July 2015 California Bar Exam

InTheWideLand I Walk
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:57 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby InTheWideLand I Walk » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:33 pm

10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Mon Jul 20, 2015 10:57 pm

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.


Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky ;)

InTheWideLand I Walk
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:57 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby InTheWideLand I Walk » Mon Jul 20, 2015 11:53 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.


Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky ;)


yeah. im going to spend my time studying for securities instead.. id be more afraid of that.... like a 10b5 and then 16b racehorse essay with multiple characters doing shady shit. the fact it came up subtly in july 2014, I think, is a hint that they are putting us on notice that it is going to come back, and come back hard. securities has come up within 1 year of itself before. but then again, businessy kind of issues have appeared on the last 2 exams... but securities is so much different than the other bs. anyway, heres been the trusts:

2000 jul
2001 jul*
2002 feb*
2004 jul*
2005 feb*
2006 jul
2008 feb
2010 feb
2012 feb
2014 july*
2015 feb*

* it seems to have appeared back to back in 01-02, and than again in 04-05. If it comes up a third time in a row that would be pretty novel.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:10 am

BuenAbogado wrote:However, what you need to do on an essay is try to find a way to admit the embezzlement charge using the MIMIC exceptions. Won't go into that, you gotta do that on your own.


Hmm, interesting point. I don't think it would come in under MIMIC, unless the embezzlement charge was somehow related to mail fraud in that D had committed embezzlement previously using the mail or something like that (for common plan/identity). A bit of a stretch, I think?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:11 am

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:I believe that the character wouldn't be at issue in mail fraud, which is why D is the wrong answer. The requirements to prove mail fraud don't include any sort of character, whereas, for example, a tort of negligent entrustment requires the plaintiff to prove a character for negligence.


Elements of mail fraud (ty, wiki):

1. Intent;
2. A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
3. A mail or wire communication.[4]

Couldn't you argue element 2 is a character type factor (fraudulent actions)?

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:13 am

How and when do you use the privileges and immunities (both 14th and 5th) clauses in an essay? My outline materials say it's not applicable to corps, and that's primarily used to ensure that a state does not discriminate against an out of stater attempting to travel across its borders.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15515
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:21 am

redblueyellow wrote:How and when do you use the privileges and immunities (both 14th and 5th) clauses in an essay? My outline materials say it's not applicable to corps, and that's primarily used to ensure that a state does not discriminate against an out of stater attempting to travel across its borders.

14th amendment P&I is only for right to travel.

Article IV P&I is used if a state discriminates against out of staters. If they do, it can't be with regard to fundamental rights or important economic interests like earning a living. If those types of discrimination do happen, they must be necessary to achieve an important government purpose.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Jul 21, 2015 12:36 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:How and when do you use the privileges and immunities (both 14th and 5th) clauses in an essay? My outline materials say it's not applicable to corps, and that's primarily used to ensure that a state does not discriminate against an out of stater attempting to travel across its borders.

14th amendment P&I is only for right to travel.

Article IV P&I is used if a state discriminates against out of staters. If they do, it can't be with regard to fundamental rights or important economic interests like earning a living. If those types of discrimination do happen, they must be necessary to achieve an important government purpose.


Thanks!

If Art IV is used, does that necessarily ride along with substantive due process/procedural due process? In other words, if you have to discuss one, discuss all?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 21, 2015 1:30 am

InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.


Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky ;)


yeah. im going to spend my time studying for securities instead.. id be more afraid of that.... like a 10b5 and then 16b racehorse essay with multiple characters doing shady shit. the fact it came up subtly in july 2014, I think, is a hint that they are putting us on notice that it is going to come back, and come back hard. securities has come up within 1 year of itself before. but then again, businessy kind of issues have appeared on the last 2 exams... but securities is so much different than the other bs. anyway, heres been the trusts:

2000 jul
2001 jul*
2002 feb*
2004 jul*
2005 feb*
2006 jul
2008 feb
2010 feb
2012 feb
2014 july*
2015 feb*

* it seems to have appeared back to back in 01-02, and than again in 04-05. If it comes up a third time in a row that would be pretty novel.


I've boiled securities down into pretty straightforward stuff. Guess I should make sure I do another pass just in case. Are you thinking like tippee-tipper by one, then misappropriations by another? What was the last test on it, like 2004?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:41 am

Does the equal protection clause protect religion?

This site implies no: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection

This site implies yes: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... rutiny.htm

WHICH IS IT????

AHhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhh

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1691
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:56 am

afaik religion is governed by strict scrutiny... generally

establishment clause: regulation on its face, SS
- not SS (i.e., valid) if facially neutral law preferring one religion over another

free speech clause: can't prohibit free exercise of any religion (as long as based on genuine belief), SS if the intent to interfere with religious exercise is there
- not SS if generally applicable regulation (neutral with respect to religion) even if it incidentally burdens religious conduct

equal protection also uses SS in certain cases, but i don't think of religion as an equal protection (5th/14th) issue but rather a 1st amendment one

User avatar
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:16 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:10 am

redblueyellow wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:I believe that the character wouldn't be at issue in mail fraud, which is why D is the wrong answer. The requirements to prove mail fraud don't include any sort of character, whereas, for example, a tort of negligent entrustment requires the plaintiff to prove a character for negligence.


Elements of mail fraud (ty, wiki):

1. Intent;
2. A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
3. A mail or wire communication.[4]

Couldn't you argue element 2 is a character type factor (fraudulent actions)?

Ok, I think I may have figured it out:
The whole "no character evidence unless character is directly in issue" thing is for civil cases. Mail fraud would be prosecuted in a criminal case, and evidence of the defendant's relevant character trait could be introduced by the prosecution (e.g. defendant has reputation for fraudulent behavior) if the defendant opened the door for it by introducing his own character evidence (e.g. defendant has reputation for honesty).

Does this sound right? I'm only like 80% sure.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:05 am

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:
redblueyellow wrote:
SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:I believe that the character wouldn't be at issue in mail fraud, which is why D is the wrong answer. The requirements to prove mail fraud don't include any sort of character, whereas, for example, a tort of negligent entrustment requires the plaintiff to prove a character for negligence.


Elements of mail fraud (ty, wiki):

1. Intent;
2. A "scheme or artifice to defraud" or the obtaining of property by fraud; and,
3. A mail or wire communication.[4]

Couldn't you argue element 2 is a character type factor (fraudulent actions)?

Ok, I think I may have figured it out:
The whole "no character evidence unless character is directly in issue" thing is for civil cases. Mail fraud would be prosecuted in a criminal case, and evidence of the defendant's relevant character trait could be introduced by the prosecution (e.g. defendant has reputation for fraudulent behavior) if the defendant opened the door for it by introducing his own character evidence (e.g. defendant has reputation for honesty).

Does this sound right? I'm only like 80% sure.


Kind of. You can introduce prior convictions of sexual assault in a criminal sexual assault case. Not sure why, but those defendants have less rights than those for murder, or chopping someone's limbs off.

Also, in CA, specific instances of violence are allowed by prosecution if offered first by defendant.

InTheWideLand I Walk
Posts: 158
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2014 1:57 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby InTheWideLand I Walk » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:00 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
InTheWideLand I Walk wrote:10 bucks says trusts wont even be on this exam.


Predictions are saying CP/Wills crossover, but have highlighted that Wills could be subbed for Trusts.

Regardless, Wills and Trusts are pretty straightforward...We'd be so lucky ;)


yeah. im going to spend my time studying for securities instead.. id be more afraid of that.... like a 10b5 and then 16b racehorse essay with multiple characters doing shady shit. the fact it came up subtly in july 2014, I think, is a hint that they are putting us on notice that it is going to come back, and come back hard. securities has come up within 1 year of itself before. but then again, businessy kind of issues have appeared on the last 2 exams... but securities is so much different than the other bs. anyway, heres been the trusts:

2000 jul
2001 jul*
2002 feb*
2004 jul*
2005 feb*
2006 jul
2008 feb
2010 feb
2012 feb
2014 july*
2015 feb*

* it seems to have appeared back to back in 01-02, and than again in 04-05. If it comes up a third time in a row that would be pretty novel.


I've boiled securities down into pretty straightforward stuff. Guess I should make sure I do another pass just in case. Are you thinking like tippee-tipper by one, then misappropriations by another? What was the last test on it, like 2004?


feb 2002, july 2003, and then...(after not appearing for 11 years,) july 2014!!!! im sayin if it comes up I predict itll be more like the jul 03 one as opposed to jul 2014 where it was like a subtle issue, I think they did tippee-tipper for one, missappriation by another, 16b for another, then insider trading for another, and multiple plaintiff action(s). maybe crossed over with pr since it has seemingly always been crossed over with pr.

RaiRai
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:27 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby RaiRai » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:01 pm

Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:08 pm

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.

redblueyellow
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Tue Jul 21, 2015 2:51 pm

RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


I have a bunch of mechanical pencils from last time. What am I going to do with them now!?

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:30 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.


Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:32 pm

redblueyellow wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


I have a bunch of mechanical pencils from last time. What am I going to do with them now!?


I would probably melt them, or give them to someone's dog that you don't like.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 21, 2015 3:44 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.


Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.


I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted :mrgreen:

RaiRai
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:27 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby RaiRai » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:09 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.


Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.


I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted :mrgreen:



good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary. :mrgreen:

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 21, 2015 4:12 pm

RaiRai wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.


Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.


I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted :mrgreen:



good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary. :mrgreen:


Sounds like her SP is entitled to a CP reimbursement, with interest, and at the time of dissolution.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:20 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.


Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.


I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted :mrgreen:


good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary. :mrgreen:


Sounds like her SP is entitled to a CP reimbursement, with interest, and at the time of dissolution.


I beg to differ. Under Anti-Lucas, SP improvements made to CP are reimbursed at divorce WITHOUT interest.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Tue Jul 21, 2015 5:44 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
RaiRai wrote:Yeah, mechanical pencils are out.

Got this email reminder today (guessing you all did):

"Finally, please note that mechanical pencils are now prohibited during the MBE session – only non-mechanical pencils with No. 2 lead can be used. Pencil sharpeners and separate erasers are also prohibited. Please refer to the Admittance Ticket Bulletin for the items that are allowed to be brought into the examination."

What if my eraser is that eraser cap that you insert on the eraser end of the pencil? it's not a separate eraser technically.


Issue: Is an eraser capped onto a pencil considered a separate eraser?

Rule: You may not use Separate Erasers. The Bar will confiscate and you bear the risk of loss for such property.

Analysis: An eraser that is not already part of a fully manufactured pencil, as purchased, is considered a separate eraser. It was independently bought as separate and only thereafter attached to the pencil. The mere fact that a party has attached the eraser to the manufactured pencil does not, therefore, change its form from separate to non-separate and part of the pencil.

Conclusion: Based on the fact that no valid conversion has resulted, and that the eraser remains separate, a party may not bring those weird fucking attachable eraser things to the Bar Exam.


Pencils man, we talkin bout pencils. We ain't talkin bout da quiz, we talkin bout pencils. Pencils.


I had to do the analysis for Rai Rai on whether or not cap erasers are permitted :mrgreen:


good game! btw, my wife bought those eraser caps with her inheritance money and i used it to improve my pencils bought with my salary. :mrgreen:


Sounds like her SP is entitled to a CP reimbursement, with interest, and at the time of dissolution.


I beg to differ. Under Anti-Lucas, SP improvements made to CP are reimbursed at divorce WITHOUT interest.


Oops; yup. Thanks for the clarification, buddy ;) . NO INTEREST!

gaagoots
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:01 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby gaagoots » Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:32 pm

http://whatthebarexam.tumblr.com

Best Tumblr account re: bar studies. If you need humor only someone whose been through it understands.

Loved the reference to the bar studies wardrobe hahaha




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dlaw7566 and 7 guests