BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[BearState]

When you pencil in 5 "C"s in a row:

[Good Guy Gaud]

^ ain't that the truth lol

[errmsg]

For those of you who have done the MBE Sample Test Questions, can someone please explain the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 18? I don't want to spoil the questions for those of you that haven't tried them yet so I'll limit the details.

[+] Spoiler

These were the questions about the dad scared of the crackhead son, residency requirement for public education, and the K modification question.

Thanks.

[+] Spoiler

1. There was enough evidence to support a self-defense claim. See the fact in the question. I guess I didn't think any other option came close

3. Treated out of state and in-state differently, thus violated the equal protection clause. This was very similar to Refresher Q98

18. Because that is the view of the Second Restatement. See Mixed Set 3 Question 12

Thanks! One quick question -

[+] Spoiler

Wouldn't the father's use of deadly force only be justified if he reasonably believed that he was under imminent threat of deadly force himself? I just assumed that physical abuse didn't amount to threat of "deadly" force since it seems like it happened in the past, etc.

Perhaps the judge can give the self-destruction instruction to the jury to see if the jury would reasonably construe the impending belief of physical abuse to constitute a threat of deadly force?

In any case, thanks again for the help.

[musicfor18]

Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to common law murder, because it's a malice crime. The prosecution may not be able to prove intent to kill or intent to cause serious bodily injury, but it might still be able to prove depraved heart murder. Right?

[kyle010723]

For those of you who have done the MBE Sample Test Questions, can someone please explain the answers to Questions 1, 3 and 18? I don't want to spoil the questions for those of you that haven't tried them yet so I'll limit the details.

[+] Spoiler

These were the questions about the dad scared of the crackhead son, residency requirement for public education, and the K modification question.

Thanks.

[+] Spoiler

1. There was enough evidence to support a self-defense claim. See the fact in the question. I guess I didn't think any other option came close

3. Treated out of state and in-state differently, thus violated the equal protection clause. This was very similar to Refresher Q98

18. Because that is the view of the Second Restatement. See Mixed Set 3 Question 12

Thanks! One quick question -

[+] Spoiler

Wouldn't the father's use of deadly force only be justified if he reasonably believed that he was under imminent threat of deadly force himself? I just assumed that physical abuse didn't amount to threat of "deadly" force since it seems like it happened in the past, etc.

Perhaps the judge can give the self-destruction instruction to the jury to see if the jury would reasonably construe the impending belief of physical abuse to constitute a threat of deadly force?

In any case, thanks again for the help.

The question was asking wether the instruction should be given, not whether he would succeed. I think that was the difference.

[rtd1987]

who writes these barbri questions?

intricate, weaving and winding fact patterns

testing on obscure areas of the law unlikely to show up on bar exam

why waste our time?

[musicfor18]

Maybe, but (unless I'm categorizing it) I can think of enough situations where someone could conceivably get drunk, want money, have a gun, and things get dumb pretty quick. Not to pick on the homeless, but maybe for example, a homeless guy with a alcohol abuse problem robs someone with a gun and wouldn't have sober? But yeah, I think this makes sense why murder is much more tested as it's cleaner to envision/seems more universal in law

yeah I think in most states they'll nail you with something, but I guess in 1600's England the robber might have gotten away with it so its important we understand how that works lol

Re: your homeless guy hypo, I think if the guy was able to "want money," then he probably wouldn't be so intoxicated that the defense would apply. It only applies if it's so severe that the defendant wasn't able to form the required intent.

[Kage3212]

Property set MPQ set 6 was fun.

[rhs100]

Do you guys think doing MBE questions at this point may be rather counter productive? PSP has not assigned any MBE practice since Sunday. I was still planning on doing the Emanuel's PM tomorrow and maybe even some of those extra mixed sets over the weekend. But I wonder if there maybe a legitimate reason not to do anymore of those.

[Kage3212]

Do you guys think doing MBE questions at this point may be rather counter productive? PSP has not assigned any MBE practice since Sunday. I was still planning on doing the Emanuel's PM tomorrow and maybe even some of those extra mixed sets over the weekend. But I wonder if there maybe a legitimate reason not to do anymore of those.

I find that continually doing MBE helps me stay in the game and keep myself cognizant of how the questions should be answered. If I weren't doing questions, I would fear forgetting some of this information. I plan on doing questions up until the day of the actual MBE.

[musicfor18]

Do you guys think doing MBE questions at this point may be rather counter productive? PSP has not assigned any MBE practice since Sunday. I was still planning on doing the Emanuel's PM tomorrow and maybe even some of those extra mixed sets over the weekend. But I wonder if there maybe a legitimate reason not to do anymore of those.

I don't really see how it could be counter-productive, unless it takes away from time needed on state subjects.

[nagelbett]

A quick question for those who have done the Emanuel's MBE (5th edition): Are the questions ordered by difficulty within each MBE topic?

I got the book this week and would like to practice working on real MBE questions. But I am not sure how to select a good group of questions from each topic.

Thanks.

[Rudolph]

How are people remembering the distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion? I seem to confuse which doctrine will bar a subsequent action with some regularity.

[Good Guy Gaud]

A quick question for those who have done the Emanuel's MBE (5th edition): Are the questions ordered by difficulty within each MBE topic?

I got the book this week and would like to practice working on real MBE questions. But I am not sure how to select a good group of questions from each topic.

Thanks.

I don't think they are. But you should note that for some topics they are divided in another way (eg., real property and future interests are divided up in the question sets)

[Good Guy Gaud]

37/50* on MPQ Set 6



*I have seen a handful of these questions from Emanuel's so my score is inflated

[nagelbett]

A quick question for those who have done the Emanuel's MBE (5th edition): Are the questions ordered by difficulty within each MBE topic?

I got the book this week and would like to practice working on real MBE questions. But I am not sure how to select a good group of questions from each topic.

Thanks.

I don't think they are. But you should note that for some topics they are divided in another way (eg., real property and future interests are divided up in the question sets)

Thanks

[kyle010723]

A quick question for those who have done the Emanuel's MBE (5th edition): Are the questions ordered by difficulty within each MBE topic?

I got the book this week and would like to practice working on real MBE questions. But I am not sure how to select a good group of questions from each topic.

Thanks.

Not really no, but I found with Emanuel, I usually struggle early on and smooth sail later. If you want to just practice with questions, I would suggest going directly to the mix sets instead of individual subjects.

[kyle010723]

37/50* on MPQ Set 6

*I have seen a handful of these questions from Emanuel's so my score is inflated

A good score is a good score, good job!

[Lacepiece23]

Anyone have a link for the sample civ pro questions? I think I read somewhere that they released a sample of 21?

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

Can someone please explain the answer to question 4 on the 21 released NCBE questions?

[+] Spoiler

Unless I'm mistaken, I would assume guard dogs would create SL because you know of their vicious propensity, so the neighbor's knowledge of the danger would not be a bar to recovery. What am I missing?

[kyle010723]

Can someone please explain the answer to question 4 on the 21 released NCBE questions?

[+] Spoiler

Unless I'm mistaken, I would assume guard dogs would create SL because you know of their vicious propensity, so the neighbor's knowledge of the danger would not be a bar to recovery. What am I missing?

[+] Spoiler

4. I think it was because of assumption of risk. I got that one wrong too.
21. (A) doesn't make sense. (C) doesn't make sense either. Between (B) and (D), (B) made the most sense

Sorry neither answer was very intelligent.

[gretchenweiners]

Anyone have a link for the sample civ pro questions? I think I read somewhere that they released a sample of 21?

Civ pro sample questions (there are 10): https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=% ... ument%2F16


Other sample questions (set of 21): https://www.ncbex.org/pdfviewer/?file=% ... ument%2F17

[xlawschoolhopefulx]

Can someone please explain the answer to question 4 on the 21 released NCBE questions?

[+] Spoiler

Unless I'm mistaken, I would assume guard dogs would create SL because you know of their vicious propensity, so the neighbor's knowledge of the danger would not be a bar to recovery. What am I missing?

[+] Spoiler

4. I think it was because of assumption of risk. I got that one wrong too.
21. (A) doesn't make sense. (C) doesn't make sense either. Between (B) and (D), (B) made the most sense

Sorry neither answer was very intelligent.

Lol. I agree. I selected B. But the answer was A. So.... anyone know why?

[BVest]

Can someone please explain the answer to question 4 on the 21 released NCBE questions?

[+] Spoiler

Unless I'm mistaken, I would assume guard dogs would create SL because you know of their vicious propensity, so the neighbor's knowledge of the danger would not be a bar to recovery. What am I missing?

[+] Spoiler

As mentioned, AotR. But I agree with you. And if not strict liability, why don't guard dogs fall along the lines of a spring gun

Thanks! One quick question -

[+] Spoiler

Wouldn't the father's use of deadly force only be justified if he reasonably believed that he was under imminent threat of deadly force himself? I just assumed that physical abuse didn't amount to threat of "deadly" force since it seems like it happened in the past, etc.

Perhaps the judge can give the self-destruction instruction to the jury to see if the jury would reasonably construe the impending belief of physical abuse to constitute a threat of deadly force?

In any case, thanks again for the help.

[+] Spoiler

He kicked the door down, which takes a tremendous amount of force, and the standard is not imminent threat of deadly force, but rather reasonable apprehension of imminent death or great bodily harm. That's a fact question and it would seem here that the D put forward a prima facie case for such fear warranting the trier of fact to decide the issue.

[kyle010723]

Lol. I agree. I selected B. But the answer was A. So.... anyone know why?

Didn't pick B because I didn't think he was a trespasser. Like if a door to door salesman counts as a licensee, I cannot see why your neighbor would be a trespasser in the fact given.. that just seems odd to me.

ETA: I think in this case, the neighbor was likely an implied licensee. He went in there to retrieve his shovel. Even though the landowner did not give him express permission, you would think he had implied permission to do so.