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 12:21 am

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


I thought congress had plenary power over immigration

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:21 am

Emma. wrote:
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.


:D

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 12:22 am

Fresh Prince wrote:
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)

No conspiracy

RS enough

Not sure

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 12:23 am

chass wrote: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


Not sure of any of these, but I had:

Nuisance
Didn't have the dog, must have been experimental
No big deal (general applicability so just RBR)
Intermediate Scrutiny.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby spartjdawg » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:23 am

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


I thought congress had plenary power over immigration


It does, but it doesn't have the right to commandeer state officials/employees to implement its federal regulation.

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 12:23 am

chass wrote: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


private nuisance
experimental
expeirmental.
intermediate scrutiny (i think that was an ansawer choice)

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby JDCA2012 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:24 am

Fresh Prince wrote:Know I'm gonna get this wrong, but the one where some action fucked up a singer's voice. singer couldn't recover expected earnings, right? im so bad at damages.


It wasn't a contract....I thought in neg, as long as type is foreseeable, extent doesn't matter?

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 12:24 am

Emma. wrote:
chass wrote: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


Not sure of any of these, but I had:

Nuisance
Didn't have the dog, must have been experimental
No big deal (general applicability so just RBR)
Intermediate Scrutiny.


Agree
Can't use that kind of force to protect property of a shop
Didn't have
Agree


As for the principal, he's a government actor. Doesn't matter he's not police. But RS was right anyway

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:25 am

20 grams of drugs under the seat in rental car? Prior arrests for 20 grams of drugs in rental car = admissible to show common scheme?

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 12:26 am

lawdawg09 wrote:20 grams of drugs under the seat in rental car? Prior arrests for 20 grams of drugs in rental car = admissible to show common scheme?


Oh fuck. I couldn't decide if admissible just for intent, or for intent and possession. Changed my answer back and forth a couple times. Can't remember what I went with in the end.

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 12:27 am

lawdawg09 wrote:20 grams of drugs under the seat in rental car? Prior arrests for 20 grams of drugs in rental car = admissible to show common scheme?

I put admissible for sale and possession

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 12:27 am

lawdawg09 wrote:20 grams of drugs under the seat in rental car? Prior arrests for 20 grams of drugs in rental car = admissible to show common scheme?


i changed my answer to that at the very end. i thought so, but admissible to show possession or intent to sell or both?

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 12:27 am

Emma. wrote:
lawdawg09 wrote:20 grams of drugs under the seat in rental car? Prior arrests for 20 grams of drugs in rental car = admissible to show common scheme?


Oh fuck. I couldn't decide if admissible just for intent, or for intent and possession. Changed my answer back and forth a couple times. Can't remember what I went with in the end.


I think I went with the latter. No idea why.

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 12:27 am

Emma. wrote:
lawdawg09 wrote:20 grams of drugs under the seat in rental car? Prior arrests for 20 grams of drugs in rental car = admissible to show common scheme?


Oh fuck. I couldn't decide if admissible just for intent, or for intent and possession. Changed my answer back and forth a couple times. Can't remember what I went with in the end.


same.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:27 am

.
Last edited by Reinhardt on Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby uwb09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:28 am

Why would IS be applied to a private school's gender discrimination?

cadestevenson
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:04 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby cadestevenson » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:28 am

did you guys discuss 198 (or so) yet? Kind of mad that I didn't pay attention to all of the supreme court opinions in which Scalia chastised the states for misapplying the Strickland standards.

GD Barbri, is it too much to ask that you include the complete rule statement in the CMR? Are two words too much to ask for?

Good lesson. Don't change your MBE answers. I changed that one from right to wrong. Aren't IAC motions the bane of defense attorneys everywhere? The correct standard appears way too low 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 12:30 am

cadestevenson wrote:did you guys discuss 198 (or so) yet? Kind of mad that I didn't pay attention to all of the supreme court opinions in which Scalia chastised the states for misapplying the Strickland standards.

GD Barbri, is it too much to ask that you include the complete rule statement in the CMR? Are two words too much to ask for?

Good lesson. Don't change your MBE answers. I changed that one from right to wrong. Aren't IAC motions the bane of defense attorneys everywhere? The correct standard appears way too low to me.


My gut said preponderance (whatever the equivalent was). I wanted to change it to C&C but I couldnt do it. I looked it up and the CMR siad it is a "but for" test... Fucking barbri.

chocolateicecream
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:03 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby chocolateicecream » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:30 am

uwb09 wrote:Why would IS be applied to a private school's gender discrimination?



Because they received federal grant money was my reasoning.
Now I might be confusing 2 questions.
Last edited by chocolateicecream on Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:32 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 12:31 am

uwb09 wrote:Why would IS be applied to a private school's gender discrimination?


Except for that random med school that specifically took no state funds, every college in this country takes state or federal funds.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby lawdawg09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:31 am

uwb09 wrote:Why would IS be applied to a private school's gender discrimination?


IIRC it was a state school?

The medical school that had a admissions quota was a private school.

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

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby Reinhardt » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:31 am

Shiiiiiieeeet.
Last edited by Reinhardt on Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 12:32 am

lawdawg09 wrote:
uwb09 wrote:Why would IS be applied to a private school's gender discrimination?


IIRC it was a state school?

The medical school that had a admissions quota was a private school.


though operating on a state charter. mixed me up for a second but i reached hte same result.

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby uwb09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:32 am

IAC is the Strickland two prong test: deficient performance with prejudice (reasonable probability that outcome would have been different but for the deficient performance)

User avatar
uwb09
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:09 am

Re: California Bar Exam (July 2013) thread

Postby uwb09 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:33 am

Ah sorry, got the med school questioned mixed up with the frat one




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LandMermaid, torilynn and 7 guests