BarBri Thread: People taking Barbri for July 2013 exam

[Joe Quincy]

Evidence Question here:

Say you're in a civil case for a car accident tort and a driver (not sued, but drove for the company who is being sued) testifies that he was driving properly and not negligently at the time of the accident. If the plaintiff's attorney wants to inquire on cross about a conviction for reckless driving, a misdemeanor, he cannot, correct? This is not proper impeachment because it is not probative of truthfulness correct?

So the P's attorney can't use that past conviction to say well you're a liar and bad driver?

Right. On the other hand, he could use it to impeach on cross if the driver says "I'm a perfectly safe driver, why I've never had so much as a speeding ticket, much less ever driven recklessly."

Correct, except that would probably be a collateral matter and 403 would keep it out.

Wouldnt the driver not be able to testify to himself being a perfectly safe driver because that is character evidence, which is not permitted in civil cases unless its a "character at issue" case?

Officially yes. Unofficially, it happens. Especially because almost always, you'd sue him and the employer so his driving history would be at issue (as to the company).

[RodneyBoonfield]

I assume you mean "for the purposes of the bar exam" by "officially"

[Joe Quincy]

I assume you mean "for the purposes of the bar exam" by "officially"

Yes but only if the driver himself was the only party. If it is a negligent entrustment case, his character is an issue and may come in.

[kaiser]

Too confusing for what should have been a simply hypo

[MBZags]

44 on the SFE!

pretty sure I'm fucked. I usually get in the 60s on BarBri materials. Don't have the heart to go over it. Panic is setting in..

You should be fine. Those questions are absurd, and some of it is stuff never even mentioned in the lectures. It's just another instance of Barbri trolling the shit out of us.

[EijiMiyake]

Anyone else a little worried about the MPT? It's going to be a bit of a time crunch, especially after a full day of essays before that.

[knickfan]

44 on the SFE!

pretty sure I'm fucked. I usually get in the 60s on BarBri materials. Don't have the heart to go over it. Panic is setting in..

You should be fine. Those questions are absurd, and some of it is stuff never even mentioned in the lectures. It's just another instance of Barbri trolling the shit out of us.

I really hate BarBri. Unnecessarily mind fucking me this whole summer. I found my 1st white hair this morning- I blame them.

[nyknicks]

I really hate BarBri. Unnecessarily mind fucking me this whole summer. I found my 1st white hair this morning- I blame them.

Change your name i will kick your ass chump.

[knickfan]

I really hate BarBri. Unnecessarily mind fucking me this whole summer. I found my 1st white hair this morning- I blame them.

Change your name i will kick your ass chump.

haha never!

[MBZags]

Powers of Appointment and RAP in NY - should I even bother memorizing this? Lecturer subordinated it, but I forget if she said it was likely to be tested.

[phonepro]

The same answer to question 2 on the July 2013 exam incorrectly applies the DJ standard in NY, correct? Seems like the student applied the federal rule of each crime having an element the other does not.

My analysis would have precluded prosecution for the murder under transaction or occurrence test. Am i wrong?

thanks y'all

[phonepro]

Powers of Appointment and RAP in NY - should I even bother memorizing this? Lecturer subordinated it, but I forget if she said it was likely to be tested.

Usually tested once every 10 years; was tested in winter 13. barbri said know it just in case; pieper said it wont be on the exam. I don't know it and am hoping for the best.

[kaiser]

Powers of Appointment and RAP in NY - should I even bother memorizing this? Lecturer subordinated it, but I forget if she said it was likely to be tested.

Usually tested once every 10 years; was tested in winter 13. barbri said know it just in case; pieper said it wont be on the exam. I don't know it and am hoping for the best.

I don't know it. Never got around to learning it. Given that its tested once every decade or so, and it just happened to be on last exam, almost certainly not going to see it. If you can hit the main wills topics coherently, you would be fine for like 75% of the essay, and can just make up some rule for the last part, and still likely get an above average answer if you really know your stuff in the other wills areas.

[MBZags]

Powers of Appointment and RAP in NY - should I even bother memorizing this? Lecturer subordinated it, but I forget if she said it was likely to be tested.

Usually tested once every 10 years; was tested in winter 13. barbri said know it just in case; pieper said it wont be on the exam. I don't know it and am hoping for the best.

I don't know it. Never got around to learning it. Given that its tested once every decade or so, and it just happened to be on last exam, almost certainly not going to see it. If you can hit the main wills topics coherently, you would be fine for like 75% of the essay, and can just make up some rule for the last part, and still likely get an above average answer if you really know your stuff in the other wills areas.

Awesome, thanks to the both of you.

[PitchO20]

I think I'm done studying. Maybe I'll go over my contract flashcards on the plane.

Anxiety starting to set in a bit. Last two miserable fucking months building up to this stupid test.

[Matteliszt]

I think I'm done studying. Maybe I'll go over my contract flashcards on the plane.

Anxiety starting to set in a bit. Last two miserable fucking months building up to this stupid test.

You're going to do great dude. We all are. Good luck everyone and thanks for all the help!!!

[PitchO20]

I think I'm done studying. Maybe I'll go over my contract flashcards on the plane.

Anxiety starting to set in a bit. Last two miserable fucking months building up to this stupid test.

You're going to do great dude. We all are. Good luck everyone and thanks for all the help!!!

Thanks man. I know I've put the time in, as have pretty much all the people I've encountered here at TLS. Good luck to everyone, especially the NY people. I think the TLS commentariat are collectively going to destroy this exam.

[tfer2222]

I think I'm done studying. Maybe I'll go over my contract flashcards on the plane.

Anxiety starting to set in a bit. Last two miserable fucking months building up to this stupid test.

I've been feeling generally calm but I just got to Buffalo and reality is setting in and I'm starting to feel really anxious.

Also literally everyone asks me "are you here for the Bar exam?" Yes. Stop reminding me.

I'm worrying I didn't study distinctions enough and that essays are gonna nab me for some random NY shit I never learned. Also I'm
Worried I didn't write out enough essays. Generally having lots of potentially irrational concerns and internal freak outs right now.

[Matteliszt]

I think I'm done studying. Maybe I'll go over my contract flashcards on the plane.

Anxiety starting to set in a bit. Last two miserable fucking months building up to this stupid test.

You're going to do great dude. We all are. Good luck everyone and thanks for all the help!!!

Thanks man. I know I've put the time in, as have pretty much all the people I've encountered here at TLS. Good luck to everyone, especially the NY people. I think the TLS commentariat are collectively going to destroy this exam.

For sure, the collective intelligence, work ethic, and helpfulness in this thread has been so helpful and inspiring to me. Everyone is going to do great


Tf, you just gotta relax man. You've done all you can. You know the material. You got it. I'm boarding my plane to Buffalo now, see you guys on the otherside!

[bgdddymtty]

44 on the SFE!

pretty sure I'm fucked. I usually get in the 60s on BarBri materials. Don't have the heart to go over it. Panic is setting in..

You should be fine. Those questions are absurd, and some of it is stuff never even mentioned in the lectures. It's just another instance of Barbri trolling the shit out of us.

I don't know about that. Sure, those questions were on the hard side, but 44 is pretty darn low. Unless you're crushing the easier sets (and maybe even if you are), I'd suggest spending a significant portion of the time you have remaining on reviewing MBE stuff.

[conwaystern]

Can someone clarify something for me that I really should know by now?

In Torts, can you establish negligence per se showing breach of traffic laws (e.g., crossing double yellow)? I have written in my notes that it has to be a criminal statute (i.e., not traffic violations), but I seem to remember several practice questions suggesting crossing a double yellow line or other traffic violations might be negligence per se.

Thanks.

Its supposed to be a statute or ordinance that provides for criminal penalties. They aren't going to give you a statute where you have to guess whether or not it has such penalties. If it didn't have criminal penalties, they would have to tell you.

This is true, but the motor vehicle code nearly always counts so the double yellow example is doable. If its in the traffic code and you can be fined, it counts so long as the other requirements are met. E.g. not a headlight violation during daytime, not an expired license plate, etc.

Not entirely true. Have to look through the elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages.

Always check to make sure that the breach of some duty was foreseeable by the alleged negligent party. Having a heart attack and crossing over the double yellow does not count, even with a motor vehicle code.

[kaiser]

I'm happy I'm not going to Albany until tomorrow. Apparently all my friends are coming across is stressed law students with their study books in hand. I've enjoyed studying at home, since I get out of the pressure cooker, and away from the infectious stress of others. Right back into the pit of despair tomorrow when I get to Albany.

Getting my suitcase packed, and my things ready. Its definitely real now, and I need to calm myself down a bit.

[kaiser]

Can someone clarify something for me that I really should know by now?

In Torts, can you establish negligence per se showing breach of traffic laws (e.g., crossing double yellow)? I have written in my notes that it has to be a criminal statute (i.e., not traffic violations), but I seem to remember several practice questions suggesting crossing a double yellow line or other traffic violations might be negligence per se.

Thanks.

Its supposed to be a statute or ordinance that provides for criminal penalties. They aren't going to give you a statute where you have to guess whether or not it has such penalties. If it didn't have criminal penalties, they would have to tell you.

This is true, but the motor vehicle code nearly always counts so the double yellow example is doable. If its in the traffic code and you can be fined, it counts so long as the other requirements are met. E.g. not a headlight violation during daytime, not an expired license plate, etc.

Not entirely true. Have to look through the elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages.

Always check to make sure that the breach of some duty was foreseeable by the alleged negligent party. Having a heart attack and crossing over the double yellow does not count, even with a motor vehicle code.

That isn't what we were talking about. The initial question was how do you know whether or not a statute is one that even qualifies for negligence per se in the first place (i.e. whether it even provides for criminal penalties).

[conwaystern]

That isn't what we were talking about. The initial question was how do you know whether or not a statute is one that even qualifies for negligence per se in the first place (i.e. whether it even provides for criminal penalties).

If the statute is designed to prevent whatever the breach was, i.e. not crossing the double yellow is designed to prevent car collisions.

I dunno, my brain's fried to shit.

[blong4133]

Anyone else a little worried about the MPT? It's going to be a bit of a time crunch, especially after a full day of essays before that.

I am. I just constantly feel like I'm rushing myself through it and not thoroughly analyzing facts/being able to think about how I want to write it. And I took a ton of writing classes in school and had other extracurriculars where I did a lot of "practical" writing. But these things definitely have me worried.