2017 February California Bar Exam

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

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:04 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby RickSanchez » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:17 am

osuna911 wrote:Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?


If you had a decent analysis you should get at least 65. I have seen some really bad ones get 60.

ledv

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:22 am

osuna911 wrote:Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?


55.

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:23 am

ledv wrote:
osuna911 wrote:Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?


55.


Hahahah. So wrong.

ledv

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:29 am

cal_pushed wrote:
ledv wrote:
osuna911 wrote:Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?


55.


Hahahah. So wrong.


Lol. Relax people, you guys just took the bar exam! Go outside or something! Enjoy the world around you!

cal_pushed

New
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:33 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby cal_pushed » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:30 am

ledv wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:
ledv wrote:
osuna911 wrote:Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?


55.


Hahahah. So wrong.


Lol. Relax people, you guys just took the bar exam! Go outside or something! Enjoy the world around you!


Can't because I'm worried about leaving my kids with a babysitter, and getting sued.

ledv

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:39 am

cal_pushed wrote:
ledv wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:
ledv wrote:
osuna911 wrote:Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?


55.


Hahahah. So wrong.


Lol. Relax people, you guys just took the bar exam! Go outside or something! Enjoy the world around you!


Can't because I'm worried about leaving my kids with a babysitter, and getting sued.


Baby sitters = independent contractors or employees? Liable or not liable? If babysitter had a swing on her property and kids climbed a 6 ft tall wired fence with angry dog on the side and bites someone, who's liable?

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:41 am

osuna911 wrote:
cal_pushed wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
rosh1005 wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
armenianBEAUTY wrote:
I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?




For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply




there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?



Solicitation merges into conspiracy?



........ missed that hahaha damn


I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...



Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....


I found that warrant was not valid and that the good faith exception did NOT apply, since Alan knew that Ivan was an unreliable source and lied on the warrant application by saying he got a tip from a "reliable source"

And then separately I said that despite there not being a warrant, there WAS probable cause for arrest arising from the interaction between Bob and Debbie (or whatever her name was) in the bar.

clockguy

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:32 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby clockguy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:45 am

osuna911 wrote:
clockguy wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
clockguy wrote:
osuna911 wrote:I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel :( :( :( :( Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.


Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?


It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time


In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...


Third case quoted another case about a tow yard storing cars, it said the contract was within the exceptions...

Yeah exactly, could've used the dissent argument to make a case for Blanchard... to be more "objective" coulda woulda hadda


I'm pretty concerned and confused now. Did anyone else see estoppel anywhere?

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:45 am

asdf123456 wrote:Hypothetically, if I forgot the second element of the entrapment defense and missed the unreliability of the informant, what's the best I could have gotten? Assuming I stated all the other rules well and had ok-level analysis? Missing those 2 things, do you think 55 is still possible?


Yes. Hardly anybody had the entrapment elements down pat. I made them up off the top of my head based on the fact patterns. 85-90% of the points for that essay were in the 4th&5th Amendment analyses. Entrapment was their little "gotcha!" add-on.

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:50 am

elijah54594 wrote:
Oh, and did anyone else hit the "inevitible discovery" exception to the exclusion of the statement? A lab would have tested the coke (and I said still likely would) regardless of the statement. I had already discussed the fact that the statement was not incited by a custodial interview and that the officer's statement was more a colloquial exclamation than a statement likely to incite a response.


I actually did a voluntary statement exception to the exclusionary rule, and split the statements up. One was "Its cocaine" which was in direct response to Bob's question "what do we have here?" - even if the question was rhetorical, I analyzed that and found that she answered his question and thus it was not voluntary for the purposes of my argument. And then the second statement was "I`m in big trouble now" - which was voluntary because it wasn't a response to his question and thus wasn't part of the interrogation at all.

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:51 am

RickSanchez wrote:
asdf123456 wrote:Hypothetically, if I forgot the second element of the entrapment defense and missed the unreliability of the informant, what's the best I could have gotten? Assuming I stated all the other rules well and had ok-level analysis? Missing those 2 things, do you think 55 is still possible?


55 is definitely possible. If you did other searches + did a great job on Miranda, maybe even 60


"maybe even a 60." Bro, you're not a grader and this is way off. Stop adding fuel to people's anxiety. Missing one element of entrapment meant very little on this essay. You can do a good job on 4th and 5th and throw out some reasonable shit for entrapment and score a 70 on this essay.

Lawless!

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

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Fri Feb 24, 2017 3:54 am

Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:01 am

clockguy wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
clockguy wrote:
osuna911 wrote:I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel :( :( :( :( Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.


Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?


It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time


In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...


"Estoppel" was mentioned in the Hiram case in this context: "Because they didn't have the right to contract, opposing part cannot enforce contract through estoppel" or something like that... In other words, because the contract wasn't properly made, it can't be enforced regardless of the 3P's reliance and performance on it ... In other words, 3Ps can get hamboned by a city.

The estoppel shit was meant to trip us up. It literally was interchangeable with immunity. "Lack of use of estoppel" = Immunity.

User avatar
Snowboarder1588

Bronze
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:55 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Snowboarder1588 » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:07 am

Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:09 am

Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


For part 1, I did quick corporate formation and quickly concluded it was a de jure corp given the facts. Then did a piercing corporate veil analysis. Part 2 was shareholder derivative and then her ability to sue Art personally as a shareholder for duty breaches (both as a majority SH to a minority SH, and as a director/agent of the corp). Part 3 was the bankruptcy question. Upon further inspection of my outline at lunch there are specific rules about this. I didn't know them off the top of my head so I went with "since they pierced the corporate veil the court is likely to find that this was acting a general partnership" and then did a dissolution distribution analysis based on outside creditors --> inside creditors --> capital contribution. LOL. My Part 3 was utter crap.

User avatar
unclepete

Bronze
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 12:54 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby unclepete » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:10 am

Snowboarder1588 wrote:Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........


That's a good point. I think that is a legit answer.

ledv

New
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 3:41 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ledv » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:12 am

How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center... :oops:

Lawless!

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

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:20 am

unclepete wrote:
Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


For part 1, I did quick corporate formation and quickly concluded it was a de jure corp given the facts. Then did a piercing corporate veil analysis. Part 2 was shareholder derivative and then her ability to sue Art personally as a shareholder for duty breaches (both as a majority SH to a minority SH, and as a director/agent of the corp). Part 3 was the bankruptcy question. Upon further inspection of my outline at lunch there are specific rules about this. I didn't know them off the top of my head so I went with "since they pierced the corporate veil the court is likely to find that this was acting a general partnership" and then did a dissolution distribution analysis based on outside creditors --> inside creditors --> capital contribution. LOL. My Part 3 was utter crap.



Did the facts state that A had already incorporated Retailer, Inc? Or did I read that into it? I figured it was already incorporated and did directors and officer specifically A as president and director as an agent of corp and which binds Corp to the K. And then Supplier could then PCV to get A personally.

Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder part 3 was about A's loan he made. I had forgotten the rule for distribution so just made up a list with creditors including shareholder that loaned money. And then the deep Rock doctrine to subordinate As claim bc of wrongdoing.

Lawless!

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

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:28 am

Lawless! wrote:
unclepete wrote:
Lawless! wrote:Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?


For part 1, I did quick corporate formation and quickly concluded it was a de jure corp given the facts. Then did a piercing corporate veil analysis. Part 2 was shareholder derivative and then her ability to sue Art personally as a shareholder for duty breaches (both as a majority SH to a minority SH, and as a director/agent of the corp). Part 3 was the bankruptcy question. Upon further inspection of my outline at lunch there are specific rules about this. I didn't know them off the top of my head so I went with "since they pierced the corporate veil the court is likely to find that this was acting a general partnership" and then did a dissolution distribution analysis based on outside creditors --> inside creditors --> capital contribution. LOL. My Part 3 was utter crap.



Did the facts state that A had already incorporated Retailer, Inc? Or did I read that into it? I figured it was already incorporated and did directors and officer specifically A as president and director as an agent of corp and which binds Corp to the K. And then Supplier could then PCV to get A personally.

Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder part 3 was about A's loan he made. I had forgotten the rule for distribution so just made up a list with creditors including shareholder that loaned money. And then the deep Rock doctrine to subordinate As claim bc of wrongdoing.


Crap.. Forgot improper distributions. :|

ur_hero

Bronze
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby ur_hero » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:29 am

Snowboarder1588 wrote:Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........



This.

Lawless!

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

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:35 am

ur_hero wrote:
Snowboarder1588 wrote:Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........



This.


That's what I argued. But then argued improper execution of the warrant, where proper execution is without delay and according to the specific time and place of the warrant. But maybe harmless error bc of the improper execution?

Lawless!

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

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:42 am

ledv wrote:How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center... :oops:


Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM

Roupie

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Roupie » Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:36 am

Lawless! wrote:
ledv wrote:How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center... :oops:


Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM



Where did fit your ultra vires discussion?

clockguy

New
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 2:32 am

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby clockguy » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:04 am

unclepete wrote:
clockguy wrote:
osuna911 wrote:
clockguy wrote:
osuna911 wrote:I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel :( :( :( :( Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.


Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?


It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time


In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...


"Estoppel" was mentioned in the Hiram case in this context: "Because they didn't have the right to contract, opposing part cannot enforce contract through estoppel" or something like that... In other words, because the contract wasn't properly made, it can't be enforced regardless of the 3P's reliance and performance on it ... In other words, 3Ps can get hamboned by a city.

The estoppel shit was meant to trip us up. It literally was interchangeable with immunity. "Lack of use of estoppel" = Immunity.


Thanks a bunch, whew!

Lawless!

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

Re: 2017 February California Bar Exam

Postby Lawless! » Fri Feb 24, 2017 6:07 am

Roupie wrote:
Lawless! wrote:
ledv wrote:How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center... :oops:


Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM



Where did fit your ultra vires discussion?


I did ultra virus as a sub issue under issue 1 immunity.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JBNYC and 22 guests