestic relations essays (and wills, omg so many wills essays). Been focusing on domestic relations, corporations, and wills/trusts, since I feel like 2 of those will have an essay, or at least be major parts. Past a certain point, its the same issues over and over, so I feel a bit better now, since I was super behind on essays and NY material before today.

I love when they give us a complicated factual Wills situation and then "Discuss."

Matteliszt wrote:

kaiser wrote:
Yeah, doing a fair share of all the damn domestic relations essays (and wills, omg so many wills essays). Been focusing on domestic relations, corporations, and wills/trusts, since I feel like 2 of those will have an essay, or at least be major parts. Past a certain point, its the same issues over and over, so I feel a bit better now, since I was super behind on essays and NY material before today.

I love when they give us a complicated factual Wills situation and then "Discuss."

Yeah, wills can be a bitch, but the practice is really helping since it ends up being the same issues over and over again. Its so rule-driven that, if you know the rule and just run it through, theres little to no discretion or tangential discussion to add. In so many essays, they have so much additional discussion on things I wouldn't even have considered (and oftentimes didn't even know). With wills, its just think of the rule, apply the rule, and see what the result is.

Its like, as long as you know elective share, ademption, anti-lapse, will execution requirements, and revocation issues, you have the vast majority of main topics down pat.

rnf1292 wrote:http://venusandmarsonadate.wordpress.co ... -bar-exam/

worth it

+1 to everything there. Seriously people, just double check to see if it's your own damn house before you steal from it/set it on fire/kill someone inside/make a sandwich.

kaiser wrote:
From everyone I spoke to, and from NCBE themselves, that is a highly representative test. And if anything, I'd say #2 was the most difficult of the 3. In other words, you are gonna destroy the MBE, and I wouldn't waste another second studying for that component.

Now I look like an elaborate flame and feel like an asshole.

"A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome whent he golfer..............stood a few yards behind the instructor and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.

If the instructor brings a battery action, will he recover?"

It is Barbri Torts question set 5 question 32. I picked yes b/c the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor (basing my answer on the theory that intent can transfer from tort to tort, e.g. from assault to battery). Barbri says the correct answer is No b/c the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

Why is Barbri right and why am I wrong?

mirodh wrote:"A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome whent he golfer..............stood a few yards behind the instructor and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.

If the instructor brings a battery action, will he recover?"

It is Barbri Torts question set 5 question 32. I picked yes b/c the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor (basing my answer on the theory that intent can transfer from tort to tort, e.g. from assault to battery). Barbri says the correct answer is No b/c the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

Why is Barbri right and why am I wrong?

To clarify, Barbri explanation did not mention intent transferring from assault to battery. I am trying to figure out if I have a misconception about how that particular rule works, or if there is something else I'm just missing.

This has probably been addressed, but who knows. Just a heads up to people freaking out about their scores on barbri materials. I just took one of the actual MBE 100 question sets available on the MBE website. I was consistently getting 60-65% on barbri question sets. Freaking 84% on the actual MBE. I've never gotten anywhere near that on barbri sets, not even the 1 and 2 sets from MPQ1. Its difficult to describe how much easier these actual MBE questions are.

mirodh wrote:

mirodh wrote:"A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome whent he golfer..............stood a few yards behind the instructor and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.

If the instructor brings a battery action, will he recover?"

It is Barbri Torts question set 5 question 32. I picked yes b/c the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor (basing my answer on the theory that intent can transfer from tort to tort, e.g. from assault to battery). Barbri says the correct answer is No b/c the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

Why is Barbri right and why am I wrong?

To clarify, Barbri explanation did not mention intent transferring from assault to battery. I am trying to figure out if I have a misconception about how that particular rule works, or if there is something else I'm just missing.

Nevermind, I think the answer is that the golfer did not intend for the instructor to see (did not have the intend for reasonable apprehension/assault). This seems shaky but at least I understand how they could have come to that answer. Sorry for the all-me-triple-post.

Matteliszt wrote:

Stinson wrote:I'm sort of just assuming that on the actual MBE they would tell you or at least strongly imply whether the person was bringing a negligence or a strict liability action. Some of the Barbri questions don't and then when you get to the answer explanations they pull the classic Barbri, "Well, A would be best for a strict liability action, but C would be best for a negligence action, so, you know, C is right."

I don't think I've ever seen this? Every question I can think of they tell you on the facts that plaintiff is bringing on either a theory or negligence or strict liability or both. I get all bungled up when they bring in warnings on the product.

I think some of Barbri's questions don't specify if it's a negligent or a strict liability claim in products liability. If I remember correctly, Guzman said if it doesn't specify then you should assume the product's liability claim is under a strict liability theory.

Outside of products liability cases, I think Guzman said that if it doesn't specify you should assume negligence.

mirodh wrote:"A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome whent he golfer..............stood a few yards behind the instructor and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him.

If the instructor brings a battery action, will he recover?"

It is Barbri Torts question set 5 question 32. I picked yes b/c the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor (basing my answer on the theory that intent can transfer from tort to tort, e.g. from assault to battery). Barbri says the correct answer is No b/c the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

Why is Barbri right and why am I wrong?

This is a tricky question upon first read, and I also got it wrong. But in hindsight, its clear.

Its all about intent. He didn't intend to cause a harmful/offensive bodily contact. Nor did he intent to cause apprehension of an imminent battery. So there is no intent to transfer when that club actually struck him. You need to have intended at least one or the other for it to be said that the intent transferred into the unexpected tort.

It would be completely different had the golfer been facing him, and he swung the club close to her face to scare her. Then, he would have intended an assault, with a battery resulting, and the intent would transfer. But what exactly did he "intend" when he swung the club behind her head?

I just randomly did 10 questions from the strategies and tactics book, and they were SIGNIFICANTLY easier. Like almost to the point where I had to stop myself for searching for something. Definitely going to do the first 100 for a confidence boost on monday.