California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread Forum
- a male human
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Well, the trial court said the lawyer didn't bring up objections that could have kept out certain evidence or something. Then the Q asked what else was needed. It was down to whether D could show [a reasonable probability / C&C evidence] that result would have been different but for the unprofessional errors.huckabees wrote:Yeah, I am so tired I cannot even figure out the answer re: ineffective assistance of counsel by googling. It's "but for" but don't think that was a choice?a male human wrote:AM was def harder than PM for me. I actually had sufficient time to check over my answers.
And WTF at some of the questions. It's pure memorization. Like the one about ineffective assistance of counsel--I was stuck between reasonable and C&C (went with reasonable as my gut choice). Or maybe both were wrong. Then again that question about the promise to pay the $200 option fee seemed to be about reasoning, but I wasted so much time before picking D (enforceable because of promise to pay). And there were a shitload of Ds and As on my answer sheet, too, 5 in a row sometimes.
This administration has been awful. All my law-related standardized tests have been, including the 2010 June LSAT (see avatar for dinos; yes, I will continue to whine about them). If anyone has given up already, perhaps you could intentionally drive the average lower for the rest of us
Or we can all take solace in the possibility that the next administration won't be as hard.
Looking at my notes, I was right in choosing reasonable probability (unless one of the other choices A/D was right). That's one crim pro question I got. There was that one question where the driver and passenger was ordered out of the car, and the passenger got patted down. Wasn't sure about that at all, just put that there was no interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.
- El_Sol
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:00 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
This thread makes me feel better. After the exam I thought it was me. MBE was so unfair.
-
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Oh I said that was a violation as the soft thing couldn't have been a weapona male human wrote:Well, the trial court said the lawyer didn't bring up objections that could have kept out certain evidence or something. Then the Q asked what else was needed. It was down to whether D could show [a reasonable probability / C&C evidence] that result would have been different but for the unprofessional errors.huckabees wrote:Yeah, I am so tired I cannot even figure out the answer re: ineffective assistance of counsel by googling. It's "but for" but don't think that was a choice?a male human wrote:AM was def harder than PM for me. I actually had sufficient time to check over my answers.
And WTF at some of the questions. It's pure memorization. Like the one about ineffective assistance of counsel--I was stuck between reasonable and C&C (went with reasonable as my gut choice). Or maybe both were wrong. Then again that question about the promise to pay the $200 option fee seemed to be about reasoning, but I wasted so much time before picking D (enforceable because of promise to pay). And there were a shitload of Ds and As on my answer sheet, too, 5 in a row sometimes.
This administration has been awful. All my law-related standardized tests have been, including the 2010 June LSAT (see avatar for dinos; yes, I will continue to whine about them). If anyone has given up already, perhaps you could intentionally drive the average lower for the rest of us
Or we can all take solace in the possibility that the next administration won't be as hard.
Looking at my notes, I was right in choosing reasonable probability (unless one of the other choices A/D was right). That's one crim pro question I got. There was that one question where the driver and passenger was ordered out of the car, and the passenger got patted down. Wasn't sure about that at all, just put that there was no interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.
Another question on crim pro was police potentially lying about warrant and then finding drugs in D's apt
I was dying by the end and think I even missed the Ks question about whether sending out letter was sufficient acceptance. Also, another Ks question on taking soil sample after they shook hands to certain terms of a deal? Some requirements/output Ks questions I was less ready for as well.
Last edited by huckabees on Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
a male human wrote:Well, the trial court said the lawyer didn't bring up objections that could have kept out certain evidence or something. Then the Q asked what else was needed. It was down to whether D could show [a reasonable probability / C&C evidence] that result would have been different but for the unprofessional errors.huckabees wrote:Yeah, I am so tired I cannot even figure out the answer re: ineffective assistance of counsel by googling. It's "but for" but don't think that was a choice?a male human wrote:AM was def harder than PM for me. I actually had sufficient time to check over my answers.
And WTF at some of the questions. It's pure memorization. Like the one about ineffective assistance of counsel--I was stuck between reasonable and C&C (went with reasonable as my gut choice). Or maybe both were wrong. Then again that question about the promise to pay the $200 option fee seemed to be about reasoning, but I wasted so much time before picking D (enforceable because of promise to pay). And there were a shitload of Ds and As on my answer sheet, too, 5 in a row sometimes.
This administration has been awful. All my law-related standardized tests have been, including the 2010 June LSAT (see avatar for dinos; yes, I will continue to whine about them). If anyone has given up already, perhaps you could intentionally drive the average lower for the rest of us
Or we can all take solace in the possibility that the next administration won't be as hard.
Looking at my notes, I was right in choosing reasonable probability (unless one of the other choices A/D was right). That's one crim pro question I got. There was that one question where the driver and passenger was ordered out of the car, and the passenger got patted down. Wasn't sure about that at all, just put that there was no interrogation within the meaning of Miranda.
Shit. I put C&C because I remembered that was the harmless error standard in Wills when a will fails because of an interested witness. Bad guess.
- jmhendri
- Posts: 589
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
A promise to perform a legal detriment is pretty much always valid consideration I think.JDCA2012 wrote:Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.
-
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
- Emma.
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
- a male human
- Posts: 2233
- Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
When did we even learn this shitEmma. wrote:No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
Man, I def got at least one of the mortgage questions wrong because I thought "subject to" was "assumed" and let the poor buyer take the fall for the deficiency judgment
- TaipeiMort
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Full faith and credit requires jurisdiction, which the state didn't have.huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Emma.
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
When the two UChicago kids in this thread give you the same answer, it MUST be right.TaipeiMort wrote:Full faith and credit requires jurisdiction, which the state didn't have.huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
So, I think I had a purely Civ Pro MBE question disguised as a tort. Thinking it was one of the ten experimentals, especially in light of the fact that Civ Pro will be the 7th MBE subject starting 2015.
The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?
The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
But it was to keep the offer open? I mean if he tendered the 200, no problem, but he didn't. SO i was like uh. he promised to pay to keep it open? but didnt? can you have a separate contract based on a promise to pay consideration for keeping an offer open for an option for a contract?jmhendri wrote:A promise to perform a legal detriment is pretty much always valid consideration I think.JDCA2012 wrote:Is a promise to pay consideration for option in future = option K? I said no...but I had also never seen that scenario come up before. As per a lot of the test. Fuck.
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Oh don't tell me that was con law!!
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Emma.
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
See directly above. It was a ConLaw FFC question.Gloriaha wrote:So, I think I had a purely Civ Pro MBE question disguised as a tort. Thinking it was one of the ten experimentals, especially in light of the fact that Civ Pro will be the 7th MBE subject starting 2015.
The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?
-
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Yeah, that sounds right. I over-thought it because for some reason, I was thinking that the court might have jurisdiction over the person but the facts were insufficient to tell or something. But that's the only answer that made sense. Hating self at momenthopkins23 wrote:I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT!Emma. wrote:No full faith and credit unless the court had proper jurisdiction over the case.huckabees wrote:What was up with that question where P sued D in a different jurisdiction after statute of limitations ran out?
(because I chose that too).
-
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:10 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Shrug, I reached the opposite conclusion (defendant waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by defaulting so the judgment in State B is valid even if it shouldn't have been able to exercise jurisdiction and can be enforced in State A under the FFC). Oh well.
-
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Yeah I couldn't decide if it was a civ pro experimental or a con law full faith and credit QGloriaha wrote:So, I think I had a purely Civ Pro MBE question disguised as a tort. Thinking it was one of the ten experimentals, especially in light of the fact that Civ Pro will be the 7th MBE subject starting 2015.
The question involved a a suit for negligence occurring in state A, where P and D both resided, but the statute of limitations had run on P's cause of action in state A. So, P moved to a different state that had a longer SoL and filed there. D never filed an answer. P obtained a judgment, D never appealed. P takes judgment back to state A to enforce. One answer choice was lack of personal jx, two answer choices were about the SoLs, and fourth answer choice was about failure to appeal. So yeah, civ pro wtf?
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:51 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
so...how exactly am I supposed to find the energy to review tonight for tmr's race when I seriously can't stop thinking how I've alraedy failed this Bar exam...
so depressed...words of encouragement?
so depressed...words of encouragement?
-
- Posts: 322
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 11:38 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
Question on best reason to object when W was shown P's complaint and "remembered"?
Last edited by huckabees on Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Old Gregg
- Posts: 5409
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm
Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread
same here. jsut need energy.vacations wrote:so...how exactly am I supposed to find the energy to review tonight for tmr's race when I seriously can't stop thinking how I've alraedy failed this Bar exam...
so depressed...words of encouragement?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login