Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[Confused7]

Sorry to bump but I'm still really confused about this, and Themis has not been helpful.

More NY family law stuff...I'm really confused as to how adopted out kids can get their share in wills. I thought the rule was that they had to be specifically mentioned in the biological parent's will to get stuff. But there's also that test with the factors (if decedent died after 8/31/1987, if decedent was the adopted child's grandparent or descendent of a grandparent, and if the adopted parent is married to the child's biological parent). When do we apply each? I asked Themis but they weren't very clear.

This confused the hell out of me too until I think I figured it out:

If you are ADOPTED OUT and there's no ANTI-LAPSE and you AREN'T MENTIONED - You can't take inheritance or a "to my children" class gift UNLESS that 3 part 1987 test allows you too

If you are ADOPTED OUT but there is AN ANTI-LAPSE STATUTE at work and you ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED - You CAN inherit through ANTI-LAPSE

Thanks for your response! So you think the deciding factor is if there's an anti-lapse statute? I'm not so sure. :/ In the last essay on the simulated NY day (the one about a decedent named Thea who had given her kid Chip up for adoption), one sub-answer states that NY does have an anti-lapse statute. But the sub-answer that addressed whether Chip could get anything from Thea's will (there was a provision that said "to all my children) still went into the 1987 analysis...

[IamIn]

MBE Crim Pro answers are confusing. In one instance, the correct answer choice stated that taking off a watch from a sedated person's wrist is a robbery even though there was no fear, because the force was applied. But then answer to another question states that taking something from a dead person is not a robbery because there is no fear or force applied because the person is dead. Am I missing something or this entire thing doesn't make any sense?

[annapach]

how boss would it be if Themis gave you a rule statement with every MBE answer explanation

[yngblkgifted]

64 on my last MBE set. Oh the pain!

Dont feel bad about it. Mine go from 80% to 60% — if you are doing the 50 question sets, you will even out over 200 questions.

I'm hoping this is the case. My last 3 sets were 55%, then 76% and then down to 64%. Maybe I'll swing up to the 80's tonight

[always_raining]

WTF!

[+] Spoiler

A woman who played the lead role in a television soap opera was seriously injured in an automobile accident caused by the defendant's negligent driving. As a consequence of the woman's injury, the television series was canceled, and a supporting actor was laid off.
In an action against the defendant, can the supporting actor recover for his loss of income attributable to the accident?
Yes, because the defendant's negligence was the cause in fact of the supporting actor's loss.

Yes, unless the supporting actor failed to take reasonable measures to mitigate his loss.

No, unless the defendant should have foreseen that by injuring the woman he would cause harm to the supporting actor.

No, because the defendant's liability does not extend to economic loss to the supporting actor that arises solely from physical harm to the woman.

Answer choice D is correct. Generally, a duty of care is owed to all foreseeable persons who may be injured by another's failure to follow a reasonable standard of care. To determine who is foreseeable, the majority rule is that the defendant is liable only to plaintiffs who are within the zone of foreseeable harm. In this case, the defendant owed a duty to other drivers and passengers to not drive negligently. The defendant breached that duty and injured the television star in a car accident. The defendant did not owe a duty to the supporting actor plaintiff because he was not within the zone of foreseeable harm. If the foreseeable harm included the supporting actor, every writer, director, cameraman, etc., could recover from the defendant for the economic loss suffered after the show was canceled. Answer choice A is incorrect because it is not a complete statement; to recover for negligence, the defendant's actions must be the cause-in-fact (actual cause) and proximate cause (legal cause) of the plaintiff's injury. Answer choice B is incorrect because, although a plaintiff must take reasonable steps to mitigate damages, this plaintiff, the supporting actor, is not entitled to recovery as he was not a foreseeable plaintiff. Answer choice C is there to confuse the test-taker by adding the language "should have foreseen."

WHAT??? How is C incorrect?? If the defendant should have foreseen the harm, then the defendant would be liable, right? So the explanation is saying "ya totally but this is clearly not foreseeable so haha we tricked you"? Can anyone explain this shit better? About to throw my computer in the garbage and take up fishing as a career.

PS thanks for explaining the NIED/IIED thing!

[chipperjones]

Sharing my own inconsistent MBE Mixed sets. Through the first 8, I've gone: 88, 70, 65, 72, 78, 90, 78, 60.

The 60 I just took scares the poo out of me. After a 90, I thought for sure I was ready to rock the MBE. Now I'm just depressed at that 30 point spread.

[sd5289]

For everyone saying they were just recently destroyed by the Civ Pro questions in the mixed set. Me too. Me too.

I just did a mixed set that was insanely hard. And that was after a 78% the last time. This was 62%. For chrisssake.

ETA: though I can see from the spread that we were all over the place on these ones. So. That helps.

[anon sequitur]

where are the final review outlines I hear people mentioning?

[smalogna]

MBE Crim Pro answers are confusing. In one instance, the correct answer choice stated that taking off a watch from a sedated person's wrist is a robbery even though there was no fear, because the force was applied. But then answer to another question states that taking something from a dead person is not a robbery because there is no fear or force applied because the person is dead. Am I missing something or this entire thing doesn't make any sense?

Dead vs. sedated. Technically you are using force on a sedated person but you can't use force on a dead person.

[sd5289]

where are the final review outlines I hear people mentioning?

They were sent to your inbox near the beginning of the summer.

I prefer them now to anything else. Very short, succinct statements, that should definitely be enough to jog your memory.

That said, if you're in NY, the NY practice on is 50+ pages long. The rest are generally around 15(ish) pages and as short as 5 (Conflict of Laws in NY).

[sd5289]

MBE Crim Pro answers are confusing. In one instance, the correct answer choice stated that taking off a watch from a sedated person's wrist is a robbery even though there was no fear, because the force was applied. But then answer to another question states that taking something from a dead person is not a robbery because there is no fear or force applied because the person is dead. Am I missing something or this entire thing doesn't make any sense?

Dead vs. sedated. Technically you are using force on a sedated person but you can't use force on a dead person.

Try and think of it in the same way you think of the "trespassory taking" element of larceny. Force is force, no matter how slight, and if you're referencing the question I think you are, that sedated person was roofied by the D prior to the taking. So it's the elements of larceny + the use of "force" on the victim in order to take = robbery.

Remember that robbery = either use of force (whether fear is instilled is irrelevant) OR intimidation via threat of force (the fear element).

[anon sequitur]

That said, if you're in NY, the NY practice on is 50+ pages long. The rest are generally around 15(ish) pages and as short as 5 (Conflict of Laws in NY).

Thanks. Are they called "final review outlines"? I searched my gmail inbox and the themis inbox, don't see anything like that. Maybe I deleted it accidentally.

Also, any speculation why Themis would not put these on the website? To maintain the clean lines of their slick website?

[Robert Paulson]

MBE Crim Pro answers are confusing. In one instance, the correct answer choice stated that taking off a watch from a sedated person's wrist is a robbery even though there was no fear, because the force was applied. But then answer to another question states that taking something from a dead person is not a robbery because there is no fear or force applied because the person is dead. Am I missing something or this entire thing doesn't make any sense?

Dead vs. sedated. Technically you are using force on a sedated person but you can't use force on a dead person.

Try and think of it in the same way you think of the "trespassory taking" element of larceny. Force is force, no matter how slight, and if you're referencing the question I think you are, that sedated person was roofied by the D prior to the taking. So it's the elements of larceny + the use of "force" on the victim in order to take = robbery.

Remember that robbery = either use of force (whether fear is instilled is irrelevant) OR intimidation via threat of force (the fear element).

Yeah, the force element is satisfied by the act of ruffying the victim. If the victim was just sleeping, then it's larceny.

[gr8scOtt!]

That said, if you're in NY, the NY practice on is 50+ pages long. The rest are generally around 15(ish) pages and as short as 5 (Conflict of Laws in NY).

Thanks. Are they called "final review outlines"? I searched my gmail inbox and the themis inbox, don't see anything like that. Maybe I deleted it accidentally.

Also, any speculation why Themis would not put these on the website? To maintain the clean lines of their slick website?

There are some in the beginning of the MBE practice book. For non-MBE subjects, they were emailed.

[sd5289]

That said, if you're in NY, the NY practice on is 50+ pages long. The rest are generally around 15(ish) pages and as short as 5 (Conflict of Laws in NY).

Thanks. Are they called "final review outlines"? I searched my gmail inbox and the themis inbox, don't see anything like that. Maybe I deleted it accidentally.

Also, any speculation why Themis would not put these on the website? To maintain the clean lines of their slick website?

They should be in your Themis mailbox, but if you can't find them, PM me and I'll send them to you.

Caveat: I only have the NY specific ones. The MBE ones will be fine if you're in another state, but they'll have annoying NY distinctions on them.

[anon sequitur]

found them, thanks for the help you all, I've been wanting to do a complete overview of each MBE subject before the test and those long outlines were too much.

Still...... why the hell are these not just on the website?

[IamIn]

MBE Crim Pro answers are confusing. In one instance, the correct answer choice stated that taking off a watch from a sedated person's wrist is a robbery even though there was no fear, because the force was applied. But then answer to another question states that taking something from a dead person is not a robbery because there is no fear or force applied because the person is dead. Am I missing something or this entire thing doesn't make any sense?

Dead vs. sedated. Technically you are using force on a sedated person but you can't use force on a dead person.

Try and think of it in the same way you think of the "trespassory taking" element of larceny. Force is force, no matter how slight, and if you're referencing the question I think you are, that sedated person was roofied by the D prior to the taking. So it's the elements of larceny + the use of "force" on the victim in order to take = robbery.

Remember that robbery = either use of force (whether fear is instilled is irrelevant) OR intimidation via threat of force (the fear element).

Yeah, the force element is satisfied by the act of ruffying the victim. If the victim was just sleeping, then it's larceny.

Makes sense now! Thank you all!

[sd5289]

found them, thanks for the help you all, I've been wanting to do a complete overview of each MBE subject before the test and those long outlines were too much.

Still...... why the hell are these not just on the website?

Because that would be too easy.

[sd5289]

In other news, this:

https://youtu.be/Q-Q3gd6S1as?t=23s

UGH, is this hell over yet?

[InternationalShoe]

Sorry to bump but I'm still really confused about this, and Themis has not been helpful.

More NY family law stuff...I'm really confused as to how adopted out kids can get their share in wills. I thought the rule was that they had to be specifically mentioned in the biological parent's will to get stuff. But there's also that test with the factors (if decedent died after 8/31/1987, if decedent was the adopted child's grandparent or descendent of a grandparent, and if the adopted parent is married to the child's biological parent). When do we apply each? I asked Themis but they weren't very clear.

This confused the hell out of me too until I think I figured it out:

If you are ADOPTED OUT and there's no ANTI-LAPSE and you AREN'T MENTIONED - You can't take inheritance or a "to my children" class gift UNLESS that 3 part 1987 test allows you too

If you are ADOPTED OUT but there is AN ANTI-LAPSE STATUTE at work and you ARE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED - You CAN inherit through ANTI-LAPSE

Thanks for your response! So you think the deciding factor is if there's an anti-lapse statute? I'm not so sure. :/ In the last essay on the simulated NY day (the one about a decedent named Thea who had given her kid Chip up for adoption), one sub-answer states that NY does have an anti-lapse statute. But the sub-answer that addressed whether Chip could get anything from Thea's will (there was a provision that said "to all my children) still went into the 1987 analysis...

I might be wrong, but here's what I think the rule is:

I thought the rule was that they had to be specifically mentioned in the biological parent's will to get stuff.

This rule applies when the adopted out child is inheriting directly from the biological parent that gave them up for adoption. That parent would have to specifically mention the child by name in the will in order for the child to inherit. If the parent says something like "to my heirs or issue" the child won't inherit. [EDIT: exception to this if "i) The will (or lifetime testamentary instrument) is executed after August 31, 1986; ii) The will includes a class gift (e.g., “next of kin”, “children”, “issue”); iii) The person who adopted the child is (a) married to the child’s natural parent, (b) the child’s natural grandparent, or (c) a descendent of the child’s natural grandparent; iv) The testator is the child’s natural grandparent or a descendent of the natural grandparent; and v) The will does not express a contrary intention."] Same goes if the parent dies intestate.

But there's also that test with the factors (if decedent died after 8/31/1987, if decedent was the adopted child's grandparent or descendent of a grandparent, and if the adopted parent is married to the child's biological parent). When do we apply each? I asked Themis but they weren't very clear.

This rule applies when the adopted child stands to inherit through the biological parent who gave them up for adoption. For example, assume that the biological dad gave kid up for adoption. Biological dad dies. Biological dad's brother dies intestate. Here the decedent is a descendant of the child's biological grandfather. The child would inherit from the biological uncle so long as the uncle died after 8/31/1987 and the child's adopted parent is married to the child's biological mother. If the child was given up for adoption by both parents and adopted by two strangers, then the child would not inherit from his biological uncle.

[paulshortys10]

Did the PR graded test. got it back in 7 fucking minutes. the "attorney" probably didn't even read it.

[eloise16]

Went from a 72% on a mixed MBE to a 58% on the next round. All in one day. I dunno about y'all but mixed MBE #10 was unrealistically hard. Like more than half of the questions were foreign to me. Had to guess on so many.

[paulshortys10]

Went from a 72% on a mixed MBE to a 58% on the next round. All in one day. I dunno about y'all but mixed MBE #10 was unrealistically hard. Like more than half of the questions were foreign to me. Had to guess on so many.

Not sure if I had the same questions, but I got 82% on #10. However, I got 60% on 8 and 6, both of which I thought were real hard and had noticeably long fact patterns.

[annapach]

Went from a 72% on a mixed MBE to a 58% on the next round. All in one day. I dunno about y'all but mixed MBE #10 was unrealistically hard. Like more than half of the questions were foreign to me. Had to guess on so many.

Not sure if I had the same questions, but I got 82% on #10. However, I got 60% on 8 and 6, both of which I thought were real hard and had noticeably long fact patterns.

They're totally randomized guys

[amorsebu14]

Does anyone have any clever methods of distinguishing the types of notice statutes? Our professor in law school never covered these, since he favored ancient and medieval property rights, and as a result, I'm just guessing, here.