California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
M2izzie
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby M2izzie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 10:56 pm

Tangerine Gleam wrote:
M2izzie wrote:Anyone else use the January 1st, 2009 exception the witnessing requirements of a validly attested will?


YES. The "clear and convincing evidence"/"substantial compliance" or whatever statute wasn't passed until 2009. I thought it didn't apply, because he signed the thing in 2000. BUT he died after 2009, so apparently the statute does apply (according to my friend).

Either way, I think we would have to get some points for spotting that. I had a notecard mentioning that the statute was passed in 2009; can't believe I remembered it.




Bingo. T has to die after 2009. This was the trick of the problem.

User avatar
nevdash
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:01 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby nevdash » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:13 pm

M2izzie wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:
M2izzie wrote:Anyone else use the January 1st, 2009 exception the witnessing requirements of a validly attested will?


YES. The "clear and convincing evidence"/"substantial compliance" or whatever statute wasn't passed until 2009. I thought it didn't apply, because he signed the thing in 2000. BUT he died after 2009, so apparently the statute does apply (according to my friend).

Either way, I think we would have to get some points for spotting that. I had a notecard mentioning that the statute was passed in 2009; can't believe I remembered it.




Bingo. T has to die after 2009. This was the trick of the problem.

Why was the clear and convincing standard even an issue? T clearly satisfied all the formalities. The dudes talking about "legal acknowledgement" on the previous page are just crazy; T showing his signature to the witnesses and saying "this is my signature" satisfies that requirement. The BarBri lecturer explicitly said so and used this exact fact pattern as an example.
Last edited by nevdash on Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:16 pm

Tangerine Gleam wrote:Does anyone else think it was mostly a remedies essay? I basically only talked about trespass to land (only a sentence on chattels/conversion). Lots of foreseeability analysis in the compensatory damages (each stated injury had a different degree of foreseeability, I thought). Also nominal damages, possible injunctive relief, revocation of the license, punitive damages for willful conduct (w/r/t the trees).

I regret not spending more time on trespass to chattels and conversion. But if I had the time, I still don't think I would have said very much about them (but mostly because I already did the damages analysis). My biggest regret is not mentioning transferred intent. Did not cross my mind at all at the time.

Did exactly this.

User avatar
nevdash
Posts: 409
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:01 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby nevdash » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:18 pm

Emma. wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:Does anyone else think it was mostly a remedies essay? I basically only talked about trespass to land (only a sentence on chattels/conversion). Lots of foreseeability analysis in the compensatory damages (each stated injury had a different degree of foreseeability, I thought). Also nominal damages, possible injunctive relief, revocation of the license, punitive damages for willful conduct (w/r/t the trees).

I regret not spending more time on trespass to chattels and conversion. But if I had the time, I still don't think I would have said very much about them (but mostly because I already did the damages analysis). My biggest regret is not mentioning transferred intent. Did not cross my mind at all at the time.

Did exactly this.

Same exact analysis, and also missed transferred intent. Where the hell was my brain?

her??
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:21 pm

nevdash wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:Does anyone else think it was mostly a remedies essay? I basically only talked about trespass to land (only a sentence on chattels/conversion). Lots of foreseeability analysis in the compensatory damages (each stated injury had a different degree of foreseeability, I thought). Also nominal damages, possible injunctive relief, revocation of the license, punitive damages for willful conduct (w/r/t the trees).

I regret not spending more time on trespass to chattels and conversion. But if I had the time, I still don't think I would have said very much about them (but mostly because I already did the damages analysis). My biggest regret is not mentioning transferred intent. Did not cross my mind at all at the time.

Did exactly this.

Same exact analysis, and also missed transferred intent. Where the hell was my brain?


im hoping it wasnt, and cant you not use transferred intent with trespass? i got creative and did intentional misrepresentation and a really short thing about IIPEA in addition to trespass to land/chattel/conversion/nuisance... :|

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1687
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:42 pm

Mroberts3 wrote:95% sure the will was valid. Both witnesses were jointly present to see T acknowledge his signature and knew that it was T's will. The failure to sign until the next day for one witness doesn't matter because it was still within T's lifetime. Interested other witness does not invalidate will (only raises presumption that her gift was undue influence).

Fucking shit, you're right. I'm going to kill myself and make it easy on everyone with my intestate estate (thankfully my loans will be discharged).

User avatar
courtneylove
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby courtneylove » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:53 pm

M2izzie wrote:Did anyone else get extra brownie point by analyzing by comparison that K's question with that Redding Pipe case from 1L? :lol:


hell yes! i dropped like 1000 words on that redding pipe analysis. couldn't remember the name of the case tho, just that it was about pipes.

UnfetteredDiscretion
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby UnfetteredDiscretion » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:54 pm

huckabees wrote:
mrpickles wrote:
huckabees wrote:Seriously, can anyone with bar essays please describe what a 45, 50, and 55 for a PT looks like? What do unfinished PTs get?

If you handwrite, you get away with murder. Is what I've seen. But the PT's do vary on 65 from year to year. Sometimes I look and I'm like THAT got a 65??? and then sometimes its "that ONLY got a 65?" - which leads me to believe they do discuss the difficulty of them in their grading calibration meetings.


LOL what is enough for a 50? :(

And yeah, I heard that hand writing in general is graded with much more leniency.


softest crashed for me and in my hand written essay first read = 65, second read =50. Thus I would not say there is any general rule as to hand written exams.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7667
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby worldtraveler » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:01 am

UnfetteredDiscretion wrote:
huckabees wrote:
mrpickles wrote:
huckabees wrote:Seriously, can anyone with bar essays please describe what a 45, 50, and 55 for a PT looks like? What do unfinished PTs get?

If you handwrite, you get away with murder. Is what I've seen. But the PT's do vary on 65 from year to year. Sometimes I look and I'm like THAT got a 65??? and then sometimes its "that ONLY got a 65?" - which leads me to believe they do discuss the difficulty of them in their grading calibration meetings.


LOL what is enough for a 50? :(

And yeah, I heard that hand writing in general is graded with much more leniency.


softest crashed for me and in my hand written essay first read = 65, second read =50. Thus I would not say there is any general rule as to hand written exams.


And there is the proof that the grading of this thing is incredibly arbitrary.

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:07 am

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:13 am

her?? wrote:
nevdash wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:Does anyone else think it was mostly a remedies essay? I basically only talked about trespass to land (only a sentence on chattels/conversion). Lots of foreseeability analysis in the compensatory damages (each stated injury had a different degree of foreseeability, I thought). Also nominal damages, possible injunctive relief, revocation of the license, punitive damages for willful conduct (w/r/t the trees).

I regret not spending more time on trespass to chattels and conversion. But if I had the time, I still don't think I would have said very much about them (but mostly because I already did the damages analysis). My biggest regret is not mentioning transferred intent. Did not cross my mind at all at the time.

Did exactly this.

Same exact analysis, and also missed transferred intent. Where the hell was my brain?


im hoping it wasnt, and cant you not use transferred intent with trespass? i got creative and did intentional misrepresentation and a really short thing about IIPEA in addition to trespass to land/chattel/conversion/nuisance... :|


Doesn't transferred intent apply to all intentional torts, except for IIED? I hope so, that's the rule I wrote.
Also, I got creative and did the intentional misrepresentation too. In addition to possible invalid consent to go on land due to fraud (if he knew he would never just go across it) (and plus obviously regular exceed scope of consent shit in there).
I wrote about Interference with Water Rights as a trash-in too. Why? Because fuck it, why not.

User avatar
Scribble
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 12:39 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Scribble » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:16 am

Hi party people.

Can't people who took the exam with accommodations theoretically read this/other threads and see the essay topics/MBE questions a day/day(s) before they face them on the exam? I think a lot of people who get accommodations take the same exam as standard test takers but take it over 6 days. Just curious, especially after reading some posts here about how some parts of the exam, like the PT, are potentially curved in a sense/relative difficulty factored in/whateva. I don't think it would make a difference really to anyones score, but looking back I feel that fear of the unknown on the bar is a rite of passage.

Another
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:16 pm

.

Postby Another » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:16 am

.
Last edited by Another on Fri Nov 29, 2013 5:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:20 am

UnfetteredDiscretion wrote:
huckabees wrote:
mrpickles wrote:
huckabees wrote:Seriously, can anyone with bar essays please describe what a 45, 50, and 55 for a PT looks like? What do unfinished PTs get?

If you handwrite, you get away with murder. Is what I've seen. But the PT's do vary on 65 from year to year. Sometimes I look and I'm like THAT got a 65??? and then sometimes its "that ONLY got a 65?" - which leads me to believe they do discuss the difficulty of them in their grading calibration meetings.


LOL what is enough for a 50? :(

And yeah, I heard that hand writing in general is graded with much more leniency.


softest crashed for me and in my hand written essay first read = 65, second read =50. Thus I would not say there is any general rule as to hand written exams.


Depends on whether 2nd read was if you scored just a bit shy of passing. Almost no one scores higher for the "second read" because they are looking for errors. Most tend to lose 30 points. Thus, I do not know why they even invest in a second read.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:28 am

hopkins23 wrote:Whatd you guys think of todays performance test? I talked about that two part relevancy test a lot, and spent not as much time doing prejudice analysis and really fleshing out those 8 testimonial portions. What did you guys do?

Im always scared i screwed up a PT because i focused on the wrong thing.


I fucked mine up but realized it with 30 mins left and wouldn't have time to fix it. I did mine like this. For the relevant part, I kind of grouped her entire testimony as "domestic abuse victims are likely to recant" into an umbrella topic for relevance, since the cases seemed to, but then thought that wasn't ideal. Then analyzed each separate proferred issue for prejudice. I combined 2 of them because I was running out of time and they seemed sufficiently similar enough, and I also made up one with 5 mins left from general knowledge on the topic I had gleaned in the last 3 hours from the library (I think I said it was admissible for some reason though didn't have an authority or cite).
Deleted my mini outline I put in light of someones post just above. Basically I did the 3 part analysis steps for relevance, then for prejudice went though each topic of testimony separately.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby GMVarun » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:45 am

I am having a mini-freakout. Did you guys get 4 separate emails regarding your upload? I have three, but did not get a fourth. And my Softtest isn't uploading anything right now. I am calling them to check but I have no idea what happened.

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:49 am

GMVarun wrote:I am having a mini-freakout. Did you guys get 4 separate emails regarding your upload? I have three, but did not get a fourth. And my Softtest isn't uploading anything right now. I am calling them to check but I have no idea what happened.


I have 4. I'd call ASAP. But first try checking your upload history in the softtest program. And/or also logging into the softtest website, should say there as well.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby GMVarun » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:51 am

Yikes, it looks like they are closed until tomorrow morning. How do you check your upload history?

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby GMVarun » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:54 am

Or how do you log onto the softtest website?

huckabees
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:56 am

GMVarun wrote:I am having a mini-freakout. Did you guys get 4 separate emails regarding your upload? I have three, but did not get a fourth. And my Softtest isn't uploading anything right now. I am calling them to check but I have no idea what happened.


Weird. Trying restarting and clicking on SofTest again and seeing what happens. I had some issues and then it finally uploaded.

GMVarun
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby GMVarun » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:02 am

huckabees wrote:
GMVarun wrote:I am having a mini-freakout. Did you guys get 4 separate emails regarding your upload? I have three, but did not get a fourth. And my Softtest isn't uploading anything right now. I am calling them to check but I have no idea what happened.


Weird. Trying restarting and clicking on SofTest again and seeing what happens. I had some issues and then it finally uploaded.


Ah thanks everyone. I have no idea why I didn't get the fourth email. If anyone has this issue, go to --LinkRemoved-- . Login. And you can find the file stored on your computer (or alternatively you can see the files you have already uploaded).

I actually had uploaded it already, but it just never sent me the email.

User avatar
Reinhardt
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:27 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:53 am

How teh fux does transferred intent apply to the torts exam?

mrpickles
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 1:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby mrpickles » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:25 am

Reinhardt wrote:How teh fux does transferred intent apply to the torts exam?

Transferred intent from trespass to land --> chattels, conversion

AntiHuman
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby AntiHuman » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:40 am

Pretty sure I failed...and the most annoying part is the 6 essays were very fair and were decent subjects...both PT's were annoying.

Deciding between 3 options:
-retake in february
-take the bar in another easy state-
-get real estate license or find another career

I just don't know if I can go through that brutal process again. I also don't know if I could ever get a 65 on a PT if those are the kind of PT's I'll be seeing in the future if I take the CA bar again.

cavalierattitude
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cavalierattitude » Fri Aug 02, 2013 2:52 am

mrpickles wrote:
her?? wrote:
nevdash wrote:
Emma. wrote:Does anyone else think it was mostly a remedies essay? I basically only talked about trespass to land (only a sentence on chattels/conversion). Lots of foreseeability analysis in the compensatory damages (each stated injury had a different degree of foreseeability, I thought). Also nominal damages, possible injunctive relief, revocation of the license, punitive damages for willful conduct (w/r/t the trees).

I regret not spending more time on trespass to chattels and conversion. But if I had the time, I still don't think I would have said very much about them (but mostly because I already did the damages analysis). My biggest regret is not mentioning transferred intent. Did not cross my mind at all at the time.

Did exactly this.

Same exact analysis, and also missed transferred intent. Where the hell was my brain?


im hoping it wasnt, and cant you not use transferred intent with trespass? i got creative and did intentional misrepresentation and a really short thing about IIPEA in addition to trespass to land/chattel/conversion/nuisance... :|


lol I completely neglected to do any analysis on foreseeability or any possible defenses of D. oh well. also I threw in nuisance too but FYI it's not. nuisance only applies when there is no trespass. nothing here said anything D was doing within the bounds of his plot was affecting P.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hikikomorist and 3 guests