California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
her??
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:57 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:50 pm

funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
neilu789 wrote:What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?


I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol



I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.


I think I put that the deed was recorded because I knew that the after-acquired thing didn't apply and the others sounded really wrong and thought that the deed being recorded at least raises a presumption that it was valid? right? I should know this if property is tested tomorrow...

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 10:50 pm

what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:51 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro


aren't easements real covenants or else equitable servitudes?!


Nope.


um, what? please explain. i guess i had this all wrong?

Isn't the land that has the easement on it the burdened estate and the neighboring property the benefiting estate? And then you run through your analysis.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:51 pm

softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


pretty sure I didn't have that one. musta been experimental.

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 10:52 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince 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.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


A regulatory taking is the equivalent of a zoning law. Not allowing you to do something with your prop that would normally expect to be able to do. A physical taking is like when the gov puts a power line under your house (i.e. a forced easement).


See, that's where its confusing. Is an easement a physical occupation (like a power line), or a restriction on alienation (like an order not to build on part of your land)? I'm guessing the former-- I wish I would of actually read the answer choices.
Last edited by TaipeiMort on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
funkyturds
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:32 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby funkyturds » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:52 pm

huckabees wrote:
funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
neilu789 wrote:What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?


I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol



I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.


I said recordation bc that presumes delivery. The other answers had nothing to do with the question? Not that recordation was all that great of an answer


Recording is the only other answer that makes any sense. I almost went with it but then thought 'hey maybe this rule i don't know applies better to these weird facts than recording.'

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 10:52 pm

softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put that it violates the BER.

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 10:52 pm

softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question

I said best evidence. Think it was wrong notes say must be legally operative doc.
Last edited by usuaggie on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby huckabees » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:53 pm

softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put absence of entry in biz records. That one was actually a typical MBE question ::gasp:: Like we had any of those today.

Sucks for me if experimental

Edit: actually I have no idea
Last edited by huckabees on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:53 pm

randomdandom wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
randomdandom wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:This is right, but dood's asking about easements, not covenants bro


aren't easements real covenants or else equitable servitudes?!


Nope.


um, what? please explain. i guess i had this all wrong?

Isn't the land that has the easement on it the burdened estate and the neighboring property the benefiting estate? And then you run through your analysis.


an easement is a nonpossessory grant to use someone's property, but convenants/servitudes are agreements to do or not do something regarding property (i hope!)

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 10:53 pm

randomdandom wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


pretty sure I didn't have that one. musta been experimental.


Plaintiff sued stock broker for not executing trades. Ask custodian of broker to show records of instructions to execute trades and the absence of plaintiff's instructions. But only wants broker to summarize that instructions aren't there.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:53 pm

huckabees wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put absence of entry in biz records. That one was actually a typical MBE question ::gasp:: Like we had any of those today.

Sucks for me if experimental


oh snap, i might of had that one - didn't struggle too much and went with absence of biz records.

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 10:54 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put that it violates the BER.


I think it was experimental, but my question was if call logs exception or whatever they called it are equal to business records exception?
Last edited by TaipeiMort on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thrillerjesus
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:43 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby thrillerjesus » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:54 pm

JDCA2012 wrote:
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...


Was that the Free Exercise claim? If so, I think the answer was actually rational basis because it was a law of general applicability, not an intentional interference with religious practice.
Last edited by thrillerjesus on Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 10:54 pm

huckabees wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put absence of entry in biz records. That one was actually a typical MBE question ::gasp:: Like we had any of those today.

Sucks for me if experimental

Edit: actually I have no idea


yeah i put this too. not BER

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:54 pm

funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:
neilu789 wrote:What about that schmuck who had the deed in his hand and everyone told him to just write his name on it, but he refused and the grantor died?


I had no clue but I said A. Don't remember what it was. Not because he recorded, not because he was an agent, not because of a future interest turning to FSA. The other one lol



I put this too, but I think it's wrong. A was something about after-acquired title doctrine. According to wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the question.


Isn't that where someone deeds away something they don't have, then later they actually do get it by devise or something, and then the person they gave the "fraud" deed to can actually come get the land from them, in equity?
That's why I didn't choose that one, it was about the only one I knew wasn't it. The agency one I was like uhhh is the court here trying to like make stuff up to make him a de facto agent since he directed him to write his name? I don't even know, that Q sucked

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 10:54 pm

jmhendri wrote:
Fresh Prince 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.


According to my outline:

b. Decreasing economic value → balancing test. No taking if they leave an economically viable use for the property. The court considers (1) impact of regulation on the claimant and (2) whether the regulation substantially interferes with distinct, investment-backed expectations of the claimant.


It wasn't a taking, but the set-off invoked the "decreasing economic value" balancing test.


A regulatory taking is the equivalent of a zoning law. Not allowing you to do something with your prop that would normally expect to be able to do. A physical taking is like when the gov puts a power line under your house (i.e. a forced easement).


This was my understanding of this as well. But FreshPrince seems pretty sure of it, so idk. For me, a gov't ordering you to clear your land to allow for pedestrians to walk across it all day, seemed like physical taking, but yeah, idk.

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 10:55 pm

huckabees wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put absence of entry in biz records. That one was actually a typical MBE question ::gasp:: Like we had any of those today.

Sucks for me if experimental


That would be true if they were admitting the actual business records. However, they just wanted the custodian of the records to come up and testify as to the absence. That's when BER came in IMO.

User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7664
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby worldtraveler » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:55 pm

I don't remember anything about embryos, just an abortion one.

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 10:55 pm

Anybody have the gang member rob a guy of his watch but had him hand it to his friend gang member? Expiramental for sure.

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 10:56 pm

what about the forged deed, was that void?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:56 pm

thrillerjesus wrote:
JDCA2012 wrote:
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...


Was that the Free Exercise claim? If so, I think the answer was actually rational basis because it was a law of general applicability, not an intentional interference with religious practice.


Yeah, but general applicability of the right to reproduction? Doesn't matter, subt due process of a fund right = SS

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby her?? » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:56 pm

usuaggie wrote:Anybody have the gang member rob a guy of his watch but had him hand it to his friend gang member? Expiramental for sure.


I did NOT have this either! I wonder which ones of mine were experimental

somethingdemure
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:28 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby somethingdemure » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:57 pm

Fresh Prince wrote:
huckabees wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question


I put absence of entry in biz records. That one was actually a typical MBE question ::gasp:: Like we had any of those today.

Sucks for me if experimental


That would be true if they were admitting the actual business records. However, they just wanted the custodian of the records to come up and testify as to the absence. That's when BER came in IMO.


The thing is it was a log - gives you the idea of some big book. So BER says admit the book. But absence of record seems fully applicable too.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:57 pm

usuaggie wrote:
softey wrote:what was the right answer to the stock broker call log question

I said best evidence


How sure are you on this? I know business records are self-authenticating. I thought an affidavit or testimony from a custodian was sufficient.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests