Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
User avatar
LionelHutzJD

Silver
Posts: 627
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:37 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby LionelHutzJD » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:33 pm

BVest wrote:
ndp1234 wrote:Does someone have examples of a superseding cause that would cut off liability from a tortfeasor except criminal acts?


I was going to type something, but when I checked to make sure I was right I saw that Wikipedia actually has a couple good examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intervening_cause

And I may be misremembering from Torts, but hospital negligence is foreseeable, so while it's intervening and introduces other possible defendants (usually with deep pockets), some other things may not be.

Example 1:
Defendant negligently crashes into Plaintiff's car, injuring plaintiff leg. Ambulance takes plaintiff to the hospital. Doctor orders 10 cc of drug; nurse administers 100 cc. Plaintiff is left in permanent vegetative state. Defendant can be on the hook for the damages caused at the hospital because, even though the hospital was negligent, hospital negligence is foreseeable. (Of course, hospital gets added as a defendant here as well).

Example 2:
Defendant negligently crashes into Plaintiff's car, injuring plaintiff leg. Ambulance takes plaintiff to the hospital. On the way to the hospital, a giant sinkhole opens in the road in front of the ambulance. Ambulance falls in and Plaintiff is left in permanent vegetative state. I'm pretty sure that would qualify as superseding.


I'm not so sure as to your second example. A sinkhole could be foreseeable. Think of a plane falling from the sky and hitting the ambulance or lightning striking the ambulance

mu13ski

Bronze
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 5:43 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mu13ski » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:55 pm

I think I'm confusing myself on the different jury size and ruling requirements. In what setting does a jury have to be made up of 12? And when do they have to be unanimous?

Federal criminal trials need to be unanimous and have a 12 person jury.

States can do less in criminal trials.

What about civil cases?
Last edited by mu13ski on Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31197
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby Nebby » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:00 pm

mu13ski wrote:I think I'm confusing myself on the different jury size and ruling requirements. In what setting does a jury have to be made up of 12? And when do they have to be unanimous?

Federal criminal trials need to be unanimous and have a 12 person jury.

States can do less in criminal trials.

What about civil cases?

Civil is unanimous unless otherwise ordered or set by statute.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:14 pm

Nebby wrote:
mu13ski wrote:I think I'm confusing myself on the different jury size and ruling requirements. In what setting does a jury have to be made up of 12? And when do they have to be unanimous?

Federal criminal trials need to be unanimous and have a 12 person jury.

States can do less in criminal trials.

What about civil cases?

Civil is unanimous unless otherwise ordered or set by statute.


I think it goes like this:

Fed - Criminal = 12 unanimous, Civil = 12 unanimous unless parties agree otherwise as to unanimity or number

State - Criminal = 6 minimum, if 6 must be unanimous, Civil = N/A

haexam

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2016 9:58 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby haexam » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:20 pm

Can anyone clarify whether adverse possessors take free of existing easements on the land?

I understand the general rule is that title established through adverse possession is free from encumbrance but does that also include easements, which were granted in writing by the original owner and properly recorded.

I'm a little confused because I've read contradicting information

criminaltheory

Bronze
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby criminaltheory » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:19 pm

haexam wrote:Can anyone clarify whether adverse possessors take free of existing easements on the land?

I understand the general rule is that title established through adverse possession is free from encumbrance but does that also include easements, which were granted in writing by the original owner and properly recorded.

I'm a little confused because I've read contradicting information


I'd say no, easements are terminated only by the normal methods. So, if adverse possession of the land also adversely held the easement, then it would terminate the easement by prescription. Likewise, adverse possession preserves any covenants unless adverse possession claimed title while violating that covenant. I can't imagine adverse possession would terminate an easement by necessity just because title changed hands.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:48 pm

for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ellewoods123 » Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:57 pm

mvp99 wrote:for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?


my understanding is that for purposes of the MBE its procedural unless its (1) SOL (2) elements of a claims or defenses or (3) choice of law rules which I'm sure you know, but in all of the questions I've done in both Barbri and Adaptibar I haven't encountered a question that tested anything beyond that so I think we should be okay.

mvp99

Silver
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby mvp99 » Sun Jul 24, 2016 10:10 pm

ellewoods123 wrote:
mvp99 wrote:for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?


my understanding is that for purposes of the MBE its procedural unless its (1) SOL (2) elements of a claims or defenses or (3) choice of law rules which I'm sure you know, but in all of the questions I've done in both Barbri and Adaptibar I haven't encountered a question that tested anything beyond that so I think we should be okay.


So are you saying that if it's on the FRCP it's procedural and federal rules apply?

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Mon Jul 25, 2016 2:40 am

mvp99 wrote:
ellewoods123 wrote:
mvp99 wrote:for purposes of the Erie doctrine, how can I determine what rules are procedural? If its on the FRCP does it mean it's procedural no matter what? is there a list out there?


my understanding is that for purposes of the MBE its procedural unless its (1) SOL (2) elements of a claims or defenses or (3) choice of law rules which I'm sure you know, but in all of the questions I've done in both Barbri and Adaptibar I haven't encountered a question that tested anything beyond that so I think we should be okay.


So are you saying that if it's on the FRCP it's procedural and federal rules apply?


Frcp are necessarily procedural bc of the rules enabling act which allows them to be promulgated

ellewoods123

Bronze
Posts: 245
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ellewoods123 » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:39 pm

Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?

criminaltheory

Bronze
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:48 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby criminaltheory » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:13 pm

ellewoods123 wrote:Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?


WITH*N* - yep. Can be constructive, actual or implied.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby ballouttacontrol » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:28 pm

criminaltheory wrote:
ellewoods123 wrote:Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?


WITH*N* - yep. Can be constructive, actual or implied.


this is wrong. you are thinking of real covenants. An easement appurtenant is always transferred with the land. The ONLY case where an easement does not transfer is if the buyer of the servient tenement is a BFP without notice.

JoeySkoko

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 10:23 am

Re: Bar Prep Questions: Black Letter Law Thread

Postby JoeySkoko » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:37 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:
criminaltheory wrote:
ellewoods123 wrote:Last minute brain blank - for an easement to run with a servient tenement, the subsequent purchaser would need notice of the easement right?


WITH*N* - yep. Can be constructive, actual or implied.


this is wrong. you are thinking of real covenants. An easement appurtenant is always transferred with the land. The ONLY case where an easement does not transfer is if the buyer of the servient tenement is a BFP without notice.


yes WITN and WITV are for the covenants (either benefit or burden) to run with the land.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests