California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:21 am

I'm never drinking again.

FML1
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:50 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby FML1 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:56 am

Uh, in my haste to get through content based regulations, all the different types of public and non-public forums as well as the Free Exercise Clause I totally missed standing, group standing, and state action. Analysis was pretty solid on the issues I covered. But does not addressing standing basically mean I got a 60, or worse?

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1677
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby a male human » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:03 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I'm never drinking again.

This reaction makes it more likely you'll do whatever you said you'll never do again. It's psychologically proven!

FML1 wrote:Uh, in my haste to get through content based regulations, all the different types of public and non-public forums as well as the Free Exercise Clause I totally missed standing, group standing, and state action. Analysis was pretty solid on the issues I covered. But does not addressing standing basically mean I got a 60, or worse?

Not necessarily, standing and state action are minor issues. If you did solid analysis of the other A1 stuff, you should be fine.

I should have talked about group standing (only regular standing and other justiciability stuff), but I thought there wasn't because there were no mentions of members. But I tend to deliberately not even mention what I think are non-issues when they could be minor issues. It's a bad habit that screws me over.

FML1
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:50 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby FML1 » Sat Mar 01, 2014 12:45 pm

Okay, feeling better. I looked at another thread on this topic on another board and one person was adamant that standing, ripeness, mootness were non-issues b/c the call of the question only asked what 1stA arguments could be raised.

Thus, I covered:

Content Based Reg, Content Neutral Reg, Public Forum/Designated Public Forum; Limited/Non-Public Forum.

Free Exercise Clause, Neutral law of general application, and test about pagan religion holding a place in member's lives similar to traditional religion.

Talked about how it wasn't narrowly tailored and how Christmas tree isn't a secular symbol.

Small portion on Establishment Clause

Missed: review board with unfettered discretion. Didn't talk about Due Process/EP

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 2:06 pm

Talked about it all except for state action.BOOM. You have to talk about standing (and group standing) to show that they can even bring suit for whatever reason. But I'm sure you did die without the standing. Minor issue when looking at it as a whole.
This is the ONLY question I feel I touched upon everything. Except I saw someone put unfettered discretion. I didn't mention that. Oooh well.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:10 pm

FML1 wrote:Okay, feeling better. I looked at another thread on this topic on another board and one person was adamant that standing, ripeness, mootness were non-issues b/c the call of the question only asked what 1stA arguments could be raised.

Thus, I covered:

Content Based Reg, Content Neutral Reg, Public Forum/Designated Public Forum; Limited/Non-Public Forum.

Free Exercise Clause, Neutral law of general application, and test about pagan religion holding a place in member's lives similar to traditional religion.

Talked about how it wasn't narrowly tailored and how Christmas tree isn't a secular symbol.

Small portion on Establishment Clause

Missed: review board with unfettered discretion. Didn't talk about Due Process/EP


yeah i mean if it's conlaw i just put standing in because... well it's conlaw. And there was an organization.
For the things you think you missed... it was a first amendment question so i don't think you needed to do due process and EPC.

But this question was just a dump of the entire first amendment which I thought was interesting. And kind of.. fun? Like, it's nice to just do a sequential memory dump all over your screen and not have to dig in your brain for different pieces of info.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:11 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:I'm never drinking again.


i told myself that after thursday night.
i told myself that this morning after friday night.

I'm realizing I lie to myself a lot.

Busyvee
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:51 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Busyvee » Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:21 pm

I need serious therapy,the more I think about it the more I am convinced I failed .... :cry:
and what pisses me off even more that everybody around me is telling me that I will pass :evil:
I don't think organization standing was big issue

siaynoqq
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby siaynoqq » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:22 pm

I thought religion was a much bigger issue. Both the payote and the religious display Supreme Court cases could have been analogized to. Only substantial speech issue I saw was symbolic speech. Why even bring up conduct regulation generally? The regulation was closing gov buildings from speech, not opening them up to it. Seems like there is just a quick nonpublic forum issue there.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:28 pm

I mentioned SC case where they allowed a display that had a tree and Jesus and Santa and a menorah and a kwanza thing and it was okay.

User avatar
northwood
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby northwood » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:12 pm

the only bar exam analysis that I think you all should be doing right now is an analysis of the bar that you examined last night/ this morning and continue this process until it all become a strange drunken blur.


Cheers to you all being done with three days of absolute no fun!

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:28 pm

northwood wrote:the only bar exam analysis that I think you all should be doing right now is an analysis of the bar that you examined last night/ this morning and continue this process until it all become a strange drunken blur.


Cheers to you all being done with three days of absolute no fun!


i've been partying the past two nights like I'm 18 again.
i've been waking up realizing that I'm 31.

DC2CA
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby DC2CA » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:33 pm

I last took a bar exam a decade ago, and I self studied for this bar exam. So take what I'm about to say with a grain a salt.

It seems to be that the subjacent analysis is wrong on the property question. Subjacent support is connected to mining operations and removal of parts of hillsides below an adjacent property. The idea being that if you excavate then you are strictly liable to any repercussions of your excavation.

In the property case there was no excavation, only construction. In a pure construction case, the land owner owes a duty of reasonable care for activities on their land. This gives you a standard duty, breach, causation, damage analysis under tort law. If the question said excavation (which is necessary for a subjacent support case) then I missed it.

The fun part is that this means the first question was really a Tort-Constitutional Law-Property question.

* * *

As for the disagreement over the second MPT, the motion in limine definitely touched on both the trial transcript as well as the phone call and voicemail transcripts. Even if it didn't (which it did), the trial transcript has the judge listening to voicemail and phone call after the prosecutor consented to their reliability so they were hearsay within hearsay. The case law further suggests that you needed to at least attempt to bring in the phone call and voicemail transcript under 804(b)(3) because they demonstrate the truthfulness of the trial transcript.

DC2CA
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby DC2CA » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:42 pm

siaynoqq wrote:I thought religion was a much bigger issue. Both the payote and the religious display Supreme Court cases could have been analogized to. Only substantial speech issue I saw was symbolic speech. Why even bring up conduct regulation generally? The regulation was closing gov buildings from speech, not opening them up to it. Seems like there is just a quick nonpublic forum issue there.


I think you needed to do a speech analysis because it wasn't a content neutral restriction, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny, and a clear win for the plaintiff. You only really need to get into a public forum analysis if there is a content neutral time, place, manner restriction -- I touched on this as the City may take a remedial action by banning all speech to get around a strict scrutiny loss, but that of course would also ban far more speech than necessary (and unconstitutional regardless of the forum analysis).

But you're right that the secondary religion issue needs to be discussed on both establishment (e.g. Christmas tree ok) and entanglement (city determining what is a religious symbol) analysis.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:59 pm

The fact pattern said specifically that she was excavating though??

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:00 pm

It definitely did actually.

DC2CA
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby DC2CA » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:05 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:The fact pattern said specifically that she was excavating though??


Like I said, I might have just missed it. I only saw construction on the property, not excavation under.

User avatar
MURPH
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby MURPH » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:12 pm

It said "excavating" for sure.

DC2CA
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:14 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby DC2CA » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:23 pm

MURPH wrote:It said "excavating" for sure.


Do you recall where or in what context? Because it said she was building a new office building, and the construction was vibrating the guy's building about which he complained. I think construction was used 3 times. I'm not doubting that it said excavation once, but do you remember exactly what the question said?

User avatar
Hoggle
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:02 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby Hoggle » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:29 pm

DC2CA wrote:
MURPH wrote:It said "excavating" for sure.


Do you recall where or in what context? Because it said she was building a new office building, and the construction was vibrating the guy's building about which he complained. I think construction was used 3 times. I'm not doubting that it said excavation once, but do you remember exactly what the question said?


It said excavating. I didn't really discuss strict liability though, even though I should have. I discussed negligence, contib/comparative negligence, trespass, and nuisance.

LegalReality
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:08 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby LegalReality » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:37 pm

DC2CA wrote:I last took a bar exam a decade ago, and I self studied for this bar exam. So take what I'm about to say with a grain a salt.

It seems to be that the subjacent analysis is wrong on the property question. Subjacent support is connected to mining operations and removal of parts of hillsides below an adjacent property. The idea being that if you excavate then you are strictly liable to any repercussions of your excavation.

In the property case there was no excavation, only construction. In a pure construction case, the land owner owes a duty of reasonable care for activities on their land. This gives you a standard duty, breach, causation, damage analysis under tort law. If the question said excavation (which is necessary for a subjacent support case) then I missed it.

The fun part is that this means the first question was really a Tort-Constitutional Law-Property question.

* * *

As for the disagreement over the second MPT, the motion in limine definitely touched on both the trial transcript as well as the phone call and voicemail transcripts. Even if it didn't (which it did), the trial transcript has the judge listening to voicemail and phone call after the prosecutor consented to their reliability so they were hearsay within hearsay. The case law further suggests that you needed to at least attempt to bring in the phone call and voicemail transcript under 804(b)(3) because they demonstrate the truthfulness of the trial transcript.
'

The motion in limine touched on statements and transcripts relating to only the testimony (evidence of hearsay can be introduced in multiple ways). If they wanted you to touch on the other transcripts they would have been explicit about it by saying something like the transcripts introducted in conjunction with the testimony. Anyway, hopefully they take it easy on people who misread the motion as 2/3rds of your response would basically be irrelevant and non-responsive.

siaynoqq
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby siaynoqq » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:16 pm

Fact pattern said excavation but ultimately it was the effect on the wall that made the property collapse. I thought it was a classic lateral support issue, unless I missed something.

Strict liability if it would have collapsed in natural state. Otherwise, negligence. Thought the negligence issue was pretty big there. Lots of facts that even go to contributory negligence and assumption of risk.

Edit: to clarify, excavation was being done on the neighboring land, not below the land of the machine shop.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:23 pm

Oh who cares it's over.

User avatar
fl0w
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:46 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby fl0w » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:30 pm

CourtneyElizabeth wrote:Oh who cares it's over.


how great does freedom taste?
the correct answer: so great.

CourtneyElizabeth
Posts: 310
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 12:22 am

Re: California Bar Exam (February 2014) thread

Postby CourtneyElizabeth » Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:45 pm

It tasted like tequila. Now it tastes like Gatorade because I'm old and can't hang anymore.
Honestly I'm sure we did awesome guys.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests