July 2015 California Bar Exam

User avatar
a male human
Posts: 1692
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby a male human » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:32 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:It's also pretty fucked that pretty much everyone is predicting a CA CivPro question. Was it like that in Feb? What is there rational; guessing a hail mary?

Fucking cbx might as well test tribal law at this point

Not as much. People seem to get more and more antsy about it every administration because it's like a hot potato, or musical chairs or whatever.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:35 pm

I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby crumpetsandtea » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:46 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.

User avatar
sopranorleone
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby sopranorleone » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:48 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Image

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:49 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


I didn't do well on that essay. I didn't know what a bailment was, and I doubt I'll remember it in two days. Fuck.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:49 pm

Image

User avatar
Redamon1
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Redamon1 » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:51 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:51 pm

Redamon1 wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.


7

ETA -- I wrote about constructive trusts and equitable liens, not fucking bailments.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:53 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Redamon1 wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.


7

ETA -- I wrote about constructive trusts and equitable liens, not fucking bailments.


I haven't looked at it for this, but recall it in property from LS. Is it basically just a duty to adequately care for someone's property when giving possession or return property if you find it and there is a reasonable indication of who owns it???

Goddammit; one more thing I don't know.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby BuenAbogado » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:54 pm

Redamon1 wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.


Don't have to study bailment. Just think to yourself "what can the valet guy do with my car, what can't he do, and if he does the latter, what can I do to him?"

User avatar
sopranorleone
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby sopranorleone » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:55 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Redamon1 wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.


7

ETA -- I wrote about constructive trusts and equitable liens, not fucking bailments.


Never heard of the term "bailment" before, Googled it, looked at this link: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bailment

Saw how long the description was; went :lol: and then back to reviewing shit I actually heard of before

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:55 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:what can I do to him?"


Probably not use excessive or deadly force...Isn't that a rule? Hey, I remember one fucking thing :)

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:56 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:
Redamon1 wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.


Don't have to study bailment. Just think to yourself "what can the valet guy do with my car, what can't he do, and if he does the latter, what can I do to him?"


Good shit dude. Thx.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15523
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:57 pm

If a spouse uses SP to start a business during the marriage, it seems we don't use Van Camp or Pereira. In that case do we just reimburse the spouse for the initial investment and then split the increase in value?

User avatar
Redamon1
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Redamon1 » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:01 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:
Redamon1 wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:I've never walked into a law school exam without knowing the law. Now I'm a day away from the most important test I've taken, and I don't know the law. I hate this feeling.

Did one of the Remedies Barbri essays and a chunk of the answer was bailment...wtf, did any of y'all know about bailment before? I mean, the essence of the answer was negligence but the whole checklist was based off bailment and I never even knew it.

IS THIS DESIGNED TO MAKE ME PANIC? BC ITS MAKING ME PANIC.


Which essay? I should probably take a look at that. Bailment seems to show its ugly head occasionally on Torts, Remedies, K, or Property questions in essays or MBEs... "Nice" cross-over potential.


Don't have to study bailment. Just think to yourself "what can the valet guy do with my car, what can't he do, and if he does the latter, what can I do to him?"


Good shit dude. Thx.


Also, FWIW, Barbri CMR says Bailor is not vicariously liable for the torts of the bailee, BUT may be sued directly for negligent entrustment...

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:02 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:If a spouse uses SP to start a business during the marriage, it seems we don't use Van Camp or Pereira. In that case do we just reimburse the spouse for the initial investment and then split the increase in value?



Wait; why not? It's an SP business which has CP labor.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby crumpetsandtea » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:02 pm

Yeah, I feel like I "got the point" of bailment just by applying normal negligence, but it made me mad that they just structured everything around this thing that we never learned (never covered it in LS either). It just makes me paranoid thatI wouldn't have gotten points on the real exam if the bar grader had been like "weeeelll she didnt say bailment even once so it's not the right analysis"

IDK. ugh. I just want this to be done with so I don't have to worry about it anymore, honestly.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:04 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:Yeah, I feel like I "got the point" of bailment just by applying normal negligence, but it made me mad that they just structured everything around this thing that we never learned (never covered it in LS either). It just makes me paranoid thatI wouldn't have gotten points on the real exam if the bar grader had been like "weeeelll she didnt say bailment even once so it's not the right analysis"

IDK. ugh. I just want this to be done with so I don't have to worry about it anymore, honestly.


I'm just tired of that burning pit in my stomach...haha

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:05 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:Yeah, I feel like I "got the point" of bailment just by applying normal negligence, but it made me mad that they just structured everything around this thing that we never learned (never covered it in LS either). It just makes me paranoid thatI wouldn't have gotten points on the real exam if the bar grader had been like "weeeelll she didnt say bailment even once so it's not the right analysis"

IDK. ugh. I just want this to be done with so I don't have to worry about it anymore, honestly.


I'm just tired of that burning pit in my stomach...haha


That feeling isn't going to go away until November.

User avatar
Redamon1
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 2:46 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Redamon1 » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:05 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:If a spouse uses SP to start a business during the marriage, it seems we don't use Van Camp or Pereira. In that case do we just reimburse the spouse for the initial investment and then split the increase in value?


Not sure, but I would think a P/VC analysis makes sense in this case because although a spouse started a business using SP, the spouse probably contributed labor into that business (CP) between the time of creation and divorce. And I think P/VC problems arise when community labor or assets are used to enhance the value of SP.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15523
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:06 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:If a spouse uses SP to start a business during the marriage, it seems we don't use Van Camp or Pereira. In that case do we just reimburse the spouse for the initial investment and then split the increase in value?



Wait; why not? It's an SP business which has CP labor.

Actually yeah I think you're right. The materials all talk about what happens when the business existed at the time of marriage but I guess bringing it in and then buying the business with the SP is the same thing.

Thanks redamon.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby crumpetsandtea » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:08 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:Yeah, I feel like I "got the point" of bailment just by applying normal negligence, but it made me mad that they just structured everything around this thing that we never learned (never covered it in LS either). It just makes me paranoid thatI wouldn't have gotten points on the real exam if the bar grader had been like "weeeelll she didnt say bailment even once so it's not the right analysis"

IDK. ugh. I just want this to be done with so I don't have to worry about it anymore, honestly.


I'm just tired of that burning pit in my stomach...haha


That feeling isn't going to go away until November.

So true...but at least I won't have the burning pit AND the burden of studying every day. Instead, I can drown my stress in other activities.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:08 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:Yeah, I feel like I "got the point" of bailment just by applying normal negligence, but it made me mad that they just structured everything around this thing that we never learned (never covered it in LS either). It just makes me paranoid thatI wouldn't have gotten points on the real exam if the bar grader had been like "weeeelll she didnt say bailment even once so it's not the right analysis"

IDK. ugh. I just want this to be done with so I don't have to worry about it anymore, honestly.


I'm just tired of that burning pit in my stomach...haha


That feeling isn't going to go away until November.


hahaha. Oh, ya :(

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby brotherdarkness » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:08 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:If a spouse uses SP to start a business during the marriage, it seems we don't use Van Camp or Pereira. In that case do we just reimburse the spouse for the initial investment and then split the increase in value?


Why would we be splitting the increase in value? If the business was started with SP, and the other spouse didn't contribute (which is why I assume we're not using VC or P in this hypo), then the increase in value should be SP because the fruits of SP are SP. Right? On the other hand, a spouse's labor during the marriage is CP, so even if the business is started with SP, the increase in value could arguably be CP even if the other spouse didn't contribute... Ah goddammit I don't know.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby robinhoodOO » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:If a spouse uses SP to start a business during the marriage, it seems we don't use Van Camp or Pereira. In that case do we just reimburse the spouse for the initial investment and then split the increase in value?



Wait; why not? It's an SP business which has CP labor.

Actually yeah I think you're right. The materials all talk about what happens when the business existed at the time of marriage but I guess bringing it in and then buying the business with the SP is the same thing.

Thanks redamon.


Who is this redamon and what do you know




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mariskvs and 6 guests