2017 February California Bar Exam

Lawless!
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:33 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:04 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:
Lawless! wrote:
How do you know this? If it's true, it's very insightful considering the bar exam and the grading process have no transparency and scores are subject to the absolute descretion of the graders. And leaving the examinees without any means of questioning the process. If it's true it's a relief to know where they are in this whole process


You can look at the grading information on the CalBar site. There's a link about the grading process here http://admissions.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/4/documents/gbx/BXDescriptGrade_2017_R.pdf. It explains in detail how it works. And an article at the following link filled in some of the blanks. I find it helpful to know where in the process they are, even though I can't do anything at all but wait.

Here's the link: https://www.barissues.com/p/demystifying-the-bar-grading-process-2/ and another one that I found helpful http://www.barexamstats.com/the-califor ... g-process/

I'm still fretting over the call of the question on the evidence essay. I thought the call of the question was whether the hospital record was properly admitted. Maybe I was wrong.


Thanks for the link! And as I recall, the Q did call for the admissibility of the hospital records. I argued it was double hearsay and each level is admissible independently under an exception.

barexaminerssuck27
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Sat Mar 11, 2017 4:29 am

Lawless! wrote:
InterAlia1961 wrote:Heavy discussion on rebuttal. The reason for the rebuttal was highly discussable.

Anyway, I thought it might be helpful to know where we are in the grading process. The graders got the questions on the last day of the exam. They had until last Saturday to research their version of a model answer. Last Saturday, they got together to determine the grading scale. They got the first fifteen answers they will analyze as a group. Next Saturday, they will meet to evaluate how they did. Then, they'll each get 10 separate essays or PTs, which ever they are assigned to grade on their own. They meet again the following Saturday to make sure they are grading according to the agreed upon rubric. That Saturday, they are each given their share of the exams to grade. All the graded exams must be turned a month before results are released. We'll know they're done when they release the questions on the CalBar site.

I swear on all that is holy, if the State Bar does what the legislature asks and drops the high cut rate for the July 2017 CBX and leaves us out in the cold, I'll be putting my law degree to good use. I'll be furious.


How do you know this? If it's true, it's very insightful considering the bar exam and the grading process have no transparency and scores are subject to the absolute descretion of the graders. And leaving the examinees without any means of questioning the process. If it's true it's a relief to know where they are in this whole process


I had a bar tutor this time. She used to be a bar grader. She told me that they do have a grading rubric, kinda of like Barbri. Also, in that rubric, there are some issues that are worth more points than others (obviously). She also said that Statue of Frauds and Best Evidence Rule should be always mentioned EVEN if it does NOT apply. I think she told me that SOF is worth like 3 points, if mentioned in K essays. I forgot the rest of the "must mentioned" issues.

Anyways, I learned how to pick out which issues to write on. She said every sentence in the fact pattern needs to be used - no red herrings. For example, the wills questions. The fact pattern mentioned about the guy being "honored." This brings up substantial compliance, line of sight, and conscious presence issues. I noticed people talking about testator's capacity on this forum. Seems like a non-issue, but I could be wrong

Though I'd share this with everyone. I was surprised not many people know this. Hiring a bar tutor really help. Good luck to everyone!!!! :D :)

TL;DR - every sentence goes into an issue that needs to be discussed. always mentioned SOF and BER (applies here in evidence).

2017barexaminer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2017barexaminer » Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:18 pm

Hi all! This may be late but I just reviewed the thread and noticed that there was no discussion on PT-A. It may be fruitless at this point to try and remember anything about it, but thoughts? Concerns? I felt that PT-A was harder than B, and I remember feeling like there was little direction on organizing it in the task memo.

Lawless!
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:33 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:50 pm

2017barexaminer wrote:Hi all! This may be late but I just reviewed the thread and noticed that there was no discussion on PT-A. It may be fruitless at this point to try and remember anything about it, but thoughts? Concerns? I felt that PT-A was harder than B, and I remember feeling like there was little direction on organizing it in the task memo.


I definitely felt like PTA was harder. I remember it called for a pervasive letter to opposing counsel. The task included statutory construction of some federal agency law and/or nurse regulations about non-licensed school personnel and their ability to "administer" or "assist" students with medication for Diabetes. It was extremely vague.

2017barexaminer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2017barexaminer » Mon Mar 13, 2017 4:04 pm

Lawless! wrote:
2017barexaminer wrote:Hi all! This may be late but I just reviewed the thread and noticed that there was no discussion on PT-A. It may be fruitless at this point to try and remember anything about it, but thoughts? Concerns? I felt that PT-A was harder than B, and I remember feeling like there was little direction on organizing it in the task memo.


I definitely felt like PTA was harder. I remember it called for a pervasive letter to opposing counsel. The task included statutory construction of some federal agency law and/or nurse regulations about non-licensed school personnel and their ability to "administer" or "assist" students with medication for Diabetes. It was extremely vague.



Yeah good memory! I just remember the task memo saying to argue why our side was "legally sound" while why their position was "not legally sound." That was all. This made it difficult to organize, and I recall just organizing it according to the adversary's letter. (I basically had three major sections, one focusing on the Medical Statute, then the Nursing Statute, then IDEA). Under each section, I put why or position was sound and was the other side's position was not legally sound. The case in the library did not really help with organizing from what I recall. Sorry if I am being vague, I am having serious trouble remembering the exact issues.

I guess my main concern was how to organize given their really vague task memo. "Our argument is sound vs. how their argument is not sound under the law" does not really give much guidance. Am I missing something?

ur_hero
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Mon Mar 13, 2017 5:19 pm

2017barexaminer wrote:
Lawless! wrote:
2017barexaminer wrote:Hi all! This may be late but I just reviewed the thread and noticed that there was no discussion on PT-A. It may be fruitless at this point to try and remember anything about it, but thoughts? Concerns? I felt that PT-A was harder than B, and I remember feeling like there was little direction on organizing it in the task memo.


I definitely felt like PTA was harder. I remember it called for a pervasive letter to opposing counsel. The task included statutory construction of some federal agency law and/or nurse regulations about non-licensed school personnel and their ability to "administer" or "assist" students with medication for Diabetes. It was extremely vague.



Yeah good memory! I just remember the task memo saying to argue why our side was "legally sound" while why their position was "not legally sound." That was all. This made it difficult to organize, and I recall just organizing it according to the adversary's letter. (I basically had three major sections, one focusing on the Medical Statute, then the Nursing Statute, then IDEA). Under each section, I put why or position was sound and was the other side's position was not legally sound. The case in the library did not really help with organizing from what I recall. Sorry if I am being vague, I am having serious trouble remembering the exact issues.

I guess my main concern was how to organize given their really vague task memo. "Our argument is sound vs. how their argument is not sound under the law" does not really give much guidance. Am I missing something?


My highest level sections were also based off the adversary's letter, and sub-levels based off the arguments they made under each major topic. w...So it was something along the lines of

INTRO

Including summary of arguments, our willingness to go to litigation but emphasizing we would likely prevail and no litigation in both parties best interest.

DISCUSSION

I. Statute Permits School Staff Administering . . .
i.) statute unambiguously in our favor because.....opponent argues this, but we are right because..... [insert case law and file/fact discussion]
ii.) even if statute ambiguous, in our favor b/c. . .opponent will argue this, but we are right because . . . [insert case law discussion, facts, public policy based off file]

II. Other Statute does not prohibit . . . as practice of medicine/nursing or whatever.
i. practice of medicine/nursing and whether it constitutes...facts/arguments both sides and conclusion.
ii. exceptions and whether this falls within exception . . . facts/arguments both sides and conclusion.

Can't remember if there was more to this or not.

III. Applicability of IDEA

Briefer section, but just a few paragraphs discussing arguments on both sides and why we prevail.

CONCLUSION

Including summary of arguments, our willingness to go to litigation but emphasizing we would likely prevail and no litigation in both parties best interest.

ChunkyTaco
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:02 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ChunkyTaco » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:16 pm

barexaminerssuck27 wrote:what merger clause???!?!

God, I need to stay away from TLS...... now I am worried about essay 2 lol!!!

All I wrote for Essay 2 was:

Breach of Contract (little on the misrep)
Compensatory damages (FMV - Contract Price +Consequential & Incidental - Profits saved)
Consequential Damages
Incidental Damages
Special Damages
Reliance Damages (just guessing)
Restitution
Recession
Punitive Damages
Specific Performance (one sentence saying it won't work)

Anyone did the same???? OHHHHHHH mannnnnnnnnnnnn


Similar except I forgot recession and punitive damages, I did Restitution but I can't believe I forgot Recession. I thought about it too. On the essay I wrote quite a bit about Breach of Contract and then focused on damages.I wonder if I can still pass the essay?

2017barexaminer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2017barexaminer » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:25 pm

ChunkyTaco wrote:
barexaminerssuck27 wrote:what merger clause???!?!

God, I need to stay away from TLS...... now I am worried about essay 2 lol!!!

All I wrote for Essay 2 was:

Breach of Contract (little on the misrep)
Compensatory damages (FMV - Contract Price +Consequential & Incidental - Profits saved)
Consequential Damages
Incidental Damages
Special Damages
Reliance Damages (just guessing)
Restitution
Recession
Punitive Damages
Specific Performance (one sentence saying it won't work)

Anyone did the same???? OHHHHHHH mannnnnnnnnnnnn


Similar except I forgot recession and punitive damages, I did Restitution but I can't believe I forgot Recession. I thought about it too. On the essay I wrote quite a bit about Breach of Contract and then focused on damages.I wonder if I can still pass the essay?



I forgot punitive too although I answered it as a breach of K, and thus, didn't really think it would be applicable. I guess it can be applicable in fraud cases . I don't think that's really a major issue although I could be wrong. And of course you can still pass the essay. I think how you wrote is more important than simply regurgitating a rule. At least that's what I keep hearing.

2017barexaminer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2017barexaminer » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:30 pm

ur_hero wrote:
2017barexaminer wrote:
Lawless! wrote:
2017barexaminer wrote:Hi all! This may be late but I just reviewed the thread and noticed that there was no discussion on PT-A. It may be fruitless at this point to try and remember anything about it, but thoughts? Concerns? I felt that PT-A was harder than B, and I remember feeling like there was little direction on organizing it in the task memo.


I definitely felt like PTA was harder. I remember it called for a pervasive letter to opposing counsel. The task included statutory construction of some federal agency law and/or nurse regulations about non-licensed school personnel and their ability to "administer" or "assist" students with medication for Diabetes. It was extremely vague.



Yeah good memory! I just remember the task memo saying to argue why our side was "legally sound" while why their position was "not legally sound." That was all. This made it difficult to organize, and I recall just organizing it according to the adversary's letter. (I basically had three major sections, one focusing on the Medical Statute, then the Nursing Statute, then IDEA). Under each section, I put why or position was sound and was the other side's position was not legally sound. The case in the library did not really help with organizing from what I recall. Sorry if I am being vague, I am having serious trouble remembering the exact issues.

I guess my main concern was how to organize given their really vague task memo. "Our argument is sound vs. how their argument is not sound under the law" does not really give much guidance. Am I missing something?


My highest level sections were also based off the adversary's letter, and sub-levels based off the arguments they made under each major topic. w...So it was something along the lines of

INTRO

Including summary of arguments, our willingness to go to litigation but emphasizing we would likely prevail and no litigation in both parties best interest.

DISCUSSION

I. Statute Permits School Staff Administering . . .
i.) statute unambiguously in our favor because.....opponent argues this, but we are right because..... [insert case law and file/fact discussion]
ii.) even if statute ambiguous, in our favor b/c. . .opponent will argue this, but we are right because . . . [insert case law discussion, facts, public policy based off file]

II. Other Statute does not prohibit . . . as practice of medicine/nursing or whatever.
i. practice of medicine/nursing and whether it constitutes...facts/arguments both sides and conclusion.
ii. exceptions and whether this falls within exception . . . facts/arguments both sides and conclusion.

Can't remember if there was more to this or not.

III. Applicability of IDEA

Briefer section, but just a few paragraphs discussing arguments on both sides and why we prevail.

CONCLUSION

Including summary of arguments, our willingness to go to litigation but emphasizing we would likely prevail and no litigation in both parties best interest.



Yeah sounds like what I wrote. Lord let this waiting process be over already.

ChunkyTaco
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 2:02 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ChunkyTaco » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:32 pm

Should I continue to study while I wait for the results???

I felt good about the essays except for the Remedies one.

I also felt good about the PTs, except for the last one and the reason is that I indented the paragraphs but was not able to indent everything as I wanted to. So I feel like the grader is going to look at it as disorganization/bad time management and mark me down.

One half of the MBE felt like the hardest exam I have ever taken and the second half felt okay but I still felt like I guessed most of the exam. IDK if that is normal?

ur_hero
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:53 pm

I suppose if you pass, you would be so stoked you wouldn't regret some extra pointless studying. But I think if I studied every day from now until results, I would drive myself crazy with thinking about it too much...Ideally, I would like to just forget about the bar exam until the day of results.

Regardless, there's probably more than enough time between May and July to study and you likely won't forget everything by taking a break.

ur_hero
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Mon Mar 13, 2017 7:59 pm

2017barexaminer wrote:
ChunkyTaco wrote:
barexaminerssuck27 wrote:what merger clause???!?!

God, I need to stay away from TLS...... now I am worried about essay 2 lol!!!

All I wrote for Essay 2 was:

Breach of Contract (little on the misrep)
Compensatory damages (FMV - Contract Price +Consequential & Incidental - Profits saved)
Consequential Damages
Incidental Damages
Special Damages
Reliance Damages (just guessing)
Restitution
Recession
Punitive Damages
Specific Performance (one sentence saying it won't work)

Anyone did the same???? OHHHHHHH mannnnnnnnnnnnn


Similar except I forgot recession and punitive damages, I did Restitution but I can't believe I forgot Recession. I thought about it too. On the essay I wrote quite a bit about Breach of Contract and then focused on damages.I wonder if I can still pass the essay?



I forgot punitive too although I answered it as a breach of K, and thus, didn't really think it would be applicable. I guess it can be applicable in fraud cases . I don't think that's really a major issue although I could be wrong. And of course you can still pass the essay. I think how you wrote is more important than simply regurgitating a rule. At least that's what I keep hearing.


Yeah, I didn't do punitive b/c I approached it from a contracts perspective.

I'm somewhat kicking myself for not doing a tort analysis too, but I think I was too short on time as it was..... (I actually initially outlined it...but then deleted that portion). It seems pretty straightforward that both contract and tort fraud could have applied, but that's just SO MUCH for a single one-hour essay.

barexaminerssuck27
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:31 pm

2017barexaminer wrote:
ChunkyTaco wrote:
barexaminerssuck27 wrote:what merger clause???!?!

God, I need to stay away from TLS...... now I am worried about essay 2 lol!!!

All I wrote for Essay 2 was:

Breach of Contract (little on the misrep)
Compensatory damages (FMV - Contract Price +Consequential & Incidental - Profits saved)
Consequential Damages
Incidental Damages
Special Damages
Reliance Damages (just guessing)
Restitution
Recession
Punitive Damages
Specific Performance (one sentence saying it won't work)

Anyone did the same???? OHHHHHHH mannnnnnnnnnnnn


Similar except I forgot recession and punitive damages, I did Restitution but I can't believe I forgot Recession. I thought about it too. On the essay I wrote quite a bit about Breach of Contract and then focused on damages.I wonder if I can still pass the essay?



I forgot punitive too although I answered it as a breach of K, and thus, didn't really think it would be applicable. I guess it can be applicable in fraud cases . I don't think that's really a major issue although I could be wrong. And of course you can still pass the essay. I think how you wrote is more important than simply regurgitating a rule. At least that's what I keep hearing.


If you argue fraud then putative damages should be discussed. Bar prep programs are saying look at February 2014 for essay 2 (remedies) if you want to see something somewhat similar. The model answer has all damages

2017barexaminer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2017barexaminer » Mon Mar 13, 2017 8:48 pm

barexaminerssuck27 wrote:
2017barexaminer wrote:
ChunkyTaco wrote:
barexaminerssuck27 wrote:what merger clause???!?!

God, I need to stay away from TLS...... now I am worried about essay 2 lol!!!

All I wrote for Essay 2 was:

Breach of Contract (little on the misrep)
Compensatory damages (FMV - Contract Price +Consequential & Incidental - Profits saved)
Consequential Damages
Incidental Damages
Special Damages
Reliance Damages (just guessing)
Restitution
Recession
Punitive Damages
Specific Performance (one sentence saying it won't work)

Anyone did the same???? OHHHHHHH mannnnnnnnnnnnn


Similar except I forgot recession and punitive damages, I did Restitution but I can't believe I forgot Recession. I thought about it too. On the essay I wrote quite a bit about Breach of Contract and then focused on damages.I wonder if I can still pass the essay?



I forgot punitive too although I answered it as a breach of K, and thus, didn't really think it would be applicable. I guess it can be applicable in fraud cases . I don't think that's really a major issue although I could be wrong. And of course you can still pass the essay. I think how you wrote is more important than simply regurgitating a rule. At least that's what I keep hearing.


If you argue fraud then putative damages should be discussed. Bar prep programs are saying look at February 2014 for essay 2 (remedies) if you want to see something somewhat similar. The model answer has all damages



I just looked at the sample answers for Feb 2014 Remedies essay. If I am not mistaken, the first essay had a very short punitive remedy analysis. Second essay did not have it at all. Like I said, I don't think it's a huge deal if it was not mentioned but it def helps.

I-object
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2016 5:42 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby I-object » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:43 pm

PT-A and PT-B?

Read the threads. Here are my comments and concerns.

PTB: feeling uneasy because no body , if any, brought up Quorum. At least I didn't read anyone on threads discussing it as a possible immunity. Obviously I feel Like I missed something. I thought CAll 1 raised two issues, Quorum and Ultra Vires.

Call 1
Immunity, Can City claim an Immunity?

Quorum: the case in Harim had facts that City Attorney needed to sign and approve proposal, plus City Council had to approve. Our facts stated that yes, Bryant signed and approved, but City council had not yet decided fully on the matter. They referenced Charter required their approval. They had more questions than answers , and even asked Blanchard specifically whether the job could get done in the fiscal year being that the meeting took place in August, and the charter specifically required that ...well something like everyone needed to approve. Did anybody notice that attorney left the meeting early? was that a big deal? or was this nothing.

It was noted by the mayor hosting the meeting, and was noted in the record, before Mayor sort of rushed a close to the meeting because he had another matter. Was a little vague, but seemed they procedurally didn't follow what would seem to be a proper "final" vote. Since nobody has spoken about this on the thread I probably was chasing a none issue. But it seemed like one given the transcript was entirely from the City Council Meeting, specifically about Blanchards proposal. Was that enough for immunity? Maybe not,

Ultra Vires: My understanding of Hiram interpretation of Ultra Vires doctrine had more to do with whether the City had enough control and influence over the subject matter that given such lack of control would render City immune from liability. This would not be my definition of Ultra Vires, but I fairly think it was more or less the gist of the doctrine, that if Blanchard was more in control, so much so , that it would cause incompetence among the City Council enough so that they would be immune from being forced to create contracts that would ultimately hurt the tax payers.

The Dissent in Harim said , wait a second, if we cant honor contracts, this would unjustly enrich one party over the other regardless if they are the government. So this dissent was pretty strong language given the fact that this was an objective paper and a court in equity would simply not ignore the essence of the contract whether or not the City was incompetent on making the necessary judgement for approval.

So I can see were Harim was the starting point for discussing the only possible out for City, but as we can see, Calls 2 and 3, layout clearly that Blanchard met all the requirements for Quantum Merit.

Call 2
Can Blanchared satisfy the elements of Quantum Merit?

The lyman case did not award the land owner who , at her own expense, laid out pipe lines for water usage, that City later used and charged her for it. Ther claim for Quantum Merit was denied because she could not satisfy each of the elements laid out by that Supreme Court Case 1958. I believe it was there not to discuss or argue the facts in the case but to apply the 4 elements, namely did Blanchard provide services, was City aware, did City acknowledge, and something else maybe damages. Anyway I think this was the easier of the three calls.

Call 3
What Damages if Blanchard were to succeed on a claim of Quantum Merit?

the appellate court remanded the trail courts decision for awarding only Actual Damages and disclaiming Materials, Overhead, and something else, but in the end favored the plaintiff in a claim for Quantum Merit for all the work the plaintiff performed. The city baseball park was a private function, but I focused on just the damages claim for the work performed. In our case while performance was a bit complex and unassuming because it involved reviewing applications, interviewing candidates for subcontracting work, and included materials , it was nonetheless services required for the job and was fully performed and not paid for. At least this was my take. Yes there was a completed contract that had already been performed , but it too had already been paid for. This performance related to the proposal for which was arguably approved but nonetheless performed.

Concluded given that performance already provided, and new Mayor elected, and water treatment a necessary health safety matter, instead of litigation maybe further discussions, proposals on a new agreement incorporating the work already done because City because they did not qualify for the grant, but could continue to pursue .. Something along those lines.

Again, I could have missed some or much of this entirely.

As for PTA the Demand Letter.

I used the same format in the facts. As I recall there was only one case and the rest were statutes. This sort of alerted me to use a lot of the facts. The Memo also stated use the facts. So I laid out D's first , Second and Third Concerns, and summarized (even though it was a demand letter) that we shared those concerns and would be better to avoid litigation but were prepared if push came to shove.

The general issue was whether the USP the non-nurse school staff , including parents and others could administer insulin to students. Struggle recalling all the facts, basically D's demand letter was week, they misquoted the Gov Bill 48 claiming that he didn't approve that the SMA allowed testing. The case confirmed that he merely did not approve because there was enough overwhelming support to allow IDEA to permit administration of the insulin by Non Nurses. The Boards Advisory supported this notion too because Nurses were in short supply, like 350 thousand per the several million students diagnosed with diabetes etc..

One concern, (of many) PTA

I "concluded" after each segment (example

I First

Conclusion

II Second

Conclusion

III Third

Conclusion

Is this okay for a Demand Letter ?

Im thinking its not. I just couldn't get away from that unspoken rule about concluding after main each issue. Just wondering if that applies to demand letters. Dont think so ,oh well this is what I remember.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:39 am

I-object wrote:PT-A and PT-B?

Read the threads. Here are my comments and concerns.

PTB: feeling uneasy because no body , if any, brought up Quorum. At least I didn't read anyone on threads discussing it as a possible immunity. Obviously I feel Like I missed something. I thought CAll 1 raised two issues, Quorum and Ultra Vires.

Call 1
Immunity, Can City claim an Immunity?

Quorum: the case in Harim had facts that City Attorney needed to sign and approve proposal, plus City Council had to approve. Our facts stated that yes, Bryant signed and approved, but City council had not yet decided fully on the matter. They referenced Charter required their approval. They had more questions than answers , and even asked Blanchard specifically whether the job could get done in the fiscal year being that the meeting took place in August, and the charter specifically required that ...well something like everyone needed to approve. Did anybody notice that attorney left the meeting early? was that a big deal? or was this nothing.

It was noted by the mayor hosting the meeting, and was noted in the record, before Mayor sort of rushed a close to the meeting because he had another matter. Was a little vague, but seemed they procedurally didn't follow what would seem to be a proper "final" vote. Since nobody has spoken about this on the thread I probably was chasing a none issue. But it seemed like one given the transcript was entirely from the City Council Meeting, specifically about Blanchards proposal. Was that enough for immunity? Maybe not,

Ultra Vires: My understanding of Hiram interpretation of Ultra Vires doctrine had more to do with whether the City had enough control and influence over the subject matter that given such lack of control would render City immune from liability. This would not be my definition of Ultra Vires, but I fairly think it was more or less the gist of the doctrine, that if Blanchard was more in control, so much so , that it would cause incompetence among the City Council enough so that they would be immune from being forced to create contracts that would ultimately hurt the tax payers.

The Dissent in Harim said , wait a second, if we cant honor contracts, this would unjustly enrich one party over the other regardless if they are the government. So this dissent was pretty strong language given the fact that this was an objective paper and a court in equity would simply not ignore the essence of the contract whether or not the City was incompetent on making the necessary judgement for approval.

So I can see were Harim was the starting point for discussing the only possible out for City, but as we can see, Calls 2 and 3, layout clearly that Blanchard met all the requirements for Quantum Merit.

Call 2
Can Blanchared satisfy the elements of Quantum Merit?

The lyman case did not award the land owner who , at her own expense, laid out pipe lines for water usage, that City later used and charged her for it. Ther claim for Quantum Merit was denied because she could not satisfy each of the elements laid out by that Supreme Court Case 1958. I believe it was there not to discuss or argue the facts in the case but to apply the 4 elements, namely did Blanchard provide services, was City aware, did City acknowledge, and something else maybe damages. Anyway I think this was the easier of the three calls.

Call 3
What Damages if Blanchard were to succeed on a claim of Quantum Merit?

the appellate court remanded the trail courts decision for awarding only Actual Damages and disclaiming Materials, Overhead, and something else, but in the end favored the plaintiff in a claim for Quantum Merit for all the work the plaintiff performed. The city baseball park was a private function, but I focused on just the damages claim for the work performed. In our case while performance was a bit complex and unassuming because it involved reviewing applications, interviewing candidates for subcontracting work, and included materials , it was nonetheless services required for the job and was fully performed and not paid for. At least this was my take. Yes there was a completed contract that had already been performed , but it too had already been paid for. This performance related to the proposal for which was arguably approved but nonetheless performed.

Concluded given that performance already provided, and new Mayor elected, and water treatment a necessary health safety matter, instead of litigation maybe further discussions, proposals on a new agreement incorporating the work already done because City because they did not qualify for the grant, but could continue to pursue .. Something along those lines.

Again, I could have missed some or much of this entirely.

As for PTA the Demand Letter.

I used the same format in the facts. As I recall there was only one case and the rest were statutes. This sort of alerted me to use a lot of the facts. The Memo also stated use the facts. So I laid out D's first , Second and Third Concerns, and summarized (even though it was a demand letter) that we shared those concerns and would be better to avoid litigation but were prepared if push came to shove.

The general issue was whether the USP the non-nurse school staff , including parents and others could administer insulin to students. Struggle recalling all the facts, basically D's demand letter was week, they misquoted the Gov Bill 48 claiming that he didn't approve that the SMA allowed testing. The case confirmed that he merely did not approve because there was enough overwhelming support to allow IDEA to permit administration of the insulin by Non Nurses. The Boards Advisory supported this notion too because Nurses were in short supply, like 350 thousand per the several million students diagnosed with diabetes etc..

One concern, (of many) PTA

I "concluded" after each segment (example

I First

Conclusion

II Second

Conclusion

III Third

Conclusion

Is this okay for a Demand Letter ?

Im thinking its not. I just couldn't get away from that unspoken rule about concluding after main each issue. Just wondering if that applies to demand letters. Dont think so ,oh well this is what I remember.


I brought up quorum. How could anyone miss it? They were all present and all agreed. I analyzed it and came to the conclusion that there likely was a vote and acceptance by the board, and immunity was questionable at best. Then, I stated that I would need more information to be sure, such as copy of any other rules and a copy of past meetings to see how votes were conducted.

Went through the other discussions. Concluded with Blanchard would likely recover, but not in the amount they were requesting. Suggested a negotiated settlement.

PTA was pretty straight forward. The gov. vetoed the language because it was repetitive, not because he disagreed. The case that appeared to work against us was distinguishable. I thought they were both fun. I love to tell people no. No, we're not rescinding our order. No, we're not paying you six figures. At least we didn't get jury instructions or something off-the-wall.

Don't worry, as long as you finished and made some arguments, you did fine. You just have to get to 70.

monkey law
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:53 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby monkey law » Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:58 pm

I started the remedies question by establishing tort fraud based on the parking issue since it was a discussion between the seller and buyer prior to purchase. I argued the parking issue was likely a basis of the bargain-- noting that parking in the urban environment was an issue discussed prior to purchase. This allowed for discussion of the Tort remedies of compensatory, nominal and punitive damages. However, I concluded, the COA would ultimately failed due to damages being too speculative, because although a monthly damage amount of $50 per month can be determined, we do not know how long the buyer will live on the ppty and need parking. 1 year 30 years?

The Purchase of the property is definitely within the stigmatized property rules in California. Therefore, since it is statutory--it is foreseeable, this lead to a discussion of compensatory and consequential damages. However, money damages are not enough to make a party whole on a stigmatized property. Therefore, I did a specific performance COA against seller to make them repurchase the stigmatized property, I then did a constructive trust, and equitable lean analysis to protect the money the seller currently has.

I did not do a recession based on fraud because the contract had been fully performed by both parties, but that was a mistake.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Fri Mar 17, 2017 4:59 pm

I wouldn't worry that it was a mistake. There are several ways to answer each question. As long as you got in there are argued it sideways, you're probably good. What was you average word count? You can tell how well you discussed each essay issue by the word count. Someone told me it had to be at least 1600 for essays and 2500 for PTs. I didn't hit 1600 on all of my essays, and only got to 2600 on one. I'm worried that this may mean I didn't discuss the issues enough. Ugh.

monkey law
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:53 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby monkey law » Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:57 pm

I have around 1900 +/-100 per essay, and 3000 per Pt +/-200. But high word count doesn't necessarily translate into higher scores. But there is surely a correlation between low word counts, under 1100 and low scores--- Just a guess.

I did the worse on the Professional Responsibility and Corps essays.

Evidence- I missed BER on the dbl hearsay issue on the medical record. I did the authentication of the statement itself, and did the hearsay rules and exemptions for both the statement and record, but skipped over the authentication of the record. Missed and easy 5 points.

I kinda bounced around a bit on the Wills essay. I first revoked the first will by physical act. I then argued both sides of whether the holographic will was valid- (i.e. no date) By contrast, the will in safety deposit box was dated. A dated will takes priority over a non dated Holigraphic will. However, if crt finds by Clear and Conviencing Evidence of intent that holographic will was intended to revoke the prior will-- then the Holographic will stand. If the crt does not find the Holographic will valid, then I used DRR and revive the prior physically revoked will (i.e. in staefty deposit box). I did an addemption analysis on the stock issue- argued change in form not substance. I didn't even mention community property. All the property was the woman's prior to marriage. But I should have at least discussed this issue and stated why CP did not apply to the given facts. That is a 10+ pt issue I missed.

Crim Pro- Fourth amendment/Miranda/entrapment was straight forward

ur_hero
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:28 pm

monkey law wrote:I have around 1900 +/-100 per essay, and 3000 per Pt +/-200. But high word count doesn't necessarily translate into higher scores. But there is surely a correlation between low word counts, under 1100 and low scores--- Just a guess.

I did the worse on the Professional Responsibility and Corps essays.

Evidence- I missed BER on the dbl hearsay issue on the medical record. I did the authentication of the statement itself, and did the hearsay rules and exemptions for both the statement and record, but skipped over the authentication of the record. Missed and easy 5 points.

I kinda bounced around a bit on the Wills essay. I first revoked the first will by physical act. I then argued both sides of whether the holographic will was valid- (i.e. no date) By contrast, the will in safety deposit box was dated. A dated will takes priority over a non dated Holigraphic will. However, if crt finds by Clear and Conviencing Evidence of intent that holographic will was intended to revoke the prior will-- then the Holographic will stand. If the crt does not find the Holographic will valid, then I used DRR and revive the prior physically revoked will (i.e. in staefty deposit box). I did an addemption analysis on the stock issue- argued change in form not substance. I didn't even mention community property. All the property was the woman's prior to marriage. But I should have at least discussed this issue and stated why CP did not apply to the given facts. That is a 10+ pt issue I missed.

Crim Pro- Fourth amendment/Miranda/entrapment was straight forward



I don't think we know that CP definitely did not apply. I made a point to search the facts (albeit under time pressure), and they never stated whether the house was her SP from prior to the marriage or whether it was possiby acquired after from CP funds. I just argued both possible conclusions, but just very briefly. I think the other issues were more major for sure.

InterAlia1961
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby InterAlia1961 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:13 am

What BER issue? Please, it's driving me crazy. Where were the contents of a writing an issue? Just tell me which facts.

Did basically the same as the above poster on Wills. Forgot the "harmless error" doctrine, specific to CA. Talked about form/substance, CP at death, and California's intestacy distribution scheme. Talked about the evidentiary standard as well.

I could've discussed the third issue on Corps more, but was running short on time. It's the one I'm most worried about. I wasted time talking about a shareholder's derivative suit to force distribution of dividends, and by the time I figured out that it would be to force Art to repay the corp, I was running low on time. Discussed it, but like I said, came up short on the third response. Something to the effect that because he was the wrongdoer the court won't allow him to recover. Interestingly enough, it was one of my longer essays.

Anyway, today is the day the graders get their box of essays to grade. If you're the praying type, remember the graders in your supplications. Let's hope their personal and professional lives go well during this time. We don't need them to have any undue stress.

User avatar
rcharter1978
Posts: 4308
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:49 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby rcharter1978 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:47 pm

ChunkyTaco wrote:Should I continue to study while I wait for the results???

I felt good about the essays except for the Remedies one.

I also felt good about the PTs, except for the last one and the reason is that I indented the paragraphs but was not able to indent everything as I wanted to. So I feel like the grader is going to look at it as disorganization/bad time management and mark me down.

One half of the MBE felt like the hardest exam I have ever taken and the second half felt okay but I still felt like I guessed most of the exam. IDK if that is normal?


I was convinced I failed Feb 2016, so I started to plan/study like a week or two after it was done.

It actually made the wait less stressful because I assumed I failed and was enacting the plan I had made in the event of failure.

I wasn't studying hardcore, but maybe an hour or two a day.

I was happily shocked when I passed, but not upset about the studying. :)

2017barexaminer
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby 2017barexaminer » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:56 pm

ur_hero wrote:
monkey law wrote:I have around 1900 +/-100 per essay, and 3000 per Pt +/-200. But high word count doesn't necessarily translate into higher scores. But there is surely a correlation between low word counts, under 1100 and low scores--- Just a guess.

I did the worse on the Professional Responsibility and Corps essays.

Evidence- I missed BER on the dbl hearsay issue on the medical record. I did the authentication of the statement itself, and did the hearsay rules and exemptions for both the statement and record, but skipped over the authentication of the record. Missed and easy 5 points.

I kinda bounced around a bit on the Wills essay. I first revoked the first will by physical act. I then argued both sides of whether the holographic will was valid- (i.e. no date) By contrast, the will in safety deposit box was dated. A dated will takes priority over a non dated Holigraphic will. However, if crt finds by Clear and Conviencing Evidence of intent that holographic will was intended to revoke the prior will-- then the Holographic will stand. If the crt does not find the Holographic will valid, then I used DRR and revive the prior physically revoked will (i.e. in staefty deposit box). I did an addemption analysis on the stock issue- argued change in form not substance. I didn't even mention community property. All the property was the woman's prior to marriage. But I should have at least discussed this issue and stated why CP did not apply to the given facts. That is a 10+ pt issue I missed.

Crim Pro- Fourth amendment/Miranda/entrapment was straight forward



I don't think we know that CP definitely did not apply. I made a point to search the facts (albeit under time pressure), and they never stated whether the house was her SP from prior to the marriage or whether it was possiby acquired after from CP funds. I just argued both possible conclusions, but just very briefly. I think the other issues were more major for sure.





I def didn't mention CP although I should have and can see why it's relavent. Only did a final disposition under intestacy law. I feel pretty confident about the rest of my issue spotting and analysis tho. But I guess I'm wondering how are you so sure that it's a "10 point" loss? Just wondering how some posts on this thread are giving point allocations for sub issues?

User avatar
chili_davis
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:27 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby chili_davis » Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:56 pm

...

barexaminerssuck27
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:38 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby barexaminerssuck27 » Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:23 pm

InterAlia1961 wrote:What BER issue? Please, it's driving me crazy. Where were the contents of a writing an issue? Just tell me which facts.

Did basically the same as the above poster on Wills. Forgot the "harmless error" doctrine, specific to CA. Talked about form/substance, CP at death, and California's intestacy distribution scheme. Talked about the evidentiary standard as well.

I could've discussed the third issue on Corps more, but was running short on time. It's the one I'm most worried about. I wasted time talking about a shareholder's derivative suit to force distribution of dividends, and by the time I figured out that it would be to force Art to repay the corp, I was running low on time. Discussed it, but like I said, came up short on the third response. Something to the effect that because he was the wrongdoer the court won't allow him to recover. Interestingly enough, it was one of my longer essays.

Anyway, today is the day the graders get their box of essays to grade. If you're the praying type, remember the graders in your supplications. Let's hope their personal and professional lives go well during this time. We don't need them to have any undue stress.


I had a bar tutor this round. I am a third time repeater and I couldn't understand why. The bar tutor really helped me, as she explained the grading rubric.

There are just some issues that you HAVE to mentioned. She called them the "must mentioned" issues. They are SOF, BER,authentication, etc. I forgot the rest. Even if the fact pattern does not call for analysis, SOF is always mentioned. Every model has the SOF analysis, albeit short. Just worth like 3 points, I forgot. BER and authentication always apply when it comes to records.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: TheWalrus, twenty and 11 guests