Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

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

Platinum
Posts: 5401
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Slytherpuff » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:00 am

Slytherpuff wrote:I'll finally be hitting 50% today after a really slow/frustrating week. I'm hoping that once I get a little more of the law under my belt MBE-wise, I can start blowing through the question sets.

:| Of course I ended the night at 49.7%. Happy 4th of July.

jennifer_42

New
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:02 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby jennifer_42 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:04 am

droit wrote:When/how have people been going about reviewing earlier subjects? There isn't an assignment telling me to review lecture topics from MBE #1, and I know I that should, but I'm just trying to figure out how to fit it into my schedule and what to work on.


That's weird, I definitely get assignments to review past subjects. Not often, but sometimes. I'm speculating that it skips those when you're behind, but I don't know.

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:27 am

kcjlo10 wrote:Question about the crim law outline: it says that defenses to felony murder are "(1) a valid defense to the underlying felony; (2) the felony was not distinct from or independent of the killing itself (e.g., aggravated battery); (3) death was not a foreseeable result or a natural and probable consequence of the felony (no proximate cause); or (4) death occurred after the commission of the felony and the ensuing flight from the scene of the crime."

Can anyone explain (2) for me?

Also, what's the difference between aggravated battery leading to death vs. involuntary manslaughter?


In regards to (2):

Think of it this way: if you recognize felony battery as a predicate offense for felony murder, then a person could always be convicted of murder for engaging in felony battery that happens to cause the death of the person. That would be the case regardless as to whether the defendant had an intent to kill. But if this were true, grievous bodily harm murder, which requires intent to cause serious harm, would become superfluous.

The whole point of felony murder is that the intent to kill can be inferred from engaging in separate conduct that is inherently dangerous (e.g. robbery, burglary, etc.). When the conduct at issue is not separate from the acts which cause the death of the victim, then the proper test is whether the intent can be inferred from that conduct (e.g. grievous bodily harm, premeditated murder, etc.) and not whether the conduct is inherently dangerous.

In regards to aggravated battery/involuntary manslaughter:

Simply put, aggravated battery that leads to the death of the victim will always be at least involuntary manslaughter.

droit

New
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 11:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby droit » Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:06 pm

jennifer_42 wrote:
droit wrote:When/how have people been going about reviewing earlier subjects? There isn't an assignment telling me to review lecture topics from MBE #1, and I know I that should, but I'm just trying to figure out how to fit it into my schedule and what to work on.


That's weird, I definitely get assignments to review past subjects. Not often, but sometimes. I'm speculating that it skips those when you're behind, but I don't know.


Yeah, that could be it. Because I did MBE and MEE #1 two weeks ago, and there has been nothing in my schedule telling me to go back and review those subjects again since then. Considering that my schedule is so packed, I don't know how to fit that kind of review in.

champloo

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:00 pm

droit wrote:
jennifer_42 wrote:
droit wrote:When/how have people been going about reviewing earlier subjects? There isn't an assignment telling me to review lecture topics from MBE #1, and I know I that should, but I'm just trying to figure out how to fit it into my schedule and what to work on.


That's weird, I definitely get assignments to review past subjects. Not often, but sometimes. I'm speculating that it skips those when you're behind, but I don't know.


Yeah, that could be it. Because I did MBE and MEE #1 two weeks ago, and there has been nothing in my schedule telling me to go back and review those subjects again since then. Considering that my schedule is so packed, I don't know how to fit that kind of review in.


not sure if this actually answers your question but i review mbe subjects by doing 50-100 mbe questions in the morning to early afternoon and review them afterwards. i do essay subject lectures/reviews/practice essays starting from late afternoon til whenever i go to sleep. this seems to be enough of a review for me although i never followed the directed schedule so not sure it will work if you follow the schedule.

Samarcan

New
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:14 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Samarcan » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:50 pm

I just did Themis's first graded MPT -- the "Franklin Resale Royalties Legislation" problem. There was NO WAY I could have gotten all those issues spotted as the ones they showed in the sample answer!! I read the material in the recommended amount of time, but processing and synthesizing all the issues, and then typing them up, would have required probably at least another 10-20 min, and even then I doubt I'd've noticed all those issues!! Is Themis's model answer a typical one, or just the very best possible one?

Kind of depressing experience overall, because I had thought the MPT was more straightford and easy than the MBE, and was kind of banking on doing well on the MPT to make up for missed multiple choice Qs on the more difficult MBE subjects. This exam sucks.

User avatar
Slytherpuff

Platinum
Posts: 5401
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Slytherpuff » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:53 pm

Yeah I'm hoping the MPT sample answer is just the best possible answer, since if we're supposed to spot all those issues and write that coherently on the actual exam, just kill me now.

helpappreciated

New
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:43 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby helpappreciated » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:16 pm

Samarcan wrote:I just did Themis's first graded MPT -- the "Franklin Resale Royalties Legislation" problem. There was NO WAY I could have gotten all those issues spotted as the ones they showed in the sample answer!! I read the material in the recommended amount of time, but processing and synthesizing all the issues, and then typing them up, would have required probably at least another 10-20 min, and even then I doubt I'd've noticed all those issues!! Is Themis's model answer a typical one, or just the very best possible one?

Kind of depressing experience overall, because I had thought the MPT was more straightford and easy than the MBE, and was kind of banking on doing well on the MPT to make up for missed multiple choice Qs on the more difficult MBE subjects. This exam sucks.


I feel you, the MPTs are taking a long time for me to complete. The Struckman case I didn't even know how to fit in all the jurisdictional rulings even after outlining.

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:31 am

Anyone completely lost with respect to Commercial Paper/Secured Transactions? I didn't study these topics in law school and the Themis outlines aren't helping that much.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7726
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:43 am

bmmccb223 wrote:Anyone completely lost with respect to Commercial Paper/Secured Transactions? I didn't study these topics in law school and the Themis outlines aren't helping that much.


Luckily, we're not going that deep into commercial paper. It's really not too bad. I'd say the keys to remember are the 6 requirements for a negotiable instrument, the transfer warranties/presentment warranty for thieves, the underlying obligation vs. the instrument liability for the drawer, and HIDC status and how to achieve it (along with the real vs. personal defenses).

Are you worried about it for multiple choice or an essay?

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:29 am

lavarman84 wrote:
bmmccb223 wrote:Anyone completely lost with respect to Commercial Paper/Secured Transactions? I didn't study these topics in law school and the Themis outlines aren't helping that much.


Luckily, we're not going that deep into commercial paper. It's really not too bad. I'd say the keys to remember are the 6 requirements for a negotiable instrument, the transfer warranties/presentment warranty for thieves, the underlying obligation vs. the instrument liability for the drawer, and HIDC status and how to achieve it (along with the real vs. personal defenses).

Are you worried about it for multiple choice or an essay?


Essays.

champloo

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:36 am

don't think sec trans/cp have multiple choice questions.

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7726
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 9:41 am

bmmccb223 wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:
bmmccb223 wrote:Anyone completely lost with respect to Commercial Paper/Secured Transactions? I didn't study these topics in law school and the Themis outlines aren't helping that much.


Luckily, we're not going that deep into commercial paper. It's really not too bad. I'd say the keys to remember are the 6 requirements for a negotiable instrument, the transfer warranties/presentment warranty for thieves, the underlying obligation vs. the instrument liability for the drawer, and HIDC status and how to achieve it (along with the real vs. personal defenses).

Are you worried about it for multiple choice or an essay?


Essays.


Yea, my expectation on an essay is that it would likely pop up with a contracts prompt. Thus, you'd want to know the requirements for a negotiable instrument, the requirements for HIDC status, and how it affects defenses. It's possible something else could be used, but that seems like the strongest possibility. Accordingly, I'd make the biggest effort to know that. I also think a situation dealing with a thief would be pretty easy.(just use the warranties to go up the chain until you get to the party the thief gave the check to...and the drawer would challenge the payor bank paying prior to the warranties as a wrongful honor [since the check was not properly payable])

I'm not saying I wouldn't study the other material, but I think that's the most important material to know. Of course, I have no justification for that belief besides from struggling to come up with other scenarios in which they could test a bunch of different subjects at once using commercial paper.

As for Secured Transactions, I'm in the same boat as you.

champloo wrote:don't think sec trans/cp have multiple choice questions.


In my state, it's a possibility (but very unlikely).

champloo

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:09 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:06 am

lavarman84 wrote:
In my state, it's a possibility (but very unlikely).


TIL. did not know other states had multiple choice questions other than the mbe. not sure whether to be jealous or not tho lol

User avatar
shaynislegend

Bronze
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:40 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby shaynislegend » Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:56 pm

Would love some help on making sense of this dormant commerce clause question.

[+] Spoiler
A recently enacted state statute bans the importation of unshelled pecans into the state from other states. The statute is designed to protect pecans grown in the state from insects that live in the shells of pecans. The insects have not been found in the pecans grown in the state. An out-of-state grower and seller of pecans has challenged the statute in federal court as a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, alleging that the statute facially discriminates against out-of-state commerce.

Should the court grant judgment to the out-of-state grower?

Answers:

A. Yes, because the statute facially discriminates against pecans grown out-of-state, constituting a per se violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
B. Yes, if the out-of-state grower can also establish that the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
C. Correct Answer: No, if the state can establish that no other nondiscriminatory means are available to protect the health of locally grown pecans.
D. No, because the state can establish a substantial nexus between the health of locally grown pecans and the import of out-of-state pecans.


I don't see how the state can have any legitimate interest here when the statute forbids the importation of unshelled pecans, yet the type of harm that it seeks to eliminate stems from insects that live in shells. If there are no shells on the pecan then there is not worries, and no need to ban the importation. Why would this not just be a classic case of the state engaging in economic protectionism that violates the dormant commerce clause?

User avatar
Slytherpuff

Platinum
Posts: 5401
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Slytherpuff » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:14 pm

shaynislegend wrote:Would love some help on making sense of this dormant commerce clause question.

[+] Spoiler
A recently enacted state statute bans the importation of unshelled pecans into the state from other states. The statute is designed to protect pecans grown in the state from insects that live in the shells of pecans. The insects have not been found in the pecans grown in the state. An out-of-state grower and seller of pecans has challenged the statute in federal court as a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, alleging that the statute facially discriminates against out-of-state commerce.

Should the court grant judgment to the out-of-state grower?

Answers:

A. Yes, because the statute facially discriminates against pecans grown out-of-state, constituting a per se violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
B. Yes, if the out-of-state grower can also establish that the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
C. Correct Answer: No, if the state can establish that no other nondiscriminatory means are available to protect the health of locally grown pecans.
D. No, because the state can establish a substantial nexus between the health of locally grown pecans and the import of out-of-state pecans.


I don't see how the state can have any legitimate interest here when the statute forbids the importation of unshelled pecans, yet the type of harm that it seeks to eliminate stems from insects that live in shells. If there are no shells on the pecan then there is not worries, and no need to ban the importation. Why would this not just be a classic case of the state engaging in economic protectionism that violates the dormant commerce clause?

This is super counterintuitive, but:
By "unshelled" they mean the shell hasn't been taken off yet. The shell is still on. ("Shelled" pecans means that the shell has been removed.) That's a stupid question and I hope it's not a real MBE one, but there's your answer.

User avatar
shaynislegend

Bronze
Posts: 228
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:40 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby shaynislegend » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:17 pm

Slytherpuff wrote:
shaynislegend wrote:Would love some help on making sense of this dormant commerce clause question.

[+] Spoiler
A recently enacted state statute bans the importation of unshelled pecans into the state from other states. The statute is designed to protect pecans grown in the state from insects that live in the shells of pecans. The insects have not been found in the pecans grown in the state. An out-of-state grower and seller of pecans has challenged the statute in federal court as a violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause, alleging that the statute facially discriminates against out-of-state commerce.

Should the court grant judgment to the out-of-state grower?

Answers:

A. Yes, because the statute facially discriminates against pecans grown out-of-state, constituting a per se violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
B. Yes, if the out-of-state grower can also establish that the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
C. Correct Answer: No, if the state can establish that no other nondiscriminatory means are available to protect the health of locally grown pecans.
D. No, because the state can establish a substantial nexus between the health of locally grown pecans and the import of out-of-state pecans.


I don't see how the state can have any legitimate interest here when the statute forbids the importation of unshelled pecans, yet the type of harm that it seeks to eliminate stems from insects that live in shells. If there are no shells on the pecan then there is not worries, and no need to ban the importation. Why would this not just be a classic case of the state engaging in economic protectionism that violates the dormant commerce clause?

This is super counterintuitive, but:
By "unshelled" they mean the shell hasn't been taken off yet. The shell is still on. ("Shelled" pecans means that the shell has been removed.) That's a stupid question and I hope it's not a real MBE one, but there's your answer.


Whoa, mind = blown. Thanks!

lavarman84

Platinum
Posts: 7726
Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:01 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby lavarman84 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:35 pm

champloo wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:
In my state, it's a possibility (but very unlikely).


TIL. did not know other states had multiple choice questions other than the mbe. not sure whether to be jealous or not tho lol


Don't be jealous. They make the multiple choice questions really hard and still give us state-specific essays.

michelle3908

New
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 11:09 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby michelle3908 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:48 pm

lavarman84 wrote:
champloo wrote:
lavarman84 wrote:
In my state, it's a possibility (but very unlikely).


TIL. did not know other states had multiple choice questions other than the mbe. not sure whether to be jealous or not tho lol


Don't be jealous. They make the multiple choice questions really hard and still give us state-specific essays.


What state is this? I think I'd consider moving! :D

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:03 pm

Is there a way to know what the average Themis test taker scored on one of the practice MBQ Problem sets? I just took the 100 question set and got several points below the 70% goal.

User avatar
Leagle_Beagle

New
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:35 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Leagle_Beagle » Wed Jul 05, 2017 4:37 pm

For the UBE people out there, what did you think of the graded MPT- "Franklin Resale Royalties Legislation"

I didn't do too well on it, but I'm not quite sure what they were expecting. The prompt said use bullet points, but my grader said bullet points weren't persuasive enough?

All in all I've been unimpressed with the grading on the essays.

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:24 pm

Leagle_Beagle wrote:For the UBE people out there, what did you think of the graded MPT- "Franklin Resale Royalties Legislation"

I didn't do too well on it, but I'm not quite sure what they were expecting. The prompt said use bullet points, but my grader said bullet points weren't persuasive enough?

All in all I've been unimpressed with the grading on the essays.


Did it say use bullet points or that bullet points are acceptable? I would never write something in bullet points unless I were required to.

User avatar
whats an updog

Bronze
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:12 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:36 pm

Can anyone explain the difference between larceny by false pretenses and larceny by trick when the defendant has received cash for something? Is it always larceny by false pretenses since you're considered to have "title" to cash? :oops:

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20789
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby star fox » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:45 pm

whats an updog wrote:Can anyone explain the difference between larceny by false pretenses and larceny by trick when the defendant has received cash for something? Is it always larceny by false pretenses since you're considered to have "title" to cash? :oops:

yeah

bmmccb223

Bronze
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:58 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby bmmccb223 » Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:48 pm

whats an updog wrote:Can anyone explain the difference between larceny by false pretenses and larceny by trick when the defendant has received cash for something? Is it always larceny by false pretenses since you're considered to have "title" to cash? :oops:



That's tricky to answer without a factual scenario. However, suppose that Person A tricks Person B into giving him money in exchange for some sort of contractual performance that Person A never intends to carry out. In that case, Person A has possession of but not title to the money since he hasn't fulfilled his side of the bargain. It seems he could be convicted of larceny by trick but not false pretenses.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests