BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:30 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:"Common question of law or fact" is the standard for class action lawsuits as well, yeah?


Yep. There have to be common questions that could be resolved by a single answer as to the entire class. There's also numerosity, typicality, and adequate representation. And for the most common kind of class action (23(b)(3)), common questions must predominate over individual questions and litigating as a class must be superior to litigating individually.

User avatar
RaleighStClair
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 12:10 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby RaleighStClair » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:33 pm

RaleighStClair wrote:
musicfor18 wrote:No. A previous poster had said that a TPP can't bring additional claims against the TPD unless it's part of the same "common nexus of operative fact" as the P's claim against D. Common nucleus is not the test for whether any kind of joinder is permissible. It's the test for supplemental jurisdiction. Same T/O + at least one common question of fact or law is the test for joinder of parties (not joinder of claims against existing parties).


Got it. We're on the same page. 8) The common "nucleus" vs. common "question" is really annoying.


Also, just real quick - going back to the impleader example: P could bring a claim against D2, but it would have to arise out of the same T/O right? And I think we established that D2 (TPD) could bring any claims it wants against either party as long as SMJ exists over each claim.

User avatar
charlesxavier
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby charlesxavier » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:35 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:"Common question of law or fact" is the standard for class action lawsuits as well, yeah?


Yes. Typicality is also important to remember. So, say you've got like a factory who leaked toxic chemicals into a river that injured people and damaged property. Claims for medical expenses + property damages are not typical.


Ah good catch. And I believe the full rule is that "common questions of law or fact predominate." So if these injured people were seeking compensatory damages, how would they go about doing so? Would they bring a class action against the factory to establish that the factory was negligent in leaking the toxic chemicals, and then subsequently each bring their own civil case against the factory to establish compensatory damages (using offensive issue preclusion to prevent re-litigation of the negligence issue)?

But if it was strict liability due to abnormally dangerous activity (toxic chemicals or whatever), presumably there'd be no need for the class action and each injured party would bring it's own civil case to collect compensatory damages...


I think there just has to be a common question. Then there are three types of class actions--one where common question predominates (most common), another involving injunctive relief and a third I can't remember. Notice/opt out is only required for class actions where common questions predominate. But for all class actions there must be commonality, typicality, numerosity and adequacy.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5680
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BVest » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:40 pm

brotherdarkness wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:"Common question of law or fact" is the standard for class action lawsuits as well, yeah?


Yes. Typicality is also important to remember. So, say you've got like a factory who leaked toxic chemicals into a river that injured people and damaged property. Claims for medical expenses + property damages are not typical.


Ah good catch. And I believe the full rule is that "common questions of law or fact predominate." So if these injured people were seeking compensatory damages, how would they go about doing so? Would they bring a class action against the factory to establish that the factory was negligent in leaking the toxic chemicals, and then subsequently each bring their own civil case against the factory to establish compensatory damages (using offensive issue preclusion to prevent re-litigation of the negligence issue)?

But if it was strict liability due to abnormally dangerous activity (toxic chemicals or whatever), presumably there'd be no need for the class action and each injured party would bring it's own civil case to collect compensatory damages...


There'd have to be some way to classify the damages in order to get certified (because certification requires that the class claim predominates over individual claims and that the class action is superior to alternative actions). For example by distance from factory, or number of years lived in the area.

The alternative would be aggregated individual actions (like MDL, but for the hypo in question they might all be in the same district) where you use one trial as a bellwether to establish liability and set a marker for damages and then pretty much all the other cases settle out along those lines.
Last edited by BVest on Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:41 pm

charlesxavier wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:"Common question of law or fact" is the standard for class action lawsuits as well, yeah?


Yes. Typicality is also important to remember. So, say you've got like a factory who leaked toxic chemicals into a river that injured people and damaged property. Claims for medical expenses + property damages are not typical.


Ah good catch. And I believe the full rule is that "common questions of law or fact predominate." So if these injured people were seeking compensatory damages, how would they go about doing so? Would they bring a class action against the factory to establish that the factory was negligent in leaking the toxic chemicals, and then subsequently each bring their own civil case against the factory to establish compensatory damages (using offensive issue preclusion to prevent re-litigation of the negligence issue)?

But if it was strict liability due to abnormally dangerous activity (toxic chemicals or whatever), presumably there'd be no need for the class action and each injured party would bring it's own civil case to collect compensatory damages...


I think there just has to be a common question. Then there are three types of class actions--one where common question predominates (most common), another involving discrimination (maybe?) and a third I can't remember. Notice/opt out is only required for class actions where common questions predominate. But for all class actions there must be commonality, typicality, numerosity and adequacy.



Common questions only have to predominate for B3 classes ($$$ class actions, usually mass tort cases). 95% sure on that. Otherwise, Charles is right, just common questions of law or fact pertain to the class.

three types (in the most general sense)

B1 - risk of inconsistent judgments
B2- injunctive relief
B3 - money damages

B3 requires that the common questions predominate and that the class action method be superior. Also require notice/opt out. B1 and B2 don't require notice/opt out but court has discretion.

(class actions be my fav)

redsox550
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:15 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby redsox550 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:42 pm

if a NY essay question doesn't specify it takes place in NY do we assume it follows NY laws?

Will it ever expect you to know non-new york laws. ex: testing differences of larceny and false pretenses etc.?

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:43 pm

BVest wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:"Common question of law or fact" is the standard for class action lawsuits as well, yeah?


Yes. Typicality is also important to remember. So, say you've got like a factory who leaked toxic chemicals into a river that injured people and damaged property. Claims for medical expenses + property damages are not typical.


Ah good catch. And I believe the full rule is that "common questions of law or fact predominate." So if these injured people were seeking compensatory damages, how would they go about doing so? Would they bring a class action against the factory to establish that the factory was negligent in leaking the toxic chemicals, and then subsequently each bring their own civil case against the factory to establish compensatory damages (using offensive issue preclusion to prevent re-litigation of the negligence issue)?

But if it was strict liability due to abnormally dangerous activity (toxic chemicals or whatever), presumably there'd be no need for the class action and each injured party would bring it's own civil case to collect compensatory damages...


There'd have to be some way to classify the damages in order to get certified (because certification requires that the class claim predominates over individual claims and that the class action is superior to alternative actions). For example by distance from factory, or number of years lived in the area.

The alternative would be aggregated individual actions (like MDL, but for the hypo in question they might all be in the same district) where you use one trial as a bellwether to establish liability and set a marker for damages and then pretty much all the other cases settle out along those lines.


Yea. Usually the court will create subclasses in a case like the example I mentioned. So you would have a subclass for the medical claims, sub class for the property, etc. Each subclass would have to meet the four 23(a) requirements

User avatar
charlesxavier
Posts: 444
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby charlesxavier » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:44 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
charlesxavier wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:"Common question of law or fact" is the standard for class action lawsuits as well, yeah?


Yes. Typicality is also important to remember. So, say you've got like a factory who leaked toxic chemicals into a river that injured people and damaged property. Claims for medical expenses + property damages are not typical.


Ah good catch. And I believe the full rule is that "common questions of law or fact predominate." So if these injured people were seeking compensatory damages, how would they go about doing so? Would they bring a class action against the factory to establish that the factory was negligent in leaking the toxic chemicals, and then subsequently each bring their own civil case against the factory to establish compensatory damages (using offensive issue preclusion to prevent re-litigation of the negligence issue)?

But if it was strict liability due to abnormally dangerous activity (toxic chemicals or whatever), presumably there'd be no need for the class action and each injured party would bring it's own civil case to collect compensatory damages...


I think there just has to be a common question. Then there are three types of class actions--one where common question predominates (most common), another involving discrimination (maybe?) and a third I can't remember. Notice/opt out is only required for class actions where common questions predominate. But for all class actions there must be commonality, typicality, numerosity and adequacy.



Common questions only have to predominate for B3 classes ($$$ class actions, usually mass tort cases). 95% sure on that. Otherwise, Charles is right, just common questions of law or fact pertain to the class.

three types (in the most general sense)

B1 - risk of inconsistent judgments
B2- injunctive relief
B3 - money damages

B3 requires that the common questions predominate and that the class action method be superior. Also require notice/opt out. B1 and B2 don't require notice/opt out but court has discretion.

(class actions be my fav)


Thanks, I knew some rule existed about something somewhere for certain things.

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5680
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BVest » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:45 pm

gmail wrote:if i ever have a client who walks in holding a 21+ year lease I am going to drop kick his ass.


Clients with 21+ year leases tend to have lots of money though.

kyle010723 wrote:
gmail wrote:anyone know how to get my percentile rank to appear in studysmart MBE? is there a minimum # of Qs I need to answer? right now it comes up blank.


It says updated nightly, so wait till tomorrow to check?


I thought it was updated on Sunday night (around midnight).

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:48 pm

RaleighStClair wrote:
RaleighStClair wrote:
musicfor18 wrote:No. A previous poster had said that a TPP can't bring additional claims against the TPD unless it's part of the same "common nexus of operative fact" as the P's claim against D. Common nucleus is not the test for whether any kind of joinder is permissible. It's the test for supplemental jurisdiction. Same T/O + at least one common question of fact or law is the test for joinder of parties (not joinder of claims against existing parties).


Got it. We're on the same page. 8) The common "nucleus" vs. common "question" is really annoying.


Also, just real quick - going back to the impleader example: P could bring a claim against D2, but it would have to arise out of the same T/O right? And I think we established that D2 (TPD) could bring any claims it wants against either party as long as SMJ exists over each claim.


Yes and no. P can bring a claim against TPD (don't call him D2) if it arises out same T/O. After that, P can join any additional claims against TPD. TPD can assert any counterclaim (even if unrelated to the action) against TPP, but TPD's first claim against P has to be same T/O. After that, TPD can assert additional unrelated against P.

Easy way to remember all this. Once any party A has asserted one claim against any party B that arises from the same T/O as the underlying action, that party A can then add unrelated claims against party B. This 2-step process always has to be followed except, if someone asserts a claim against you, you can fire back immediately with an unrelated permissive counterclaim.

Lawlawpalooza
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:14 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Lawlawpalooza » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:50 pm

kyle010723 wrote:
BearState wrote:Is there a certain percentage goal Barbri says you should reach on the mixed sets? Thanks in advance.


Mixed Set 1: 31/50 (62%)
Mixed Set 2: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 3: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 4: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 5: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 6: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 7: 34/50 (68%)



Are these "goals" or averages from past students? These aren't on that sheet in my MBE book.

Basically trying to figure out if hitting this would mean you're Barbri median or that Barbri thinks you're so GOLDEN they don't need to manipulate you into studying more. :lol:

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:51 pm

Lawlawpalooza wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
BearState wrote:Is there a certain percentage goal Barbri says you should reach on the mixed sets? Thanks in advance.


Mixed Set 1: 31/50 (62%)
Mixed Set 2: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 3: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 4: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 5: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 6: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 7: 34/50 (68%)



Are these "goals" or averages from past students? These aren't on that sheet in my MBE book.

Basically trying to figure out if hitting this would mean you're Barbri median or that Barbri thinks you're so GOLDEN they don't need to manipulate you into studying more. :lol:



I've convinced myself that the "goals" mean "if you can score this high on our ridiculous Q sets you're going to pass"

musicfor18
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby musicfor18 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:52 pm

Lawlawpalooza wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
BearState wrote:Is there a certain percentage goal Barbri says you should reach on the mixed sets? Thanks in advance.


Mixed Set 1: 31/50 (62%)
Mixed Set 2: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 3: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 4: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 5: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 6: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 7: 34/50 (68%)



Are these "goals" or averages from past students? These aren't on that sheet in my MBE book.

Basically trying to figure out if hitting this would mean you're Barbri median or that Barbri thinks you're so GOLDEN they don't need to manipulate you into studying more. :lol:


Averages.

User avatar
Lacepiece23
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Lacepiece23 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:53 pm

Anyone else take it easy this weekend? All I've done is flashcards. Should I be doing more? Feel good about where I am pass wise, but definitely not where some of you guys are at.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:54 pm

Lacepiece23 wrote:Anyone else take it easy this weekend? All I've done is flashcards. Should I be doing more? Feel good about where I am pass wise, but definitely not where some of you guys are at.


Watching the mini review lectures (ie., drinking while listening to the lectures and watching harry potter).

Might buy one of the OBE-MBE sets from the NCBE to run through tomorrow just as a confidence builder. That's max.

User avatar
Lacepiece23
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Lacepiece23 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 9:58 pm

Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Anyone else take it easy this weekend? All I've done is flashcards. Should I be doing more? Feel good about where I am pass wise, but definitely not where some of you guys are at.


Watching the mini review lectures (ie., drinking while listening to the lectures and watching harry potter).

Might buy one of the OBE-MBE sets from the NCBE to run through tomorrow just as a confidence builder. That's max.


What are these mini review lectures? Are they through barbri? Did I miss them?

jamescastle
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 12:58 am

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby jamescastle » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:06 pm

BVest wrote:
kyle010723 wrote:
gmail wrote:anyone know how to get my percentile rank to appear in studysmart MBE? is there a minimum # of Qs I need to answer? right now it comes up blank.


It says updated nightly, so wait till tomorrow to check?


I thought it was updated on Sunday night (around midnight).

App percentile updates nightly. Homepage graphs or whatever they are percentile updates Sunday night.

User avatar
Good Guy Gaud
Posts: 5433
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:41 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Good Guy Gaud » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:14 pm

Lacepiece23 wrote:
Good Guy Gaud wrote:
Lacepiece23 wrote:Anyone else take it easy this weekend? All I've done is flashcards. Should I be doing more? Feel good about where I am pass wise, but definitely not where some of you guys are at.


Watching the mini review lectures (ie., drinking while listening to the lectures and watching harry potter).

Might buy one of the OBE-MBE sets from the NCBE to run through tomorrow just as a confidence builder. That's max.


What are these mini review lectures? Are they through barbri? Did I miss them?


Yea, they're through BarBri. They sent emails about it around the beginning of July. They're alright. I mean, it's pretty broad. You can probably get an equal review going through the lecture notebook at speed of about a page a second lol

User avatar
BVest
Posts: 5680
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby BVest » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:15 pm

Reviewing exam instructions... was glad to see this for MBE (at least for Texas' administration): "Mechanical pencils may be used as long as they contain the equivalent of No. 2 lead."

Outis Onoma
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2015 8:45 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby Outis Onoma » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:25 pm

what were your scores on the Emanuel test? I got 82% on the AM exam and I don't feel like doing the PM half. I heard the AM exam is alot easier?

murray18
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby murray18 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:31 pm

Outis Onoma wrote:what were your scores on the Emanuel test? I got 82% on the AM exam and I don't feel like doing the PM half. I heard the AM exam is alot easier?


I did a good bit better on the PM than the AM (69/100 AM, 77/100 PM). Sounds like you don't have anything to worry about though if you can replicate that score on test day!

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

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby redblueyellow » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:31 pm

Contracts - Risk of Loss

In a shipment contract, "once delivery [to a common carrier] is complete, risk of loss shifts to the buyer." There is no mention of whether the seller is a merchant or non-merchant.

In the next section, "If a merchant seller, risk of loss shifts to buyer once he takes physical possession of the goods. If non-merchant seller, risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon tendering delivery."

How does you reconcile a shipment contract by a merchant seller? When does risk of loss pass to the buyer? At physical possession of goods, or at delivery to common carrier?

murray18
Posts: 183
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:15 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby murray18 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:35 pm

Last minute panic attack alert! Just wrote out 3 timed essays. 4/6 on the first two after self grading, but I got 1/6 on the third. I completely fucked up a rule of law, and applied all of the facts to that rule, thus missing out on like 60% of Barbri's points. On the bar, what would happen if we get the rule wrong and then apply all of the facts to that rule?

I feel like I should be coasting at this point... I'm averaging about 70% on Barbri's MBE stuff, and I'm in a pure UBE state. Should I legitimately be worried, or is this pretty common?

kyle010723
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:55 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby kyle010723 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:37 pm

murray18 wrote:Last minute panic attack alert! Just wrote out 3 timed essays. 4/6 on the first two after self grading, but I got 1/6 on the third. I completely fucked up a rule of law, and applied all of the facts to that rule, thus missing out on like 60% of Barbri's points. On the bar, what would happen if we get the rule wrong and then apply all of the facts to that rule?

I feel like I should be coasting at this point... I'm averaging about 70% on Barbri's MBE stuff, and I'm in a pure UBE state. Should I legitimately be worried, or is this pretty common?


I don't know how you guys are self grading all these essays. My book has questions, and model answers. There's nothing to grade with.

User avatar
3|ink
Posts: 7331
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:23 pm

Re: BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam

Postby 3|ink » Sat Jul 25, 2015 10:38 pm

redblueyellow wrote:Contracts - Risk of Loss

In a shipment contract, "once delivery [to a common carrier] is complete, risk of loss shifts to the buyer." There is no mention of whether the seller is a merchant or non-merchant.

In the next section, "If a merchant seller, risk of loss shifts to buyer once he takes physical possession of the goods. If non-merchant seller, risk of loss shifts to the buyer upon tendering delivery."

How does you reconcile a shipment contract by a merchant seller? When does risk of loss pass to the buyer? At physical possession of goods, or at delivery to common carrier?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the common carrier rule applies when both parties are merchants. The physical possession rule applies when seller is a merchant and buyer is a non-merchant. Tendering delivery applies when seller is a non-merchant, no matter who the buyer is.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hotsummer and 5 guests