.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby 09042014 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:12 pm

Bikeflip wrote:Set bounty in contracts? Anyone else recall studying this? Apparently it's a workaround way to enforce a uni-lateral K after the K was revoked.

The example was a detective found a criminal and turned the criminal in for a reward. The city revoked the award before the detective found the criminal, but the detective wanted the reward. The bounty theory was a stronger theory for her than quasi-contract.

Also, was focusing way too much on the MEE, and I got rocked on the MBE today.


I tried looking in our long outline and couldn't find shit.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:04 pm

Confused - what's a quorum for shareholder voting? Is it the majority of votes ENTITLED to vote AND Present at the meeting? How does proxy voting figure in to this equation? tia

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:11 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:Confused - what's a quorum for shareholder voting? Is it the majority of votes ENTITLED to vote AND Present at the meeting? How does proxy voting figure in to this equation? tia


Quorum for shareholder votes is a majority number of outstanding shares, present physically or through proxy. All outstanding shares are entitled to be voted by someone, it just may not be the person who as of the date of the meeting holds the shares. The person entitled to vote the stock is the person who owned the stock as of the X-date (or record date, I believe, is the term Themis uses).

So if on the Record Date, A owns the shares but between the record date and shareholder meeting, sells her shares to B, A is still entitled to vote the shares at the shareholder meeting. Which is counterintuitive as shit, but there you are. The more likely result in the real world if someone's sold their shares between record date and the meeting is that they just don't show up and the shares don't get voted at all or they arrange a proxy with the person who took their shares.

**Remember: We don't care how many SHAREHOLDERS are there, we just care how many SHARES are represented. So the shareholder doesn't have to physically be present. They can arrange for the shares to be voted by someone else through a proxy agreement.

That's to have a quorum present. To have a vote one way or the other, it's more yeas than nays. Think of it that way instead of a majority of shares present because people can choose to abstain from the vote and their shares aren't counted in the vote at all. abstention won't equal a nay, essentially.

Keep in mind too, this is different from the rules about Directors voting. That is a simply majority of directors for a quorum and to carry a motion is a simple majority of directors present.


***Also, in light of the below post, this above is just general non-state-specific corporate law as taught by Birdthistle. And the edits are because I keep using confusing sentences.
Last edited by releasethehounds on Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:20 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:14 pm

Agoraphobia wrote:Confused - what's a quorum for shareholder voting? Is it the majority of votes ENTITLED to vote AND Present at the meeting? How does proxy voting figure in to this equation? tia


In Texas, a quorum is just over half of those entitled to vote, and is required in order to vote. Quorum requirements can be changed in the Article of Incorporation, but never less than 1/3 of eligible voters.

So if you have 7 shareholders and an annual meeting coming up, you need 4 shareholders at the meeting to be able to vote on matters. For ordinary matters, you'd need at least 3 of the 4 present to carry the vote.

A proxy vote is the same as a shareholder vote.

dudeman2014
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:46 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby dudeman2014 » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:52 pm

Hey all,

Been following for a while figured I'd ask a couple questions.

1) Is anyone actually memorizing specific time requirements for Civ Pro? (like the number of days you have to file an answer to a complaint) These time frames are mentioned all over in the outlines but it seems like a lot to memorize. Is this considered beyond the scope of what we should be prepping for the essays?

2) When I come to a practice essay and I legitimately have no clue what the proper rule of law is or what they are looking for, what is the best approach to take in that situation? Make up the law as best you can and then apply the facts to your rule of law? Hedge your bets and apply two rules of law?

Thanks dudes and good luck this final week here!

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:55 pm

releasethehounds wrote:
Agoraphobia wrote:Confused - what's a quorum for shareholder voting? Is it the majority of votes ENTITLED to vote AND Present at the meeting? How does proxy voting figure in to this equation? tia


Quorum for shareholder votes is a majority number of outstanding shares, present physically or through proxy. All outstanding shares are entitled to be voted by someone, it just may not be the person who as of the date of the meeting holds the shares. The person entitled to vote the stock is the person who owned the stock as of the X-date (or record date, I believe, is the term Themis uses).

So if on the Record Date, A owns the shares but between the record date and shareholder meeting, sells her shares to B, A is still entitled to vote the shares at the shareholder meeting. Which is counterintuitive as shit, but there you are. The more likely result in the real world if someone's sold their shares between record date and the meeting is that they just don't show up and the shares don't get voted at all or they arrange a proxy with the person who took their shares.

**Remember: We don't care how many SHAREHOLDERS are there, we just care how many SHARES are represented. So the shareholder doesn't have to physically be present. They can arrange for the shares to be voted by someone else through a proxy agreement.

That's to have a quorum present. To have a vote one way or the other, it's more yeas than nays. Think of it that way instead of a majority of shares present because people can choose to abstain from the vote and their shares aren't counted in the vote at all. abstention won't equal a nay, essentially.

Keep in mind too, this is different from the rules about Directors voting. That is a simply majority of directors for a quorum and to carry a motion is a simple majority of directors present.


***Also, in light of the below post, this above is just general non-state-specific corporate law as taught by Birdthistle. And the edits are because I keep using confusing sentences.


kalvano wrote:In Texas, a quorum is just over half of those entitled to vote, and is required in order to vote. Quorum requirements can be changed in the Article of Incorporation, but never less than 1/3 of eligible voters.

So if you have 7 shareholders and an annual meeting coming up, you need 4 shareholders at the meeting to be able to vote on matters. For ordinary matters, you'd need at least 3 of the 4 present to carry the vote.

A proxy vote is the same as a shareholder vote.



Really, really helpful, THANKS!

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:03 am

I was thinking, if Themis is making each mixed MBE set harder than the last to focus on our weaknesses, and the questions are becoming absurdly nuanced, what would happen if someone intentionally got every question wrong? Would the next set be easier?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby releasethehounds » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:08 am

dudeman2014 wrote:Hey all,

Been following for a while figured I'd ask a couple questions.

1) Is anyone actually memorizing specific time requirements for Civ Pro? (like the number of days you have to file an answer to a complaint) These time frames are mentioned all over in the outlines but it seems like a lot to memorize. Is this considered beyond the scope of what we should be prepping for the essays?

2) When I come to a practice essay and I legitimately have no clue what the proper rule of law is or what they are looking for, what is the best approach to take in that situation? Make up the law as best you can and then apply the facts to your rule of law? Hedge your bets and apply two rules of law?

Thanks dudes and good luck this final week here!


1. Yes but only in areas that tend to get tested more than others. Like I think I bothered to memorize timelines for removal and appeals but that's sort of it. I'll go ahead and take the points off for not knowing it, I'm totally fine with that.

2. I would sayyyy....go with something that sounds reasonable to you, if you don't know at all. Whether that means making something up entirely or likening it to some situation you DO know the rules for, just get something down that makes some sort of sense. I've done it on a few essays and ended up getting more right than I thought I would so it's really possible to just kind of luck into a passable answer. If you're stuck between two different rules and cannot figure it out, I'd hedge and put both, myself.

User avatar
forza
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:32 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby forza » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:14 am

Finally starting to turn the corner on these MBE practice sets.

EDIT: although this one on crim tricked me (SPOILER):

A bank teller confessed to his colleague that he was concerned about being fired. The colleague suggested that he had similar concerns himself and had been thinking of how he might acquire extra cash in case he lost his job. The teller suggested a plan to take several hundred dollars from their supervisor’s cash drawer, because the supervisor often forgot to lock the drawer when he went to lunch. After the teller took the cash, he would hand it off to his colleague during his lunch break, and the colleague would bring the money to his car to avoid having money on his person at work. The next day, the teller noticed that his supervisor had neglected to lock his cash drawer at lunch, and he carried out the plan. The colleague waited outside the bank, and then took the cash from the teller on his lunch break. He then hid some of the money in a separate stash he intended to apportion to himself only, without the teller’s knowledge, but he otherwise followed the plan exactly as he and the bank teller had discussed. In a case against the colleague, which of the following charges would most likely be successfully prosecuted?

A. Embezzlement and larceny
B. Embezzlement only
C. One charge of larceny only
D. Two charges of larceny only

Answer choice D is correct. Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive that person of the property. An accomplice is a person who, with intent that the crime be committed, aids or abets a principal prior to or during the commission of the crime and is present at the commission of the offense. The accomplice’s assistance to the principal may be verbal encouragement, financial assistance, or physical assistance, provided that the accomplice has the requisite intent to encourage or assist in the commission of the crime. An accomplice is responsible for the crime to the same extent as the principal. In this case, although the colleague did not actually take the money from the supervisor, he aided and abetted the teller in larceny by transferring the money to the car, and thus would be guilty to the same extent as the teller. The colleague also committed larceny against the teller, as stolen property taken from a thief can constitute larceny. That is, a second thief is guilty of larceny when he steals the property from the first thief, unless the second thief had superior possessory interest in the property. Therefore, answer choice C is incorrect. Answer choice A is incorrect because the teller would not be guilty of embezzlement, which is the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by a person who is in lawful possession of the property. Lower-level employees can generally not be guilty of embezzlement, as such an employee typically has custody, not possession, of the employer’s property. In this case, the teller took the money from his supervisor, who was the one who had possession of the property. Accordingly, he would not be guilty of embezzlement, and thus his colleague would not either. Answer choice B is incorrect because it inaccurately states that the colleague would be guilty of embezzlement and fails to address that he aided in the commission of larceny.


I legitimately did not know the bolded.

User avatar
Charles Barkley
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Charles Barkley » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:35 am

That one got me too. Ridiculous.

I went with C.

User avatar
Charles Barkley
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Charles Barkley » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:40 am

I'm a little at a loss right now with the MBE. As I said earlier, I'm struggling with contracts & torts. It's really more an issue with application of the rules - more so than lack of knowledge.

As I continue to practice more & more sets this week, should I begin to learn the tricks?

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11726
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby kalvano » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:58 am

releasethehounds wrote:
dudeman2014 wrote:Hey all,

Been following for a while figured I'd ask a couple questions.

1) Is anyone actually memorizing specific time requirements for Civ Pro? (like the number of days you have to file an answer to a complaint) These time frames are mentioned all over in the outlines but it seems like a lot to memorize. Is this considered beyond the scope of what we should be prepping for the essays?

2) When I come to a practice essay and I legitimately have no clue what the proper rule of law is or what they are looking for, what is the best approach to take in that situation? Make up the law as best you can and then apply the facts to your rule of law? Hedge your bets and apply two rules of law?

Thanks dudes and good luck this final week here!


1. Yes but only in areas that tend to get tested more than others. Like I think I bothered to memorize timelines for removal and appeals but that's sort of it. I'll go ahead and take the points off for not knowing it, I'm totally fine with that.

2. I would sayyyy....go with something that sounds reasonable to you, if you don't know at all. Whether that means making something up entirely or likening it to some situation you DO know the rules for, just get something down that makes some sort of sense. I've done it on a few essays and ended up getting more right than I thought I would so it's really possible to just kind of luck into a passable answer. If you're stuck between two different rules and cannot figure it out, I'd hedge and put both, myself.


Dates depend on jurisdiction. Texas Civ Pro tests dates heavily. Extremely heavily.

And if you don't know, jot down basic rules and then something reasonable. Maybe you'll get a few points from it.

User avatar
Bikeflip
Posts: 1833
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:01 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Bikeflip » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:52 am

Heh, my strongest subject was my weakest and my weakest was my strongest. How, Themis?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Mon Jul 22, 2013 11:07 am

Bedsole wrote:
locusdelicti wrote:The hell? I asked Themis about this and they never answered. I feel like this would only apply in cases of incest. What am I missing?


I interpreted it the same way. When did you submit the substantive question? They can take a while to get back on those.


TheBeard is right. Here's my response from Themis:


“Does the exception only apply if the will has a residual clause leaving the residue to his surviving spouse or surviving issue?” - As discussed below, it applies either if there is a residuary clause leaving the remainder of the estate to the testator’s surviving spouse or surviving issue, or if the surviving spouse or surviving issue would take the lapsed gift through intestacy.

“Or does it always apply?” – No, it does not always apply.

The exception to PA’s anti-lapse statute is a little confusing. If the predeceasing beneficiary was (1) the testator’s brother, (2) the testator’s sister, or (3) issue of the testator’s brother or sister (nieces or nephews of the testator), then the anti-lapse statute will NOT apply IF the lapsed bequest would go to the testator’s surviving spouse or issue. This means if the will had a residuary clause in which the testator bequeathed the residue of the estate to either his surviving spouse or his issue, OR if the failed gift would pass by intestacy to the surviving spouse or issue of the testator, then anti-lapse will NOT apply.

Example of the exception: In his will, testator leaves $50,000 to his brother. Brother predeceases testator, survived by his son. Testator’s will also has a residuary clause which states that the “rest, residue, and remainder of my estate shall go to my loving wife.” At the time of testator’s death, brother’s son is alive and testator’s wife is also alive. Under these circumstances, the anti-lapse statute will not apply since brother’s lapsed gift would go to the testator’s wife via the residuary (note: if there was no residuary, it would go to the wife via intestacy). Thus, the $50,000 bequest to testator’s brother will pass to testator’s wife through the residuary clause.

Note: The example in the PA Wills book is not entirely correct. Since the gift is to the testator’s son, his issue, the exception to the anti-lapse statute would NOT apply (the exception only applies to bequests to the testator’s brother, sister, or issue of the brother or sister). B’s issue would take the $50,000 under the anti-lapse statute. I apologize for this discrepancy.

Thank you.

User avatar
geekrocker37
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:26 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby geekrocker37 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:09 pm

(Question ID#300)
A defendant was tried for the homicide of a girl whose strangled body was found beside a remote logging road with her hands taped together. After the defendant offered evidence of an alibi, the state calls a witness to testify that the defendant had taped her hands and tried to strangle her in the same location two days before the homicide but that she escaped.

The evidence is
A. admissible, as tending to show the defendant is the killer.
B. admissible, as tending to show the defendant's violent nature.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. inadmissible, because it is unfairly prejudicial.
Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. While a defendant's past crimes or other wrongful acts are not admissible to show his criminal propensity, they are admissible as circumstantial evidence of Motive, Intent, absence of Mistake, Identity, or Common plan or scheme, if the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice (the "MIMIC" rule). Answer choice A is correct because the evidence points to the identity of the killer, so it falls under the MIMIC exception. Answer choice B is incorrect because evidence of a defendant's bad character is inadmissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question, unless the defendant has first opened the door by showing evidence of his good character (and even then the prosecution would generally be limited to opinion and reputation evidence). Answer choice C is incorrect because the evidence is admissible under the MIMIC rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because although the evidence may be somewhat prejudicial, the danger of prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value.




Only SOMEWHAT Prejudicial??

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Agoraphobia » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:12 pm

Yeah but you KNOWWWWWWWW he did it. Admit EVERY piece of evidence, I say!!

yeff
Posts: 333
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 2:32 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby yeff » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:43 pm

geekrocker37 wrote:(Question ID#300)
A defendant was tried for the homicide of a girl whose strangled body was found beside a remote logging road with her hands taped together. After the defendant offered evidence of an alibi, the state calls a witness to testify that the defendant had taped her hands and tried to strangle her in the same location two days before the homicide but that she escaped.

The evidence is
A. admissible, as tending to show the defendant is the killer.
B. admissible, as tending to show the defendant's violent nature.
C. inadmissible, because it is improper character evidence.
D. inadmissible, because it is unfairly prejudicial.
Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. While a defendant's past crimes or other wrongful acts are not admissible to show his criminal propensity, they are admissible as circumstantial evidence of Motive, Intent, absence of Mistake, Identity, or Common plan or scheme, if the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice (the "MIMIC" rule). Answer choice A is correct because the evidence points to the identity of the killer, so it falls under the MIMIC exception. Answer choice B is incorrect because evidence of a defendant's bad character is inadmissible to prove that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes and therefore is likely to have committed the crime in question, unless the defendant has first opened the door by showing evidence of his good character (and even then the prosecution would generally be limited to opinion and reputation evidence). Answer choice C is incorrect because the evidence is admissible under the MIMIC rule. Answer choice D is incorrect because although the evidence may be somewhat prejudicial, the danger of prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value.




Only SOMEWHAT Prejudicial??


Posted another one (red-barrelled gun) with basically the same reaction just yesterday....Themis/NCBE's line for unfairly prejudicial seems...different.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby locusdelicti » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:58 pm

So hungover. So, so stupid.

User avatar
elysiansmiles
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:17 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby elysiansmiles » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:59 pm

Not only are these MBE questions getting into more minutia, but I they're also becoming less comprehensible. Some of them are hard not because of the facts or what is tested, but because they're so poorly written I hardly understand what is going on.

User avatar
Charles Barkley
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 9:56 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Charles Barkley » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:01 pm

locusdelicti wrote:So hungover. So, so stupid.


I just woke up. My mind is fried. I still have to finish learning the state law materials.

User avatar
denimchickn
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby denimchickn » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:40 pm

Edit: Oops. Somehow posted that twice.
Last edited by denimchickn on Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
denimchickn
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:57 pm

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby denimchickn » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:40 pm

Just hit that glorious 75% mark!

Still haven't done the practice essay exam though (and don't know that I will). I feel like my time at this point might be better spent learning rules and doing some practice questions here and there than burning myself out on a simulated test, potentially getting discouraged, and losing all willpower to continue doing anything else that day.

Anyone else feeling the same way?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Reinhardt » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:47 pm

Haven't done the practice essay exam or half of the graded essays. The earlier ones taught me more or less about the time limit and how to write. Now the problem is having the rules in my brain.

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby Kretzy » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:49 pm

denimchickn wrote:Just hit that glorious 75% mark!

Still haven't done the practice essay exam though (and don't know that I will). I feel like my time at this point might be better spent learning rules and doing some practice questions here and there than burning myself out on a simulated test, potentially getting discouraged, and losing all willpower to continue doing anything else that day.

Anyone else feeling the same way?


Absolutely. Also hit 75% today (whew). The graded essays were wildly discouraging, especially since my attorney advisor would only directly reference my essay in terms of where it diverged with the model answer (marking off, for example, where I flipped two contract defenses b/c the model answer had them in a different order). Just happy not to have to turn any more of those in.

But the essay exam seems less useful than memorizing and doing questions throughout the day. Has anyone found it useful to sit and do the full 3 hour essay exam, though? Should I just buck up and do it one afternoon?

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

Re: THEMIS BAR REVIEW Hangout.

Postby as stars burn » Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:52 pm

denimchickn wrote:Just hit that glorious 75% mark!

Still haven't done the practice essay exam though (and don't know that I will). I feel like my time at this point might be better spent learning rules and doing some practice questions here and there than burning myself out on a simulated test, potentially getting discouraged, and losing all willpower to continue doing anything else that day.

Anyone else feeling the same way?


I barely did any studying this weekend, and I'm just starting to study now. I'm just over it and want to get this ridiculous thing over with. While I totally understand you don't want to burn yourself out we're still 8 days away from the exam, and I really found the simulated essay exam to be helpful in that it sort of prepares you to be ready for anything. The actual exam isn't going to tell you what the essays are on before you read the prompt so it can be somewhat of a shock at first since you're not really sure what subject you're in until you get to the call of the question or even after you read the fact pattern. Even if you don't take the whole simulated in a day I do recommend doing it.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: politibro44, symphony07, wwwcol and 6 guests