.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:33 am

PR on CA essays 100% of the time. Isn't that what the MPRE was for?

antonious13
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby antonious13 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:53 am

Reinhardt wrote:PR on CA essays 100% of the time. Isn't that what the MPRE was for?


No, because that only tested the federal rules that no one uses. It's a test to see if we'll willingly waste time and money to become lawyers. They want us fully committed.

Now, we gotta know what CA tells us to do.

User avatar
fathergoose
Posts: 853
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:36 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby fathergoose » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:56 am

Checking back in after a long absence. Woefully behind which is comparatively better than the impossibly far behind that I was two weeks ago.

Any suggestions on what kind of animal sacrifice the bar gods smile most favorably on? Do you think it depends on jurisdiction? If it helps I am taking the Texas bar. I'm guessing that means ixne on the Longhorn sacrifice, so maybe a goat?

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:58 am

fathergoose wrote:Checking back in after a long absence. Woefully behind which is comparatively better than the impossibly far behind that I was two weeks ago.

Any suggestions on what kind of animal sacrifice the bar gods smile most favorably on? Do you think it depends on jurisdiction? If it helps I am taking the Texas bar. I'm guessing that means ixne on the Longhorn sacrifice, so maybe a goat?


If you're in Texas, you probably have to kill a hippie.

JUST JOKING, NSA.

User avatar
as stars burn
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:03 am

LOL. I just got an email from my health insurance, and the subject line said: "What does healthy mean to you?" I immediately thought, "not studying for the bar exam 10-12 hours every single day for the last month. HAHA.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:12 am

(Question ID#2687)
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated university: "The faculty, seeking to encourage creative writing, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Poetry Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1." The National Competition is conducted by an outside agency, unconnected with any university. A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his poetry submission, which he started in October, a winner. The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Poetry Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in the student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefore: "The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Poetry Competition must be withdrawn." The student's poetry submission was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the National Poetry Competition and the prize. The faculty refused to pay anything.

The promise of the faculty on November 1 was
A. enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.
B. enforceable by the student's personal representative even if the student had been killed in an accident on April 16.
C. not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreement and informal social commitments.
D. not enforceable, because the student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under a duty to perform to the best of his ability.

Answer choice B is correct. The November 1 offer for a unilateral contract (an offer requiring action to accept) was considered accepted when the student performed and produced a winning paper. The offer was irrevocable because of the student's detrimental reliance. His completion entitled him, or his heirs, to the benefit of the bargain. Answer choice A is incorrect because there was a contract in place, and thus it is unnecessary to rely on a theory of promissory estoppel. Answer choices C and D are incorrect because they are incorrect statements of the law. The foregoing NCBE MBE question has been modified to reflect current NCBE stylistic approaches; the NCBE has not reviewed or endorsed this modification


What a random fucking question for that particular fact pattern. "And then maybe he died."

missinglink
Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:49 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby missinglink » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:24 am

CA folks: What are the chances we see Cal Civ Pro? I haven't looked at it in ages and I'm not that anxious to start now.

JD_done
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 9:04 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby JD_done » Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:52 am

locusdelicti wrote:
fathergoose wrote:Checking back in after a long absence. Woefully behind which is comparatively better than the impossibly far behind that I was two weeks ago.

Any suggestions on what kind of animal sacrifice the bar gods smile most favorably on? Do you think it depends on jurisdiction? If it helps I am taking the Texas bar. I'm guessing that means ixne on the Longhorn sacrifice, so maybe a goat?


If you're in Texas, you probably have to kill a hippie.

JUST JOKING, NSA.


I think the appropriate sacrifice in this case is a Sooner.

User avatar
Catleesi
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Catleesi » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:20 am

SPOILER

Members of a manager-managed LLC do not have the right to maintain a direct action against the manager of the LLC when the alleged misconduct caused harm only to the LLC.

The operating agreement provides that only Art manages the LLC, therefore this is a manager-managed LLC. Under these facts, the alleged misconduct by Art did not directly harm Brett and Chad. The misconduct of Art, including failing to manage the business profitably and failing to insure the business properly, harmed the LLC’s business and reputation. Because the harms were not direct, Brett and Chad may maintain a direct action against Art.


This is a typo, right? I was confused before reading the answer. Now I'm frustrated and confused.

User avatar
as stars burn
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Fri Jul 19, 2013 11:37 am

**PROPERTY SPOILER**

Nine years ago, a retired jockey deeded a large parcel of land to a charitable organization. The warranty deed stated that the property was transferred to the organization “provided that the organization uses the property as a facility for teaching children about thoroughbred horses.” Three years ago, the charitable organization turned the facility into an organic farm. The retired jockey, who had become very interested in organic farming, learned of the plans to make the change but did not object. Recently, the organization entered into negotiations to sell the property to a large farming corporation. May the retired jockey stop the sale?

Answers
No, because the retired jockey waived any right to terminate the organization’s interest.
No, because the retired jockey’s reversionary interest violates the Rule Against Perpetuities.
Yes, because the retired jockey is the fee simple owner of the property.
Yes, because the retired jockey may terminate the charitable organization’s interest in the property.

Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. The deed, through the use of the phrase “provided that,” created a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, and the landowner retained a right of entry. Upon violation of the condition that the property be used as a facility for horses, the retired jockey had the right to terminate the charitable organization’s interest. He can now exercise this right, regain ownership of the property, and prevent the sale of the property. Answer choice A is incorrect because, although an owner may waive the right to terminate a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, the mere failure to assert it does not constitute a waiver


Oh for fuck's sake. I understand why A is wrong, but this sure as hell sounded like waiver to me!

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2779
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:18 pm

Choice of law stuff in a torts graded essay? You dirty, dirty girl, Themis.

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Kretzy » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:35 pm

If California wouldn't ask a question on Business Associations or Trusts,* I would be SO happy.

*Or CA Civ Pro, pretty please.

User avatar
Catleesi
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Catleesi » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:39 pm

I am getting everything wrong today. Half these essays I'm just blanking and hitting show answer because I have no idea.

Not good, guys. Not good.

locusdelicti
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 2:25 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:44 pm

Catleesi wrote:I am getting everything wrong today. Half these essays I'm just blanking and hitting show answer because I have no idea.

Not good, guys. Not good.


I'm with you on that.

User avatar
Bronx Bum
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bronx Bum » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:47 pm

These 100 question Mixed are playing with my emotions. 9/10 then 3/10 then 18/20. JFC.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2779
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:52 pm

Bronx Bum wrote:These 100 question Mixed are playing with my emotions. 9/10 then 3/10 then 18/20. JFC.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWUGgcjihFY

TheBeard
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby TheBeard » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:57 pm

For NJ takers: Did we agree that one should aim for a 3.5 on those essays? Am I the only person that finds them somewhat harder than the PA essays?

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:19 pm

Die, MBE set 12. Die.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2779
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:25 pm

(Question ID#3270)

A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city.

Is the court likely to strike down the law?
A. No, because the state’s interest in the health of minors is compelling and dovetails with the federal purpose of preventing minors from smoking.
B. No, because the law directly advances the state’s compelling interest.
C. Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.
D. Yes, because the law prohibits truthful speech.

Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. Restrictions on commercial speech, such as advertising, are subject to intermediate scrutiny and are reviewed under a four-part test: (i) it must concern lawful activity and be neither false nor misleading; (ii) the asserted government interest must be substantial; (iii) the regulation must directly advance the asserted interest; and (iv) the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Although the state’s concern for the health of minors constitutes a compelling interest, the law is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Thus, the state law constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. Answer choice A is incorrect because the regulation is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech because it is not narrowly tailored. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the law directly advances the state’s substantial purpose, it is not narrowly tailored to serve that purpose. Answer choice D is incorrect because a state may ban truthful commercial speech if there is a substantial government interest and the regulation directly advances that interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.


It's not enough to just fucking say the law isn't narrowly tailored, Themis. Show your fucking work. This question and explanation get an F.

GertrudePerkins
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby GertrudePerkins » Fri Jul 19, 2013 3:37 pm

forza wrote:
(Question ID#3270)

A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city.

Is the court likely to strike down the law?
A. No, because the state’s interest in the health of minors is compelling and dovetails with the federal purpose of preventing minors from smoking.
B. No, because the law directly advances the state’s compelling interest.
C. Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.
D. Yes, because the law prohibits truthful speech.

Incorrect: Answer choice C is correct. Restrictions on commercial speech, such as advertising, are subject to intermediate scrutiny and are reviewed under a four-part test: (i) it must concern lawful activity and be neither false nor misleading; (ii) the asserted government interest must be substantial; (iii) the regulation must directly advance the asserted interest; and (iv) the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Although the state’s concern for the health of minors constitutes a compelling interest, the law is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Thus, the state law constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. Answer choice A is incorrect because the regulation is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech because it is not narrowly tailored. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the law directly advances the state’s substantial purpose, it is not narrowly tailored to serve that purpose. Answer choice D is incorrect because a state may ban truthful commercial speech if there is a substantial government interest and the regulation directly advances that interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.


It's not enough to just fucking say the law isn't narrowly tailored, Themis. Show your fucking work. This question and explanation get an F.
Yeah, these crack me up. In a real case the litigants would each spend pages upon pages of briefing arguing about why the law is or isn't narrowly tailored, and the Court would likely also expend a lot of effort justifying its determination. But in crazy MBE land, it's just a perfunctory "because the law is/isn't narrowly tailored."

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:08 pm

Please tell me that these Mixed MBEs are getting harder, and I'm not getting stupider....

User avatar
Dr. Review
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:51 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Dr. Review » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:12 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:Please tell me that these Mixed MBEs are getting harder, and I'm not getting stupider....

Catleesi wrote:Enrolled Student Manual: "The MBE Test Bank is designed to work with your strengths and weaknesses within each MBE subject. Your first session will be a random selection of questions. In future sessions, you will see more questions in the areas in which you need more review. "

Bustang wrote:Just to add what's already been established - the director of Themis for Texas has told me on two separate occasions that the portal will a) adjust questions according to your strengths/weaknesses and b) ask more difficult questions on the following quiz after scoring "highly."

Themis just taught me who was boss.

releasethehounds
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:11 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:22 pm

Catleesi wrote:SPOILER

Members of a manager-managed LLC do not have the right to maintain a direct action against the manager of the LLC when the alleged misconduct caused harm only to the LLC.

The operating agreement provides that only Art manages the LLC, therefore this is a manager-managed LLC. Under these facts, the alleged misconduct by Art did not directly harm Brett and Chad. The misconduct of Art, including failing to manage the business profitably and failing to insure the business properly, harmed the LLC’s business and reputation. Because the harms were not direct, Brett and Chad may maintain a direct action against Art.


This is a typo, right? I was confused before reading the answer. Now I'm frustrated and confused.


Yeah that should be a typo. It should say that they may not maintain a direct action as they weren't harmed in their individual capacity. Usually individual harm is something like voting rights being interfered with and the like. Something special to that shareholder/member; anything common to everyone (like business reputation or profit) is likely derivative.

User avatar
Agoraphobia
Posts: 193
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:30 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:28 pm

Bedsole wrote:
Agoraphobia wrote:Please tell me that these Mixed MBEs are getting harder, and I'm not getting stupider....

Catleesi wrote:Enrolled Student Manual: "The MBE Test Bank is designed to work with your strengths and weaknesses within each MBE subject. Your first session will be a random selection of questions. In future sessions, you will see more questions in the areas in which you need more review. "

Bustang wrote:Just to add what's already been established - the director of Themis for Texas has told me on two separate occasions that the portal will a) adjust questions according to your strengths/weaknesses and b) ask more difficult questions on the following quiz after scoring "highly."

Themis just taught me who was boss.


Thanks. I'm starting to think (and I think someone else may have said this, too) that the Mixed MBEs are starting to be counterproductive for me in that they're testing picky little exceptions and causing me to question myself on the knowledge that I actually do have about the basic BLL that I'm hoping will comprise the majority of the MBE. I did buy those 3 practice sets from NCBE and maybe I will try one of those tomorrow, instead, to hopefully get a better idea of what we're really going to be facing. Those I'm assuming will be fairly typical since they're right from the source...

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Fri Jul 19, 2013 4:33 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:
Bedsole wrote:
Agoraphobia wrote:Please tell me that these Mixed MBEs are getting harder, and I'm not getting stupider....

Catleesi wrote:Enrolled Student Manual: "The MBE Test Bank is designed to work with your strengths and weaknesses within each MBE subject. Your first session will be a random selection of questions. In future sessions, you will see more questions in the areas in which you need more review. "

Bustang wrote:Just to add what's already been established - the director of Themis for Texas has told me on two separate occasions that the portal will a) adjust questions according to your strengths/weaknesses and b) ask more difficult questions on the following quiz after scoring "highly."

Themis just taught me who was boss.


Thanks. I'm starting to think (and I think someone else may have said this, too) that the Mixed MBEs are starting to be counterproductive for me in that they're testing picky little exceptions and causing me to question myself on the knowledge that I actually do have about the basic BLL that I'm hoping will comprise the majority of the MBE. I did buy those 3 practice sets from NCBE and maybe I will try one of those tomorrow, instead, to hopefully get a better idea of what we're really going to be facing. Those I'm assuming will be fairly typical since they're right from the source...


There is some dispute on whether the NCBE ones are too easy.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest