2017 July California Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
hatethelaw

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:29 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby hatethelaw » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:30 pm

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

WARRENE00

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:29 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby WARRENE00 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:32 pm

My wife just finished Day 1. I'm a practicing attorney and she briefly tried to explain to me the torts essay. Based on what she told me it sounded like the light pole fact pattern was asking for an analysis of products liability. Would appreciate if someone could confirm (or deny). Just a worried spouse hoping my wife did ok.


-Warren

JDMBALLMMS

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:25 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby JDMBALLMMS » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:40 pm

barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

barjamie8

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:56 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby barjamie8 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:42 pm

JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.

User avatar
a male human

Gold
Posts: 2011
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby a male human » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:43 pm

barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.

I'm no fan of Sacuzzo, but it seems like he only got Torts wrong?

lawlschool1l

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2014 10:11 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby lawlschool1l » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:44 pm

barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.


There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

netrag

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby netrag » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:45 pm

lawlschool1l wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.


There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.


Oh thank god. Was terrified for a second that I answered that one incorrectly.

Robertjy

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:44 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Robertjy » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:49 pm

WARRENE00 wrote:My wife just finished Day 1. I'm a practicing attorney and she briefly tried to explain to me the torts essay. Based on what she told me it sounded like the light pole fact pattern was asking for an analysis of products liability. Would appreciate if someone could confirm (or deny). Just a worried spouse hoping my wife did ok.


-Warren



Hi Warren, strict liability was an issue but more so for a ultra hazardous activity rather a products liability issue. Don't tell her lol she will start freaking out.

WARRENE00

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:29 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby WARRENE00 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:53 pm

Actually, I told her that it sounded like there was a products liability issue. So it sounds like I am wrong. Which is a good thing bc she talked about abnormally dangerous activity.

User avatar
Alt123

New
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:56 pm

hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........


Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.

JDMBALLMMS

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 11:25 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby JDMBALLMMS » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:02 pm

lawlschool1l wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.


There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.


Then he got 100% right.
Did not sit the examination today but using Saccuzzo's bar-secrets and his propionic to study for now and a great way to nail the rules.

User avatar
Alt123

New
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:04 pm

lawlschool1l wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.


There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.



There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..

netrag

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby netrag » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:12 pm

Alt123 wrote:
lawlschool1l wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.


There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.



There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..


I think that the third question asked for CA.
Last edited by netrag on Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Alt123

New
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:13 pm

Yes, you're talking about the evidence/PR question that asked for CA law.

netrag

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby netrag » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:15 pm

Alt123 wrote:Yes, you're talking about the evidence/PR question that asked for CA law.


Oh, thought other was too. Phew.

lawschoolgradz1

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:10 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby lawschoolgradz1 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:18 pm

Alt123 wrote:
hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........


Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.


I DID THE SAME THING!!!!! Please tell me this has been done before and people still pass?????? I knew the law and wrote the right stuff just didn't use the case library!

Also, rude. I took a class on PT work and this was just an honest mistake. The only trolls here are you, commenting on things making people feel worse about themselves.

User avatar
Alt123

New
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:20 pm

Lmao, both of these accounts made one after the other responding to themselves.

Well played, excellent troll game, sir/madam.

InterAlia1961

Bronze
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:22 pm

hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........


The good news is that it's only worth about 15% of your score, if I remember correctly. Someone will correct me if that's wrong. As long as you didn't bomb the essays completely, you're probably alright. The only thing in the library was one case, and you only needed it to explain when a non-routine search required reasonable suspicion. You already know the rule about unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth. I wouldn't worry if I was you. I would, however, worry if you were me. I sucked on all of it. I'm a friggin' genius in my own living room. Put me in a testing center, and I'm a stooge. Sigh.

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:26 pm

Fuck I did ordinary negligence for the utility pole and just spent more time on the standard of care. Did not consider that utility pole was an abnormally dangerous activity because I figured it was normally done in the community. I guess I should have at least mentioned that. Oh well, otherwise I felt mostly good about the rest of the questions.

The CA evid/PR question definitely threw me for a loop at first and was probably the strangest question on the exam.

Feel good about: CommProp, Remedies
Feel ok about: CivPro, Torts, PT
Feel uneasy about: CA evid / PR

lawschoolgradz1 wrote:
Alt123 wrote:
hatethelaw wrote:Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........


Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.


I DID THE SAME THING!!!!! Please tell me this has been done before and people still pass?????? I knew the law and wrote the right stuff just didn't use the case library!

Also, rude. I took a class on PT work and this was just an honest mistake. The only trolls here are you, commenting on things making people feel worse about themselves.


I did not make this mistake, but I'm sure you can both still get passing scores providing you're on track with the rest of the essays and MBE. This was definitely a weird PT and the library only had a single case in it, which was a little freaky in itself.

justfordis

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:22 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby justfordis » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:28 pm

netrag wrote:
Alt123 wrote:
lawlschool1l wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
JDMBALLMMS wrote:
barjamie8 wrote:
justanotheruser wrote:Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT


Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?


Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard


Looks like he was mostly wrong.


There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.



There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..


I think that the third question asked for CA.


i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:30 pm

justfordis wrote:
i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest


Yes, this was in the 4th question (CivPro), and I think the answer was something like:

Fed court sitting in DJ applies state substantive law. But when more than one state's law is at play, as a matter of federal common law, the court applies the choice of law principles of the state in which the federal court sits. Therefore California choice of law principles apply to determine what substantive state law the federal court should apply.

Then you'd use CA state choice of law principles to determine whether a NY or CA court would apply.
Last edited by whats an updog on Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alt123

New
Posts: 100
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:36 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby Alt123 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:31 pm

Oh, that's what you mean?

That was dealing with Erie, I believe.

netrag

New
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby netrag » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:36 pm

whats an updog wrote:
justfordis wrote:
i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest


Yes, this was in the 4th question (CivPro), and I think the answer was something like:

Fed court sitting in DJ applies state substantive law. But when more than one state's law is at play, as a matter of federal common law, the court applies the choice of law principles of the state in which the federal court sits. Therefore California choice of law principles apply to determine what substantive state law the federal court should apply.

Then you'd use CA state choice of law principles to determine whether a NY or CA court would apply.


Right, I mentioned both the governmental interest and referred to the other one as "choice of law" because I haven't read up on state specific conflicts of interest in four years and couldn't remember which was for torts and which was for ks and property.

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby whats an updog » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:39 pm

netrag wrote:
whats an updog wrote:
justfordis wrote:
i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest


Yes, this was in the 4th question (CivPro), and I think the answer was something like:

Fed court sitting in DJ applies state substantive law. But when more than one state's law is at play, as a matter of federal common law, the court applies the choice of law principles of the state in which the federal court sits. Therefore California choice of law principles apply to determine what substantive state law the federal court should apply.

Then you'd use CA state choice of law principles to determine whether a NY or CA court would apply.


Right, I mentioned both the governmental interest and referred to the other one as "choice of law" because I haven't read up on state specific conflicts of interest in four years and couldn't remember which was for torts and which was for ks and property.


Yeah, I think that'll be totally fine. The only thing more complicated other than governmental interest really is if there was a choice of law clause in the contract. But there wasn't, so if you mention it fine, if not, probably also fine.

InterAlia1961

Bronze
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: 2017 July California Bar

Postby InterAlia1961 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:43 pm

Alt123 wrote:
There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..


I'm glad you brought that up. Where the question asked about the Erie Doctrine, I knew the rule. I couldn't, however, figure out what specific law they were referring to. I think I might have missed something in the fact pattern. So, I talked about how what's-her-name will claim the pleading is suffient under Cal. Rules of Civ Pro, because then she won't have to specifically plead the fraud allegations, only a primary right. But it wouldn't fly because it's procedural. I was just lost. Someone fill me in. Put me out of misery.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: da.goat, mlp12 and 29 guests