California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:28 pm

Reinhardt wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
Tangerine Gleam wrote:Why so sure re: no Civ Pro or CA Evidence?


I think there will be Ev. Civ pro would be a dick move, just because it's been tested twice in a row and it's never been tested three time in a row.


So we're thinking the bar examiners aren't capable of dick moves, eh.


I think there might be Ev, but no CA ev. The examiners have already busted out CA distinctions in two essays. I don't think they will on Ev.

User avatar
rorystewart
Posts: 87
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:25 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby rorystewart » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:28 pm

Reinhardt wrote:PT - B will probably have us as legislative aides. A state senator will give us a copy of the Magna Carta, an article from Guns & Ammo, and flyer for a local mattress sale and tell us to draft a new Columbia state constitution


lol

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:29 pm

her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:31 pm

existenz wrote:
jmhendri wrote:
AMCD wrote:I thought thought the clerk just walked into the back room to get the expensive bottle of wine -- no force, suggestion of forced movement or involunariness of any sort I thought. He then locked the clerk inside, after following him there.
Chose larceny and false imprisonment.


I feel much better about this choice now than I did at the time.

Just looked at the CMR and saw that kidnapping requires "concealment in a secret place." I think the place in the Q was not a secret place so false imprisonment it is.

I also picked larceny.


im pretty sure kidnapping also requires asportation. in which case, definitely no kidnapping.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:31 pm

Emma. wrote:
her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.

Two different questions

Built building encroaching on public easement that wasn't used; I said still usable
Q on farmers: said its a taking of any use

User avatar
softey
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby softey » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:33 pm

felt like i was guessing on every question

ben bernanke
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:01 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby ben bernanke » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:33 pm

Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Emma. » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:33 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Emma. wrote:
her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.

Two different questions

Built building encroaching on public easement that wasn't used; I said still usable
Q on farmers: said its a taking of any use


Yeah, I agree about the building. A court isn't going to order a building torn down just because it encroaches 1 foot into an easement and doesn't affect the use of that easement.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:34 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Emma. wrote:
her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.

Two different questions

Q on farmers: said its a taking of any use


I think both are right-- it was a regulatory taking standard, and the easement couldn't be abandonment because abandonment requires an affirmative act. The other two answers were wrong I think but don't remember them.
Last edited by TaipeiMort on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:34 pm

usuaggie wrote:
Emma. wrote:
her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.

Two different questions

Built building encroaching on public easement that wasn't used; I said still usable
Q on farmers: said its a taking of any use


To be a taking, it must deprive the owner of the entire value of the land. Like that case from NY with the cable company - it was a taking and it wasn't because attaching the cable to the apartments meant that the point of attachment was now worthless. It was, iirc, because they were requiring you to allow the cable to benefit the public.

I think that person who referenced a scalia decision is correct.

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:35 pm

her?? wrote:I talked to someone at a different test site that had a question about a couple that wanted to have a baby but some law about embryos was burdening religion or something?? I 100% did not have that question on my exam.

Did you see these questions?

1. Some guy waiving his right to counsel but said he would accept fancy criminal lawyer at courts expense
2. tenant and landlord orally agreed that tenant would buy property and improved it and the landlord sold it to someone else
3. Multiple questions relating to grand jury proceedings, and one about a sentencing hearing
4. Federal law about immigration regulation/stopping vehicles but there was a long tradition of federal/state working together
5. I remember two defamation questions, I think both were in employment contexts

oh god there are so many more I cannot adequately describe. I had many narrowed down to two choices and feel like it is possible that I made the wrong choice for each of them! ahhh!


Yeah I had the embryos. Damn. I wish that was a real one/not experimental. Easy points, subst due process on fundamental right to have artificial insemination to have a baby, right? Right?! Or how are we interpreting the fund right to have babies now...

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:36 pm

ben bernanke wrote:Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?


no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:37 pm

Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.
Last edited by jmhendri on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

spartjdawg
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 8:28 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:37 pm

I had lots of C's to start out the afternoon. Like half of the first twenty.... does that sound incredibly wrong?

neilu789
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:39 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby neilu789 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:37 pm

........
Last edited by neilu789 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:38 pm

What was the answer to the one where the developer had a covenant for single family homes and they built an apartment building. I put he no longer had a property right in the area, but should have chose A (the answer with the weird word I had never heard of before-- pat or pad or something)

randomdandom
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 11:20 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:38 pm

jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


didn't it involve a new regulation that required 5 foot offsets off the road??

ben bernanke
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:01 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby ben bernanke » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:38 pm

randomdandom wrote:
ben bernanke wrote:Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?


no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.


Wait, what? I thought notice WAS required for covenants (intent, touch and concern, privities, notice)

JDCA2012
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 9:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:38 pm

Emma. wrote:
her?? wrote:
huckabees wrote:Encroachment on an easement previously granted?



is that the one that had an answer of it being usable? i think i put that though i don't know what law suggests that. there was another about a guy that expressly granted an easement, then bought back the property (so it merged and went away) then resold that part of the lot and then died and the son i think built a fence and another property owner offered an easement at a price, and there was a takings question about a setback too


The answer to that fucking takings question better be that it required the farmers to allow the hikers on their land. Scalia said straight up that a forced easement was a per se taking in some case I read in law school.


I said per se taking because public was going on his land.
But I also got completely fucked up on this, because I think it was July 2010 essays about when 10 acres of a 100 acre lot were taken in their entirety? or partially? or how do you analyze that taking? Anyway, the model answers had completely fucking different interpretations of how the takings clause plays out. So that came in my head and I was like, shit, I don't know.

Also re: the fence and easement one. Fuck. I couldn't decide between trespass because he had to go on his land to do it, or that he was privileged. I went with privileged for fucking with his easement? I don't know. I can't even remember.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:39 pm

spartjdawg wrote:I had lots of C's to start out the afternoon. Like half of the first twenty.... does that sound incredibly wrong?


No one knows because our questions were in different orders and had different test questions.

Foosters Galore
Posts: 305
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:15 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:39 pm

Can someone quickly, just in case, explain to me the rules for what happens in a land k where the k has more land than the actual property, and vice versa? Much appreciated

User avatar
jmhendri
Posts: 589
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 8:33 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby jmhendri » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:39 pm

randomdandom wrote:
jmhendri wrote:Taking of any use is the analysis for regulatory takings. I think the "allowing people access" answer indicated more of a physical taking. But I'm not sure about that one.


didn't it involve a new regulation that required 5 foot offsets off the road??


Was it? I thought the word easement was in there.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:39 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:What was the answer to the one where the developer had a covenant for single family homes and they built an apartment building. I put he no longer had a property right in the area, but should have chose A (the answer with the weird word I had never heard of before-- pat or pad or something)


You were right. Plat was a trick.

User avatar
Old Gregg
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:26 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:40 pm

randomdandom wrote:
ben bernanke wrote:Is notice required for the burden of an easement to run?


no, the burden of a covenant runs without notice.


Burden of easement does not run to BFPs.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:40 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:What was the answer to the one where the developer had a covenant for single family homes and they built an apartment building. I put he no longer had a property right in the area, but should have chose A (the answer with the weird word I had never heard of before-- pat or pad or something)

Put the same as you




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ChristineBaskets, Egzon, lawman84, QuentonCassidy and 4 guests