July 2015 California Bar Exam

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:10 pm

brotherdarkness 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?


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.

Nah you're right I overthought it. Essay #1 said don't use VC/P but that was because the business was started with CP so the whole thing was CP. If the business had started with SP, even during the marriage, you'd use the VC/P stuff.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:11 pm

I'm troubled by the disparity in length of the Barbri model answers. Some of them take up about 3 or 4 solid pages, whereas others might extend to about 1.5 pages. Obviously, we're not expected to write some 4-page masterpiece, so I'm aiming to have about 2 pages of solid material where a model answer might have 4. But if I'm facing an essay that only has about 1.5 pages worth of stuff to write about, I'll probably have about a page of writing and it'll freak me the fuck out. What if I only have about a page of material and it's actually an essay with about 4 pages of potential topics you can write about? :?

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 4:11 pm

brotherdarkness 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?


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.



Treat it as an SP business w/CP labor/contributions. So, then, you do the Van Camp and Pereira applications upon dissolution for division. So, you will divide based on whether market forces primarily contributed towards its increased value, or community labor is primarily attributable to its increases.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:12 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:I'm troubled by the disparity in length of the Barbri model answers. Some of them take up about 3 or 4 solid pages, whereas others might extend to about 1.5 pages. Obviously, we're not expected to write some 4-page masterpiece, so I'm aiming to have about 2 pages of solid material where a model answer might have 4. But if I'm facing an essay that only has about 1.5 pages worth of stuff to write about, I'll probably have about a page of writing and it'll freak me the fuck out. What if I only have about a page of material and it's actually an essay with about 4 pages of potential topics you can write about? :?

Just have to trust your gut on those ones. I felt the same way on a couple of them but chances are if you really think you've hit all the issues you probably have.

FearnLoathing
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:28 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby FearnLoathing » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:16 pm

Isn't the problem here that the spouse was using time and skill during the marriage to keep the business going. Since time and skill during the marriage are CP, then there would need to be some sort of asset allocation to the other spouse if there was a dissolution of the marriage.

I think you would then need to determine whether the business was labor intensive (Pereira) or whether it was not the greater factor (Van Camp). At least that's how I would argue it. Then I would just lay down my head and cry.

Anyone else taking the test at the Santa Clara location? If so, how are you planning on packing a lunch for the hellish exam? Packed lunch in a supposed bag we can keep up against the wall?? Can anyone weigh in on this??

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 4:18 pm

FearnLoathing wrote:Isn't the problem here that the spouse was using time and skill during the marriage to keep the business going. Since time and skill during the marriage are CP, then there would need to be some sort of asset allocation to the other spouse if there was a dissolution of the marriage.

I think you would then need to determine whether the business was labor intensive (Pereira) or whether it was not the greater factor (Van Camp). At least that's how I would argue it. Then I would just lay down my head and cry.

Anyone else taking the test at the Santa Clara location? If so, how are you planning on packing a lunch for the hellish exam? Packed lunch in a supposed bag we can keep up against the wall?? Can anyone weigh in on this??


Yup: You can leave your bag outside of the exam room against the wall w/food, etc.

And, yes: We confirmed the VC/P calculations :)

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 4:21 pm

Can we bring a car key in (mine is just a little fob thing)? I'm planning on leaving my phone, backpack, snacks, etc in my car rather than leaving it in the hallway...

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 4:24 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
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


Redamon,

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let my false sense of understanding everything on the bar exam go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will study with you.

User avatar
Pleasye
Posts: 7957
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:22 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Pleasye » Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:25 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:I'm troubled by the disparity in length of the Barbri model answers. Some of them take up about 3 or 4 solid pages, whereas others might extend to about 1.5 pages. Obviously, we're not expected to write some 4-page masterpiece, so I'm aiming to have about 2 pages of solid material where a model answer might have 4. But if I'm facing an essay that only has about 1.5 pages worth of stuff to write about, I'll probably have about a page of writing and it'll freak me the fuck out. What if I only have about a page of material and it's actually an essay with about 4 pages of potential topics you can write about? :?

Don't worry about the length of what you're writing. Write about the issues that are clearly implicated and the ones that the examiners seem to be trying to get at in the fact pattern (even if you conclude it doesn't apply in the end). Don't make up random shit to fill up more space.

That's my method at least.

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 4:26 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.


No probz AppleMan. I just use real life examples to remember stuff that I would otherwise forget within 7-8 seconds.

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 4:37 pm

Opened up to the CA Civ Pro section, saw some crazy ish like the judge decides equity first and then lets the jury determine legal, and this is what happened:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/196157.gif

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:02 pm

Apparently, Grandmaster Flash left his Dodge Charger with a parking garage yesterday and the genius parking attendant gave the car to some stranger that was purportedly dressed like him. That's a bailment right? What kind of remedies could Mr. Flash seek?

Charger
Posts: 126
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:15 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Charger » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:06 pm

I think I'm going to hurl. Doing a last minute read through of all my outlines and flashcards before taking the rest of the day off, and realizing that I've forgotten half the shit I learned over the last 10 weeks, including all CA distinctions for PR and evidence and every single thing for CA civ pro. This feels so impossible.

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 5:07 pm

BuenAbogado wrote:Opened up to the CA Civ Pro section, saw some crazy ish like the judge decides equity first and then lets the jury determine legal, and this is what happened:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/196157.gif


FRCP is legal first, then equitable, right?

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 5:07 pm

SpAcEmAn SpLiFF wrote:Apparently, Grandmaster Flash left his Dodge Charger with a parking garage yesterday and the genius parking attendant gave the car to some stranger that was purportedly dressed like him. That's a bailment right? What kind of remedies could Mr. Flash seek?


If the garage was a state owned garage, I would argue an Equal Protection Clause violation. You can't treat similarly appearing people the same.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:09 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:Opened up to the CA Civ Pro section, saw some crazy ish like the judge decides equity first and then lets the jury determine legal, and this is what happened:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/196157.gif


FRCP is legal first, then equitable, right?

yeah

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 5:12 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
BuenAbogado wrote:Opened up to the CA Civ Pro section, saw some crazy ish like the judge decides equity first and then lets the jury determine legal, and this is what happened:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/196157.gif


FRCP is legal first, then equitable, right?


Yes my dawg.

Lets play a game called "Every person contribute a CA Civ Pro Distinction, a CA Evi distinction and a CA PR distinction"

No repeats.

1. I started with the CA Civ Pro flippy floppy on the legal equity issue.
2. In CA, character evidence against a criminal defendant based on his opening the door is limited to his character for violence, as opposed to the FRE where you can prove whatever trait he opened the door for.
3. In CA, you can get some strange as long as it aint have an undue influence on the client/attorney relationship. ABA are haters, aint no strange available.
Last edited by BuenAbogado on Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:16 pm

1. Feds: 12b(6) CA: General demurrer

2. Feds: Present sense impression works for anything the declarant spoke about as it was happening, CA: Contemporaneous statement only applies if it's declarant's own conduct

3. Feds: No loans to clients except to advance litigation expenses. CA: Loans no biggie as long as it's a current client and you got a written promissory note.

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 5:17 pm

CA Civ Pro uses the primary rights doctrine, whereas FRCP uses the same transaction or occurrence doctrine. Thus, it's easier to get around res judicata (claim preclusion) under CA law than federal law.

If a court is sitting in diversity and applying Erie, would this procedural rule have enough of a substantive effect on the outcome to persuade the court to use the CA rule rather than the FRCP rule?

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 5:34 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:CA Civ Pro uses the primary rights doctrine, whereas FRCP uses the same transaction or occurrence doctrine. Thus, it's easier to get around res judicata (claim preclusion) under CA law than federal law.

If a court is sitting in diversity and applying Erie, would this procedural rule have enough of a substantive effect on the outcome to persuade the court to use the CA rule rather than the FRCP rule?


Federal Court's apply the res judicata law of the state where the Judgment was entered (period). It's a settled issue, but if this comes up, DO ERIE and conclude PRIMARY RIGHTS DOCTRINE APPLIES

:)

Now, feel better that if this is the CA CivPro issue we see, we will destroy 90% of the people on that essay...Look around and watch their faces turn to stone as you rip this one apart
Last edited by robinhoodOO on Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 5:34 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:CA Civ Pro uses the primary rights doctrine, whereas FRCP uses the same transaction or occurrence doctrine. Thus, it's easier to get around res judicata (claim preclusion) under CA law than federal law.

If a court is sitting in diversity and applying Erie, would this procedural rule have enough of a substantive effect on the outcome to persuade the court to use the CA rule rather than the FRCP rule?


Federal Court's apply the res judicata law of the state where the Judgment was entered (period). It's a settled issue, but if this comes up, DO ERIE and conclude PRIMARY RIGHTS DOCTRINE APPLIES

:)


Sweet thx.

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 5:38 pm

robinhoodOO wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:CA Civ Pro uses the primary rights doctrine, whereas FRCP uses the same transaction or occurrence doctrine. Thus, it's easier to get around res judicata (claim preclusion) under CA law than federal law.

If a court is sitting in diversity and applying Erie, would this procedural rule have enough of a substantive effect on the outcome to persuade the court to use the CA rule rather than the FRCP rule?


Federal Court's apply the res judicata law of the state where the Judgment was entered (period). It's a settled issue, but if this comes up, DO ERIE and conclude PRIMARY RIGHTS DOCTRINE APPLIES

:)

Now, feel better that if this is the CA CivPro issue we see, we will destroy 90% of the people on that essay...Look around and watch their faces turn to stone as you rip this one apart


Good stuff!! Keep more CA Distinctions coming!! One of them is bound to come up, and it will be our otherwise irresponsible forum browsing that leads to our advantage.

fadedsunrise
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 11:17 pm

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby fadedsunrise » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:39 pm

Idk if this is implied somewhere or actually a rule, but do you always need to swear in a witness if they're on the stand?

Ie) February 2004 Q 1, Crim Law
The D wanted to go on the stand to read a newspaper out loud to prove that he didn't have an accent, because the witness heard that the robber had an accent. D doesn't want to be sworn in or subject to cross. Is that permissible? I checked my outline for it but it doesn't explicitly say.

Kaplan's model answer basically said as rules (1) D can offer evidence in support of his innocence, and (2) D doesn't need to be sworn in if not offering testimonial evidence. I feel like I haven't heard of either as specific rules, persay.

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

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Postby SpAcEmAn SpLiFF » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:39 pm

What is this primary rights stuff? Someone please explain :?

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 5:44 pm

fadedsunrise wrote:Idk if this is implied somewhere or actually a rule, but do you always need to swear in a witness if they're on the stand?

Ie) February 2004 Q 1, Crim Law
The D wanted to go on the stand to read a newspaper out loud to prove that he didn't have an accent, because the witness heard that the robber had an accent. D doesn't want to be sworn in or subject to cross. Is that permissible? I checked my outline for it but it doesn't explicitly say.

Kaplan's model answer basically said as rules (1) D can offer evidence in support of his innocence, and (2) D doesn't need to be sworn in if not offering testimonial evidence. I feel like I haven't heard of either as specific rules, persay.


Never heard of that but it is 100% logical.

It would be as if you were playing a voice sample or showing a sample of someone's handwriting. No need for testimony. That being said, devil's advocate.... I would want to ask him if he has practiced on his accent since the crime, etc.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests