Top Law Schools

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

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. The common "nucleus" vs. common "question" is really annoying.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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)

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

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?

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. 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.

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%)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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?

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?

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?