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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:02 am

What about that one year contract with the doctor and him being fired for being shitty, but doctor presented objective evidence that he's not shitty.

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby a male human » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:03 am

Can intoxication be a defense that mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter?

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:04 am

a male human wrote:Can intoxication be a defense that mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter?

No.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:05 am

What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:06 am

usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


I put that it woudn't have prevented it from happening (because the patient would still have ocnsented to the procedure/reasonable patient or wahtever could reasonably have still consented to the procedure witht hat full disclosure).

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 12:08 am

usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


Fuuck. There's like an infinity of questions I'm totally unsure about. The hits just keep on comin.

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:10 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


I put that it woudn't have prevented it from happening (because the patient would still have ocnsented to the procedure/reasonable patient or wahtever could reasonably have still consented to the procedure witht hat full disclosure).



+1. The failure to disclose did not cause the harm.

There was a Barbri practice question exactly like this one.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby funkyturds » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:10 am

usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


fuck, forgot about this one. i put down couldn't prove that more disclosure would've prevented injury or something like that, reasoning the more limited disclosure wasn't a but for cause--would've consented to the operation with the more complete disclosure about the 25% chance of a bent finger either way.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:10 am

funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


fuck, forgot about this one. i put down couldn't prove that more disclosure would've prevented injury or something like that, reasoning the more limited disclosure wasn't a but for cause--would've consented to the operation with the more complete disclosure about the 25% chance of a bent finger either way.


yessssss

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby randomdandom » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:11 am

a male human wrote:Can intoxication be a defense that mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter?


on a related note, involuntary intoxication as a defense to murder is analyzed under the various insanity tests.

SLShopeful
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:00 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby SLShopeful » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:12 am

doc disclosed 25% chance of loss of use of entire hand... P consented despite that risk so no way he woulda turned down the operation had doc told him about the 25% chance of a slight cosmetic issue

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:13 am

we might actually get through all 200 questions tonight...

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Foosters Galore » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:14 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:But reasonableness of disclosure is measured by what the average patient would want to know. I thought it was unclear whether he would have still consented.


I for some reason thought that consent decisions were never left up to the Dr's discretion. Like even if most people would gladly consent, doesnt matter, still have to tell the guy.

I'm obviously making up law as I go.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:15 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


I put that it woudn't have prevented it from happening (because the patient would still have ocnsented to the procedure/reasonable patient or wahtever could reasonably have still consented to the procedure witht hat full disclosure).


The question was a negligence question, not a battery question. That answer went to the issue of consent to prevent battery. The doctor went along with typical doctor practice, thus no negligence. Battery is another question. This may be completely wrong, though.
Last edited by spartjdawg on Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:16 am, 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 12:15 am

funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


fuck, forgot about this one. i put down couldn't prove that more disclosure would've prevented injury or something like that, reasoning the more limited disclosure wasn't a but for cause--would've consented to the operation with the more complete disclosure about the 25% chance of a bent finger either way.


That question was fucked. It wasn't clear what the actual percentage chances were. It seemed like the doc disclosed 75% chance of perfect hand, 25% chance of no use, but it wasn't clear if the reality was 25% no use, 25% bent finger, 50% perfect hand, or whether it was 25% either no use or bent finger, 75% perfect hand. It seems like in the former, a reasonable patient might NOT have consented since it pretty dramatically changed the odds of a perfect hand, which is what the patient wanted.

I think you guys are right though.

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:15 am

Re conspiracy: i did not see an agreement between the two people. He said "I'll think about it" to me that was only solicitation.


Is there a lower REP in public highschools? I thought that school officials can search with RS and not PC? I said search was valid because he had RS.


Does issuing a charter for a private medical school constitute state action? I said no because no public funds went to the school...

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Old Gregg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:17 am

lawdawg09 wrote:Re conspiracy: i did not see an agreement between the two people. He said "I'll think about it" to me that was only solicitation.


Is there a lower REP in public highschools? I thought that school officials can search with RS and not PC? I said search was valid because he had RS.


Does issuing a charter for a private medical school constitute state action? I said no because no public funds went to the school...


I said school officials arent police... (or whatver the equivalent was)

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby UnfetteredDiscretion » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:18 am

usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure

Guessed that there was no breach of duty so no liability. Also I figured, if it fails at breach, then damages and defenses shouldn't matter.
Last edited by UnfetteredDiscretion on Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:22 am, 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 12:18 am

spartjdawg wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


I put that it woudn't have prevented it from happening (because the patient would still have ocnsented to the procedure/reasonable patient or wahtever could reasonably have still consented to the procedure witht hat full disclosure).


The question was a negligence question, not a battery question. That answer went to the issue of consent to prevent battery. The doctor went along with typical doctor practice, thus no negligence. Battery is another question. This may be completely wrong, though.


From CMR: A doctor breaches duty to disclose if an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in patient's position would have withheld consent. Who the fuck knows if an additional 25% chance of a bent finger is a serious enough risk.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby thrillerjesus » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:19 am

funkyturds wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


fuck, forgot about this one. i put down couldn't prove that more disclosure would've prevented injury or something like that, reasoning the more limited disclosure wasn't a but for cause--would've consented to the operation with the more complete disclosure about the 25% chance of a bent finger either way.


That's what I put, but I thought the reasoning (assuming thats the correct answer) was bullshit. Just because dude is willing to risk a 25% chance of having a fucked hand, doesn't mean he'd be willing to take that same risk as well as an additional 25% risk of having a gimpy finger. That's 50% chance of some level of bad outcome, which seemed kind of a lot to me.

lawdawg09
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:20 am

Emma. wrote:
spartjdawg wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


I put that it woudn't have prevented it from happening (because the patient would still have ocnsented to the procedure/reasonable patient or wahtever could reasonably have still consented to the procedure witht hat full disclosure).


The question was a negligence question, not a battery question. That answer went to the issue of consent to prevent battery. The doctor went along with typical doctor practice, thus no negligence. Battery is another question. This may be completely wrong, though.


From CMR: A doctor breaches duty to disclose if an undisclosed risk was serious enough that a reasonable person in patient's position would have withheld consent. Who the fuck knows if an additional 25% chance of a bent finger is a serious enough risk.


IMO, there was already consent for a high risk that the hand would not work at all after the surgery. To me, the risk for a bent finger was included in that consent. Who knows...

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 12:20 am

lawdawg09 wrote:Re conspiracy: i did not see an agreement between the two people. He said "I'll think about it" to me that was only solicitation.


Is there a lower REP in public highschools? I thought that school officials can search with RS and not PC? I said search was valid because he had RS.


Does issuing a charter for a private medical school constitute state action? I said no because no public funds went to the school...


I had a question about cocaine delivery with an undercover officer. That was the unilateral conspiracy question

The standard for public school searches is reasonable suspicion.

I didn't know about the charter, but said no state action as well.

chass
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:14 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chass » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:21 am

Bunch of cats attracted rats from an apartment building that took shits at lady house. apartment owner put dumpsters out and fixed the problem.
Vicious dog attacked trespasser
School banning a kids religious police club
Male fraternities being treated differently than female sororities at private university

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby usuaggie » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:21 am

spartjdawg wrote:
Fresh Prince wrote:
usuaggie wrote:What about bent finger where doc didn't give a full disclosure but it was normal in the field to not give full disclosure


I put that it woudn't have prevented it from happening (because the patient would still have ocnsented to the procedure/reasonable patient or wahtever could reasonably have still consented to the procedure witht hat full disclosure).


The question was a negligence question, not a battery question. That answer went to the issue of consent to prevent battery. The doctor went along with typical doctor practice, thus no negligence. Battery is another question. This may be completely wrong, though.

I agree. Negligence and decided duty of care in the profession was the standard

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 12:21 am

Tangerine Gleam wrote:Immigration statute: impermissible commandeering, or OK under some 10A exception I don't know?


Congress was commandeering the shit out of the states.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Egzon, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests