1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
History_Buff
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby History_Buff » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:12 am

2807 wrote:I do not believe "reckless" changes its form from MPC/CL.
Does it ?
The difference (if any) from MPC/CL would be: when to apply reckless.


Therefore, if you have "reckless" in the statute, you are set.

And, as you know, reckless is the default required mens rea if none is stated clearly. (MPC)


If I remember correctly there's no difference. Truth be told most of the time mens rea between state law and MPC is not substantially different, just worded differently. i.e. purposefull v. intentionally.

And yeah, as always default to reckless where no mens rea is stated.

User avatar
History_Buff
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby History_Buff » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:16 am

feralinfant wrote:alright guys i have a final this week that will include an essay on something about..."constitutional law". That is literally all the direction we've been given. If y'all have some big picture questions you want to toss out there, this is the only way I can think to study for the exam. So take all your deep ruminations and unanswerable questions about the separation of powers and federalism and put them ITT. Seriously, the biggest broadest most ridiculous questions about con law are much appreciated.

First Offense wrote:I just know there's going to be a question on the President's war powers on this exam... and I feel like my answer is gonna be some gobbleygook and parroting Jackson's Youngstown concurrence. Is there anything else I can bring to the table?


I think the Youngstown concurrence is good. Can probably also talk about Hamdi v Rumsfeld. If you want to get historical you can talk about Milligan and Quirin. Most of this is probably just going to go to support Jackson's idea of contracting and expanding powers. It's not exactly war powers but you might even go all the way back to the Neutrality controversy.


Don't forget Boumedienne v. Bush. It expanded even beyond Hamdi regarding prisoner detention. War Powers Act is a good example of congressional limitations, (60 days of conflict before it triggers though). Youngstown is gonna be your bread and butter as stated before.

User avatar
FSK
Posts: 6367
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:47 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby FSK » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:26 am

I have a Contracts finals, where the professor wants fact-to-fact comparison to cases we studies in class. The events on the exam take place in a theoretical jurisdiction that has entirely adopted the UCC, but has no case law.

I write practice exams, and I feel like I'm just including the cases we've studied because I have to. It isn't like con law (which I was pretty good at), where the cases had some meaning/comparability. This just seems like non-sense, as compared to a black letter only approach. Any advice?

bdm261
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:19 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby bdm261 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:34 am

Need some help on this CivPro question I'm stuck on from a past exam:
------------------

P sued D for breach of K alleging D failed to perform by deadline stated in written K. D's defense is that P and D orally agreed to a modification granting D an additional two months to perform, case goes to trial in federal district ct. P enters the K into evidence and testifies he never agreed to modify the written K. D testifies that after the K was signed, P and D agreed to orally modify the time for performance, giving D an additional two months time. Two other persons, both employees of D also testified that P and D orally modified the K as stated by D. Thereafter D moves for JMOL which the Judge denied. Case goes to jury and jury finds for P. D moves or JNOV and alternatively for a new trial on the ground the verdict was against the great weight of evidence.

a.) Judge should (1) grant JNOV if she determines in her mature discretion that the jury's verdict represents a miscarriage of justice and (2) grant new trial if P has not presented enough evidence for a rational finder of fact to find for him.

b.) Judge should deny both motions because each fails to comply with applicable FRCPs.

c.) Judge should (1) grant the motion for JNOV if she determines that no rational juror could find for P by preponderance on the facts presented, and (2) should grant motion for new trial if the jury's verdict constitutes an abuse of discretion.

d.) Judge should (1) grant to motion for JNOV if she determines that no rational juror could find for P by a preponderance and (2) grant the motion for a new trial if she determines, in her mature discretion, that the jury's verdict represents a miscarriage of justice.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:18 pm

bdm261 wrote:Need some help on this CivPro question I'm stuck on from a past exam:
------------------

P sued D for breach of K alleging D failed to perform by deadline stated in written K. D's defense is that P and D orally agreed to a modification granting D an additional two months to perform, case goes to trial in federal district ct. P enters the K into evidence and testifies he never agreed to modify the written K. D testifies that after the K was signed, P and D agreed to orally modify the time for performance, giving D an additional two months time. Two other persons, both employees of D also testified that P and D orally modified the K as stated by D. Thereafter D moves for JMOL which the Judge denied. Case goes to jury and jury finds for P. D moves or JNOV and alternatively for a new trial on the ground the verdict was against the great weight of evidence.

a.) Judge should (1) grant JNOV if she determines in her mature discretion that the jury's verdict represents a miscarriage of justice and (2) grant new trial if P has not presented enough evidence for a rational finder of fact to find for him.

b.) Judge should deny both motions because each fails to comply with applicable FRCPs.

c.) Judge should (1) grant the motion for JNOV if she determines that no rational juror could find for P by preponderance on the facts presented, and (2) should grant motion for new trial if the jury's verdict constitutes an abuse of discretion.

d.) Judge should (1) grant to motion for JNOV if she determines that no rational juror could find for P by a preponderance and (2) grant the motion for a new trial if she determines, in her mature discretion, that the jury's verdict represents a miscarriage of justice.


I feel like the answer here is D. You can generally get JMOL/JNOV if no reasonable jury could have a legally sufficient basis. I don't really know what exactly the standard for new trial, but miscarriage of justice seems right. I'm thinking excessive verdicts etc. you'll get a new trial potentially instead of remittitur. Could be wrong though. Last semester was a looong time ago.

User avatar
First Offense
Posts: 6471
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby First Offense » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:53 pm

First Offense wrote:I just know there's going to be a question on the President's war powers on this exam... and I feel like my answer is gonna be some gobbleygook and parroting Jackson's Youngstown concurrence. Is there anything else I can bring to the table?

Called it.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:55 pm

First Offense wrote:
First Offense wrote:I just know there's going to be a question on the President's war powers on this exam... and I feel like my answer is gonna be some gobbleygook and parroting Jackson's Youngstown concurrence. Is there anything else I can bring to the table?

Called it.


You kill it?

User avatar
First Offense
Posts: 6471
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby First Offense » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:57 pm

feralinfant wrote:
First Offense wrote:
First Offense wrote:I just know there's going to be a question on the President's war powers on this exam... and I feel like my answer is gonna be some gobbleygook and parroting Jackson's Youngstown concurrence. Is there anything else I can bring to the table?

Called it.


You kill it?

I think so, actually. I was able to pull in some INS v. Chadha from the fact pattern, throw in some formalism v. functionalism interpretation shit, and of course enjoyed a bit of Youngstown... Felt okay. Find out in a month or so if I'm right.

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby nickb285 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:58 pm

Couple questions on joint tenancies/adverse possession. Scenario: O grants A, an adult, and B, a minor child, a joint tenancy in Blackacre on condition that neither ever opens a tavern.

1. Does the fact that B is a minor have any bearing on his rights/responsibilities as a joint tenant? E.g. does A automatically hold B's interest as a trustee?
2. If A builds a tavern while B is still a minor, is it only A's interest that reverts to O? Or would O have to re-convey since there would no longer be the four unities?
3. If C adversely possesses the land while B is still a minor, does B still have any rights to the land, or alternatively, recourse against A?
4. Is O's prohibition on taverns treated as a real covenant, which would burden C and thus give O reverter if C ever opens a tavern, or is it merely a future interest that evaporates upon C's successful adverse possession?

Sorry if these are obvious; got this question on a practice exam and my brain kind of broke. Thanks in advance.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:09 pm

nickb285 wrote:Couple questions on joint tenancies/adverse possession. Scenario: O grants A, an adult, and B, a minor child, a joint tenancy in Blackacre on condition that neither ever opens a tavern.

1. Does the fact that B is a minor have any bearing on his rights/responsibilities as a joint tenant? E.g. does A automatically hold B's interest as a trustee?
2. If A builds a tavern while B is still a minor, is it only A's interest that reverts to O? Or would O have to re-convey since there would no longer be the four unities?
3. If C adversely possesses the land while B is still a minor, does B still have any rights to the land, or alternatively, recourse against A?
4. Is O's prohibition on taverns treated as a real covenant, which would burden C and thus give O reverter if C ever opens a tavern, or is it merely a future interest that evaporates upon C's successful adverse possession?

Sorry if these are obvious; got this question on a practice exam and my brain kind of broke. Thanks in advance.


1) My instinct is no. But we didn't talk about minors at all.
2) The language makes it a fee simple subject to condition subsequent. That means that O has a right of entry. So nothing will automatically happen. But if O does decide to assert rights it seems like they would get the whole thing given the language "neither". That's why they'd have to reconvey, not any other reason. But re the unities all that would do is destroy the joint tenancy, not A's interest. If for some reason A still had the interest it wouldn't need to be reconveyed but it would be a tenancy in common instead. It would only need to be reconveyed in someway if it was necessary to recreate joint tenancy.
3) Again, probably not in property law. But we didn't cover minors so take with a grain of salt. I think the assumption would be that B either has a guardian taking care of it or that if A is B's guardian they are other conveyance forms taht could guard B's interest (like giving B a remainder of a life estate). This is just me guessing though.


4) Okay I don't have a real answer to this. But, I think that because it matches the form for subj. to condition subsequent it's not a covenant, but a legit future interest. A covenant wouldn't give a reversion FWIW. You could just sue for enforcement and may not win. Now the question as to what happens to a right of entry after adverse possession.... I don't actually know. My instinct would be that you can only adversely possess what someone possesses: in this case the present interest. So my guess is the grantor can exercise the right of entry if C opens a tavern. But it's also possible a court would just see this as too much of a restraint on alienation and kill it. I have no idea though tbh.
Last edited by feralinfant on Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby nickb285 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:12 pm

ty ty. Yeah, we did nothing with minors either, but I wasn't sure if it was one of those things they'll put in there just to mess with you or if it was something I missed. And yeah, I worded it differently than the PT, which had it as a fee simple determinable. I'll be happy not to consider whether someone has a reverter or a right of entry after tomorrow.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:19 pm

nickb285 wrote:ty ty. Yeah, we did nothing with minors either, but I wasn't sure if it was one of those things they'll put in there just to mess with you or if it was something I missed. And yeah, I worded it differently than the PT, which had it as a fee simple determinable. I'll be happy not to consider whether someone has a reverter or a right of entry after tomorrow.


Okay in that case, if its actually a fee simple determinable (and the wordin will need to match it exactly b/c the law doesn't like these and will kill if possible) then it seems like it would all revert to O automatically in question 2. Answer stands for 3. And as for answer four its pretty much the same issue, it seems like it'd revert automatically to O but I don't actually know, and given laws dislike of stuff like this maybe they'd take the opportunity to kill it. I would probably just make the case for both possibilities if i had to answer number 4 on an exam if possible.

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby nickb285 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:24 pm

Righteous. You're my hero.

User avatar
kay2016
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:23 am

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby kay2016 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:37 pm

Evidence is learnable in a weekend, right?

:shock: :cry:

User avatar
nickb285
Posts: 1500
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:25 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby nickb285 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:07 pm

Okay, found the model answer. According to the prof, most states have a statutory extension on adverse possession for minors--i.e. you have the statute of limitations plus however long it took you to reach the age of majority. So most likely, the joint tenancy between A and B would be destroyed, and a tenancy in common would be established between B and C. This means further that if C opens a tavern, one of two things will happen: a) The courts will decide that C's opening of the tavern is equivalent to A or B's opening of a tavern, and O will have reverter over the whole property, or b) the courts will hold that C, but not B, is free from the no-tavern requirement, giving O and C a tenancy in common, which may then be partitioned.

People should just make less stupid conveyances, IMO.

User avatar
goden
Posts: 2275
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 12:52 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby goden » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:14 am

PR question, prob stupid but:

Doesn't model rule 3.6b conflict with 1.6 on confidentiality? My understanding of 1.6 is that it basically prevents revealing anything relating to representation (with the 7 exceptions) whether or not it could disadvantage the client. So doesn't 3.6b conflict with that by allowing you to speak to the press about claim/offense/defense/name of the party (which are all things that relate to the representation)?

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Br3v » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:30 am

kay2016 wrote:Evidence is learnable in a weekend, right?

:shock: :cry:


Let's hope

User avatar
History_Buff
Posts: 8573
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:45 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby History_Buff » Wed Apr 30, 2014 1:58 am

Br3v wrote:
kay2016 wrote:Evidence is learnable in a weekend, right?

:shock: :cry:


Let's hope


If there's one class where this is possible it's evidence. Good luck.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:28 pm

Alright guys: what are all the reasons why a state can't pass a law and prosecute its citizens for activity in another state (where said activity is legal).

For example, what are all the possible reasons that IL can't pass a law making it illegal to use marijuana in other states and then use it to prosecute people coming home from CO vacations.

There's the dormant commerce clause.

I feel like there might be some ex post facto concerns?

Also it's not a great fit but it seems to run counter to the whole spirit of Privileges and Immunities and the Right to travel even though you're burdening you're own citizens. Like you're frustrating CO's ability to treat your citizens like theirs. But it's also kind of a weird way of thinking about it. On a semi-related note it seems like there might be something to do with being a US citizen and not just a state citizen.

It also just seems like the police powers obviously end with the state but is there is a constitutional provision that captures this? I feel like it may have something to do with US v State citizenship above but really am not sure.

If anyone has any other thoughts or can articulate/refute whether there's a P and I concern with something like this it's much appreciated.

User avatar
Br3v
Posts: 4174
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:18 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby Br3v » Thu May 01, 2014 2:02 pm

What is the difference between a negative easement and a an equitable servitude?

For example: A agrees (and intends to bind future assigns) to B to not use A house except for single family use. C buys house from A and has notice.

Seems like it can be an ES easily: (1) intent to bind future (2) touch and concern (3) notice

But couldn't it also be a negative easement appurtenant?

User avatar
lawhopeful10
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:29 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby lawhopeful10 » Thu May 01, 2014 5:34 pm

Erie Question: If something is an interpretation of a federal rule, for example the new pleading standard from Twombly/Iqbal, is that still considered a federal rule in which case you just apply it or are interpretations of federal rules actually federal practices in which case you do normal Erie analysis.

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Thu May 01, 2014 5:57 pm

lawhopeful10 wrote:Erie Question: If something is an interpretation of a federal rule, for example the new pleading standard from Twombly/Iqbal, is that still considered a federal rule in which case you just apply it or are interpretations of federal rules actually federal practices in which case you do normal Erie analysis.

Thanks in advance.


It could arguably be both. Think Shady Grove majority for the possibility that its straight up FRCP that calls for the Hanna Pt. 2/sibbach test. Think Gasperini Majority for the idea of reading it narrowly and thinking its judicial practice and doing a hanna pt. 1 analysis.

HTH

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Thu May 01, 2014 6:01 pm

Br3v wrote:What is the difference between a negative easement and a an equitable servitude?

For example: A agrees (and intends to bind future assigns) to B to not use A house except for single family use. C buys house from A and has notice.

Seems like it can be an ES easily: (1) intent to bind future (2) touch and concern (3) notice

But couldn't it also be a negative easement appurtenant?


Privity.

negative easements are covenants. Law of real covenants call for vertical and horizontal privity (as well as writing, notice, intent for restriction to run on both sides and touch and concern).

Equitable servitudes have the same requirements minus privity.

Can get damages with the former but limited to an injunction with the latter.

Your example doesn't make clear whether there's horizontal privity between A and B (are they neighbors or did A buy from B). The answer to your question hinges on this.

User avatar
feralinfant
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:54 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby feralinfant » Thu May 01, 2014 6:04 pm

Also i've been drinking after final #2 so grain of salt.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: 1L Substantive Law Questions (Get your BLL on ITT)

Postby 06102016 » Thu May 01, 2014 6:36 pm

..




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], shineoncrazydiamond and 5 guests