July 2015 California Bar Exam

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:29 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
Zaizei wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...


It literally said w/intent to remain

It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.


Nope; it said both. He went for that and then told friends he intended to remain. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha


Fromm!!! Good dude.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:32 am

Underoath wrote:
Fromm!!! Good dude.


Top Kaplan rep/lecturer for sure. Maybe one of the few reasons I'd recommend Kap is because of that guy (IMHO)
Last edited by robinhoodOO on Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

Underoath
Posts: 235
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 8:49 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Underoath » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:34 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
Underoath wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Zaizei wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...


It literally said w/intent to remain

It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.


Nope; it said both. He went for that and then told friends he intended to remain. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha


Fromm!!! Good dude.


Top Kaplan rep/lecturer for sure. Maybe one of the few reasons I'd recommend Kap is because of that guy (IMHO)


I've had him...I'm banking on nailing MBE because of him.

BrokenMouse
im above average FICO buddy
Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BrokenMouse » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:37 am

lol
Last edited by BrokenMouse on Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:43 am

BrokenMouse wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Zaizei wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...


It literally said w/intent to remain

It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.


Nope; it said both. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha


A party's citizenship at the time of the filing of the action is considered the citizenship of the party. If a defendant later moves to the same state as the plaintiff while the action is pending, the federal court will still have jurisdiction. However, if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is first filed, diversity does not exist. 28 U.S.C. §1441(b).

If plaintiff moves to destroy diversity because he wants case remanded back to the state court, this sounds awful like forum shopping/ bad faith move.


I'd agree with everything you said, except I specifically recall case filed after. And, I definitely know I blew some issues on other Q's, but I think this is one of the few I didn't blow ;)

Either way, no sense beating a dead horse. Someone's wrong, and regardless of who, it's not detrimental :)

Day one is done! I'm confident nearly everyone in this forum has done well so far, and will continue to do well tomorrow.

Good luck guys/girls and good rest
Last edited by robinhoodOO on Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:07 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:44 am

Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

User avatar
acronyx
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:33 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby acronyx » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:48 am

BuenAbogado wrote:Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

And make sure your wireless card is properly installed.

User avatar
robinhoodOO
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:49 am

acronyx wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

And make sure your wireless card is properly installed.


I'm just making sure I have my single-use eye drops

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:58 am

Just realized I called it res judicata instead of collateral estoppel and even used it in the heading.

I think RJ technically encompasses CE, but a grader might dock me/not read the analysis. :(

BrokenMouse
im above average FICO buddy
Posts: 1352
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BrokenMouse » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:00 am

lol
Last edited by BrokenMouse on Thu Apr 28, 2016 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Notorious RBG
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Notorious RBG » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:03 am

BuenAbogado wrote:Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.


Lol!

But remember you can keep your feminine hygiene products as long as they're up in the clear plastic baggy for your hot seat mate to stare at.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:03 am

BrokenMouse wrote:On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...

I did the same. You could go 3 to address the other side point by point, but there was so much overlap I just rolled with two.

Notorious RBG
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 12:27 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Notorious RBG » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:07 am

You guys are freaking way too much on the post mortums here. Uh not that I don't totally relate! But y'all have seen the released answers. Depending on the subject, the released answers can vary WILDLY, and they got top grades! It's impossible to answer these things perfectly, there is always something you don't know or something you forget due to the ridiculously stressful conditions. If you prepped well you have a good shot. You pass the bar in the months leading up to it. All you can do on the day of the test is not freak out too much and say a hail Mary that your weakest subjects aren't drilled too deep. Cuz we all have them. I'm look at you corporations.

With that zen thought I'm to bed... best of luck to all tomorrow!

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:09 am

Did anyone else just drive to three different stores because no one sells non-mechanical pencils anymore? Personally, I plan on tapping my pencil repetitively in between answers tomorrow just to prove a point that non-mech pencils can be "noisy" too. Fucking NCBE bastards.... :x

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:13 am

Underoath wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Underoath wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:If no adverse possession issue, how did you utilize the fact where L did not know that P took possession of the land?


that's exactly why I did AP


But, co-tenant can't adversely possess another co-tenant's interest. Gotta oust his ass


I forgot the rules for ouster lol =/


That was only there to make you doubt that the JTRS was severed. It didn't matter, because a JT can convey their interest without permission, knowledge, and in fact can keep it secret if they care to. It doesn't affect the extinguishing of the JTRS and initiation of a TIC between L and P..... nothing to do with adverse possession at all.

auds1008
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:57 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby auds1008 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:13 am

elijah54594 wrote:Did anyone else just drive to three different stores because no one sells non-mechanical pencils anymore? Personally, I plan on tapping my pencil repetitively in between answers tomorrow just to prove a point that non-mech pencils can be "noisy" too. Fucking NCBE bastards.... :x


then you'd get a chapter 6 violation. be careful. :wink:

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:29 am

Reds622 wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.


Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.


I saw the same thing that you did.. I think. I "may" have found PJ for "other" party though..


I'm not sure what DO means, but if it is what I think, they were the P, and thus the court holds PJ automatically because he filed the complaint.... just saying. As to RESIDENCY for the purpose of diversity, yes, the move and intent to stay indefinite changes dom.

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:30 am

auds1008 wrote:
elijah54594 wrote:Did anyone else just drive to three different stores because no one sells non-mechanical pencils anymore? Personally, I plan on tapping my pencil repetitively in between answers tomorrow just to prove a point that non-mech pencils can be "noisy" too. Fucking NCBE bastards.... :x


then you'd get a chapter 6 violation. be careful. :wink:


haha, they can chapter 6 deeeezzzz nuuuuuhuuuutzzzzz

User avatar
elijah54594
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:53 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby elijah54594 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:38 am

BrokenMouse wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BrokenMouse wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
publicservant101 wrote:The doctor didn't move... I don't think?


Nah, P did


Srsly? Lol what the fuck was I reading today, because it clearly wasn't the facts.


The damn DO and P were on the same side of the column and the evil corp was from elsewhere.


I just text my buddy to make sure I wasn't losing my mind: P moved.


He moved, but his move required a pennoyer v neff domicile analysis.


I loled hard


Seriously bra, get that 1L ish outa here

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:32 am

elijah54594 wrote:
Reds622 wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.


Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.


I saw the same thing that you did.. I think. I "may" have found PJ for "other" party though..


I'm not sure what DO means, but if it is what I think, they were the P, and thus the court holds PJ automatically because he filed the complaint.... just saying. As to RESIDENCY for the purpose of diversity, yes, the move and intent to stay indefinite changes dom.


Lel okay I thought we were talking about a defendant, not the patient. Looks like I didn't fuck it up too badly after all. WHEW

User avatar
brotherdarkness
Posts: 3254
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 8:11 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:44 am

BrokenMouse wrote:On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...


Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.

User avatar
BuenAbogado
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:44 am

brotherdarkness wrote:
BrokenMouse wrote:On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...


Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.


Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.

IceManKazanski
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:10 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby IceManKazanski » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:09 am

BuenAbogado wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
BrokenMouse wrote:On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...


Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.


Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.


That's what I went with, figured it was safe bet anyway.

I also thought the exception in 2 didn't apply. The opponent tried to apply it, but it didn't seem like he satisfied the condition at all.

Calicakes
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 1:31 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Calicakes » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:12 am

publicservant101 wrote:The doctor didn't move... I don't think?

No, he didnt. P moved for treatment "indefinitely".

Zaizei
Posts: 119
Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 7:05 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Zaizei » Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:25 am

IceManKazanski wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
BrokenMouse wrote:On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...


Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.


Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.


That's what I went with, figured it was safe bet anyway.

I also thought the exception in 2 didn't apply. The opponent tried to apply it, but it didn't seem like he satisfied the condition at all.


+1




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests