Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

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

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:19 am

SeewhathappensLarry wrote:
champloo wrote:
cho8583 wrote:
honeyybee wrote:
champloo wrote:
villanovajew wrote:Did anyone take Mixed MBE PQ 12 and 13 yet? I thought they were significantly easier than the previous couple.... I got 70% and 76% after getting around 62-64% on the previous few.


i did a bit below avg on 13, and a bit above avg for 12. i was very distracted for pq 13 so whatever. 14 killed me. got 10% below my avg score. this inconsistency is killing me. getting around 70-80 on adaptibar. so basically ive scored between 55% and 80% over the past 6 exam sets (mix b/w themis and ab). i've decided to spend some more time studying for the essays over the next few days in case the mbe fucks me over.


I'm in the same boat. I've been scoring around 55-60% on the MBE practice sets but have been scoring 80-82% in NON-themis materials (Adaptibar + Stategies and Tactics). It's incredibly frustrating and anxiety inducing. I also focused on essays today because the inconsistency is driving me insane!


As I previously mentioned in the thread, I have no idea why it is completely opposite for me; I find Adaptibar, S&T are much harder than Themis!


lol. adaptibar was harder for me when i first started it but now im scoring much higher, while my themis scores are trending downward


As a non-adaptibar user--what is the difference between the substance of the questions between that and Themis?


maybe themis has more questions that test nuances? honestly, i can't tell too much of a difference. at first, i swear ab questions were harder/different but the more i do both i realize its all the same shit. ab has worse answer explanations overall though, i think. sometimes i'm confused if an explanation doesn't address an issue i wanted them to. am i just a dumbass that got it way off or is the explanation horrible? either way, it's way too late to start ab now

User avatar
yeslekkkk

Bronze
Posts: 377
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:37 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby yeslekkkk » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:51 am

champloo wrote:
SeewhathappensLarry wrote:
champloo wrote:
cho8583 wrote:
honeyybee wrote:
champloo wrote:
villanovajew wrote:Did anyone take Mixed MBE PQ 12 and 13 yet? I thought they were significantly easier than the previous couple.... I got 70% and 76% after getting around 62-64% on the previous few.


i did a bit below avg on 13, and a bit above avg for 12. i was very distracted for pq 13 so whatever. 14 killed me. got 10% below my avg score. this inconsistency is killing me. getting around 70-80 on adaptibar. so basically ive scored between 55% and 80% over the past 6 exam sets (mix b/w themis and ab). i've decided to spend some more time studying for the essays over the next few days in case the mbe fucks me over.


I'm in the same boat. I've been scoring around 55-60% on the MBE practice sets but have been scoring 80-82% in NON-themis materials (Adaptibar + Stategies and Tactics). It's incredibly frustrating and anxiety inducing. I also focused on essays today because the inconsistency is driving me insane!


As I previously mentioned in the thread, I have no idea why it is completely opposite for me; I find Adaptibar, S&T are much harder than Themis!


lol. adaptibar was harder for me when i first started it but now im scoring much higher, while my themis scores are trending downward


As a non-adaptibar user--what is the difference between the substance of the questions between that and Themis?


maybe themis has more questions that test nuances? honestly, i can't tell too much of a difference. at first, i swear ab questions were harder/different but the more i do both i realize its all the same shit. ab has worse answer explanations overall though, i think. sometimes i'm confused if an explanation doesn't address an issue i wanted them to. am i just a dumbass that got it way off or is the explanation horrible? either way, it's way too late to start ab now


From an email I got yesterday from my Themis advisor: "Similarly, your Themis MBE questions are unique to you and provide a heavy dose of questions in your weak areas. As a result, you will likely score better when the exam is a “fair” test that’s not designed to specifically target your weak areas."

uceoledinbdnrn

Bronze
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:06 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby uceoledinbdnrn » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:00 am

Jokes on themis- everything's a weak spot for me without review.

champloo

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:00 am

yeslekkkk wrote:
From an email I got yesterday from my Themis advisor: "Similarly, your Themis MBE questions are unique to you and provide a heavy dose of questions in your weak areas. As a result, you will likely score better when the exam is a “fair” test that’s not designed to specifically target your weak areas."


man, that makes me feel so much better about the downward trend in my themis scores. thanks!

Samarcan

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Samarcan » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:08 am

This test-prep strategy by Themis does not actually help, I think, because the sample size for what my "weak" versus "strong" areas are is just too small, and as I study more, it's not like that initial pattern moves along in a single direction. They're relying on the notion that, for example, if I got a bunch of Hearsay questions wrong and a bunch of Homicide questions right during the initial few rounds of questions, those are my weak/strong areas -- but I doubt we've got enough testing to take those to be accurate predictions, or assessments, of deeper "patterns" to what my weak/strong areas are. Much better to model the question-type breakdown on the actual test, so we get a sense of the proportions of the types of questions we'll actually have to deal with. My getting the first few Hearsay questions right could have been more about luck than that being a "strength" area!

User avatar
robin600

Gold
Posts: 1634
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:07 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby robin600 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:32 pm

This is going to sound cheesy as fuck, but this video helped/s me remember all the exceptions to hearsay. Watched it in law school 5 years ago and it's still in my head :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoJ6fgIKYy8

User avatar
whats an updog

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:21 pm

If a contract fails the statute of frauds, can it still be enforced through promissory estoppel? :?

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:31 pm

whats an updog wrote:If a contract fails the statute of frauds, can it still be enforced through promissory estoppel? :?


I don't think it's labelled promissory estoppel per se, but performance (which in a sense I guess is based on reliance on the K) can satisfy the SoF.

For example, a real estate contract that fails SoF can be enforced if the buyer did 2 of the following 3: (1) made payment, (2) took possession, (3) made improvements. Or, in a service contract, full performance satisfies SoF. Under the UCC I think delivery of goods would satisfy SoF.

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:33 pm

cho8583 wrote:
honeyybee wrote:
champloo wrote:
villanovajew wrote:Did anyone take Mixed MBE PQ 12 and 13 yet? I thought they were significantly easier than the previous couple.... I got 70% and 76% after getting around 62-64% on the previous few.


i did a bit below avg on 13, and a bit above avg for 12. i was very distracted for pq 13 so whatever. 14 killed me. got 10% below my avg score. this inconsistency is killing me. getting around 70-80 on adaptibar. so basically ive scored between 55% and 80% over the past 6 exam sets (mix b/w themis and ab). i've decided to spend some more time studying for the essays over the next few days in case the mbe fucks me over.


I'm in the same boat. I've been scoring around 55-60% on the MBE practice sets but have been scoring 80-82% in NON-themis materials (Adaptibar + Stategies and Tactics). It's incredibly frustrating and anxiety inducing. I also focused on essays today because the inconsistency is driving me insane!


As I previously mentioned in the thread, I have no idea why it is completely opposite for me; I find Adaptibar, S&T are much harder than Themis!


I was doing really well on the S&T subject-specific questions but started to do some questions from the AM/PM MBE and am scoring wayyy lower than Themis. My last Themis sets I was at around 70%. I did 30 questions from the AM MBE today and came to just 57%. Ugh.

User avatar
whats an updog

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:38 pm

Anyone have a chart of what offenses are lesser included offenses of other crimes? Sometimes I try to make a judgment call and get it wrong.

MelaPela wrote:
whats an updog wrote:If a contract fails the statute of frauds, can it still be enforced through promissory estoppel? :?


I don't think it's labelled promissory estoppel per se, but performance (which in a sense I guess is based on reliance on the K) can satisfy the SoF.

For example, a real estate contract that fails SoF can be enforced if the buyer did 2 of the following 3: (1) made payment, (2) took possession, (3) made improvements. Or, in a service contract, full performance satisfies SoF. Under the UCC I think delivery of goods would satisfy SoF.


Ok, that makes sense, thanks. I was trying to think of a PE situation outside of those scenarios, but I guess most situations would fit in to the SOF exceptions that already exist.

Bobzilla

New
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Bobzilla » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:52 pm

If a person yells, "Watch out!" to a person crossing the street, as to bring awareness to a speeding car, what does that fall under?

Can the defense bring it in under an excited utterance because it may go to the TOMT of a possible negligence defense for use against the plaintiff? Or is a state of mind sort of thing?

User avatar
star fox

Diamond
Posts: 20787
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby star fox » Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:55 pm

Bobzilla wrote:If a person yells, "Watch out!" to a person crossing the street, as to bring awareness to a speeding car, what does that fall under?

Can the defense bring it in under an excited utterance because it may go to the TOMT of a possible negligence defense for use against the plaintiff? Or is a state of mind sort of thing?

Probably Non-Hearsay because not offered to prove truth of matter asserted but effect on listener

champloo

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby champloo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:28 pm

Puffman1234 wrote:
That all sounds right, but I'm no expert at evidence. The below is long but it helped me remember all the rules and I think that once you get them down it comes very quickly (I'm fairly certain the below is correct but I can't guarantee it or anything).

As I understand it, the general rule to start with is that you can impeach your opponent's witnesses for bias/perception/contradiction/prior inconsistent statements (PIS)/character for truthfulness (CTV).

So, when it looks like impeachment is happening, you need to figure out which of those categories the impeachment falls into. After that, you can then apply the various rules that are applicable to the particular type. Note that the categories overlap; bringing up a PIS is also impeaching by contradiction, but you can impeach by contradiction without a PIS.

First, CTV. You can attack the opponent's witness' CTV on DIRECT, but only through reputation and opinion evidence. If attacking an opponent's witness on CROSS, you can ASK about prior specific acts that go to CTV, but you must take their answer; you can't prove the prior act occurred with extrinsic evidence (extrinsic evidence is anything other than the person themselves' actual testimony, i.e. another witness' testimony, or physical evidence).

Second, the other types of witness impeachment (anything that is not attacking CTV). You can use extrinsic evidence to prove any of them so long as the issue you're proving is not collateral (i.e. has no independent relevance apart from contradicting the witness). If it's collateral, you can ask, but must take the answer as they give it. Impeaching for bias/perception is NEVER collateral, but impeaching for contradiction (which includes PIS) MAY be collateral. For example, you ask the witness on cross "you said today that when you witnessed the car crash you were eating a hamburger, but isn't it true you told another witness the day the crash happened that you were eating a fish sandwich?" The witness lies and says no. You have a videotape showing they were eating a fish sandwich and not a hamburger. You're still stuck with their answer, it doesn't matter that you can prove they're lying on the stand. Whether they were eating a fish sandwich or a hamburger is collateral. On the other hand, if your question involved their poor eyesight, you could then introduce the witness' eye tests or whatever to show his vision is terrible and he might not have seen the crash properly.

Third, if you can introduce extrinsic evidence, you have to think about what the limitations on extrinsic evidence for that particular type of impeachment is. For example, if you want to introduce extrinsic evidence of a PIS, I think you have to give the impeached witness the chance to explain/deny it and the opposing party a chance to ask the impeached witness about it. So if the witness just disappears after he has testified and you later want to show he's given PIS, you can't prove that he gave a PIS with extrinsic evidence (but you can still ask about it I'm pretty sure).

Finally, keep in mind that the attorney asking about the prior specific act, if they don't otherwise have proof, has to have a good faith belief in it. They can't just flail around. This is never really an issue in real life since who the fuck can read minds, but I've had a couple MBE PQs where the answer was that the attorney asking the questions couldn't ask them because he was just making things up and hoping to get lucky and catch the witness out.

Oh, and the rule for impeaching your own witness on direct is that you can't call a witness on direct for the sole purpose of impeaching them. But if they say a bunch of shit you didn't expect and fuck you over, you can impeach them immediately as if you were crossing an opponent's witness.


this was helpful. thanks

nichsull

New
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:41 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby nichsull » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:35 pm

Did anyone do the Agency essay question 2210? I am taking the NJ bar I'm not sure if that matters for the essays but I studied and reviewed and prepared to take the Agency question and it was all about partnerships. I know the questions can be crossed over with different topics but this did not give any indication of multiple topics, which wouldn't have been true because it was all about Partnerships. Did any one else experience this or was frustrated by this? As soon as I started the essay I was immediately annoyed that it said Agency but was 100% about Partnerships.

User avatar
whats an updog

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

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby whats an updog » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:11 pm

nichsull wrote:Did anyone do the Agency essay question 2210? I am taking the NJ bar I'm not sure if that matters for the essays but I studied and reviewed and prepared to take the Agency question and it was all about partnerships. I know the questions can be crossed over with different topics but this did not give any indication of multiple topics, which wouldn't have been true because it was all about Partnerships. Did any one else experience this or was frustrated by this? As soon as I started the essay I was immediately annoyed that it said Agency but was 100% about Partnerships.


Are you sure there wasn't an agency element to it? I only ask, because I was under the impression (at least in CA) that agency is not tested by itself.

Fireworks2016

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 1:17 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby Fireworks2016 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:06 pm

nichsull wrote:Did anyone do the Agency essay question 2210? I am taking the NJ bar I'm not sure if that matters for the essays but I studied and reviewed and prepared to take the Agency question and it was all about partnerships. I know the questions can be crossed over with different topics but this did not give any indication of multiple topics, which wouldn't have been true because it was all about Partnerships. Did any one else experience this or was frustrated by this? As soon as I started the essay I was immediately annoyed that it said Agency but was 100% about Partnerships.


The extent of Agency on the exam was partner A's liability for Partner B's fraud. It was really a partnerships question.

uceoledinbdnrn

Bronze
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:06 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby uceoledinbdnrn » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:55 pm

Fireworks2016 wrote:
nichsull wrote:Did anyone do the Agency essay question 2210? I am taking the NJ bar I'm not sure if that matters for the essays but I studied and reviewed and prepared to take the Agency question and it was all about partnerships. I know the questions can be crossed over with different topics but this did not give any indication of multiple topics, which wouldn't have been true because it was all about Partnerships. Did any one else experience this or was frustrated by this? As soon as I started the essay I was immediately annoyed that it said Agency but was 100% about Partnerships.


The extent of Agency on the exam was partner A's liability for Partner B's fraud. It was really a partnerships question.


It seems like this is the most common fact pattern. Two birds one stone and everything. I don't think it's even possible to ask a pure agency question. It almost has to be embedded in torts or contracts or partnerships or corp or some combo.

User avatar
cnk1220

Silver
Posts: 987
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby cnk1220 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:07 pm

uceoledinbdnrn wrote:
Fireworks2016 wrote:
nichsull wrote:Did anyone do the Agency essay question 2210? I am taking the NJ bar I'm not sure if that matters for the essays but I studied and reviewed and prepared to take the Agency question and it was all about partnerships. I know the questions can be crossed over with different topics but this did not give any indication of multiple topics, which wouldn't have been true because it was all about Partnerships. Did any one else experience this or was frustrated by this? As soon as I started the essay I was immediately annoyed that it said Agency but was 100% about Partnerships.


The extent of Agency on the exam was partner A's liability for Partner B's fraud. It was really a partnerships question.


It seems like this is the most common fact pattern. Two birds one stone and everything. I don't think it's even possible to ask a pure agency question. It almost has to be embedded in torts or contracts or partnerships or corp or some combo.



Just to clarify a "pure agency question" would be defined as one that deals with agency as far as apparent/actual authority in a contract with the principal/agent or agency in respect with respondent superior/independent contractors vs. employers in a tort liability aspect- check out Feb. 2017's MEE. We had a pure agency question about contract liability dealing with authority (actual, apparent) and then asking who would be liable on the K.

A mixed agency question would be one that deals with agency + partnerships in some sort of liability partnership essay that invokes agency principles. In this respect- you need to mention agency rules and how it applies to the partnership- ie general partners are all agents of the partnership acting with authority, J/S liability with general partnerships, or limited liability with LPs/LLPs.

That being said, I doubt you'll have a pure agency Q back to back (ex: one that only invokes agency rules in some sort of contract or tort issue)...just my guess- but if you do get agency I think it's more likely to be mixed with some sort of partnership type scenario as that's how agency is usually tested so NCBE can get more subjects into 1 MEE question.

sunshine9191

New
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:45 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby sunshine9191 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:49 pm

hey guys! I have a question about the admission ticket for the bar exam and hope somebody can answer that.. I'm sitting for the exam in PA and nowhere does it ask to bring a passport picture.. I find it odd because all of my classmates out of state had to upload theirs electronically to merge with the ticket. Am I missing anything? Maybe I'm just paranoid I just think it's weird they don't require it.. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thank you

User avatar
gatorfan163287

New
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:11 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby gatorfan163287 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:59 pm

Quick question about felony murder merging.

I usually copy and paste law from questions I got wrong on practice sets into my outline and for the merger doctrine I have "arson will merge into felony murder if they are the result of the same act."

I was working through Emmanuel's today and question 33 presented the same fact pattern and the answer was the D should be convicted of both murder and arson.

Anyone have any advice on if the underlying BARRK felonies for felony murder merge into the murder itself or not? Or how this would tie into the double jeopardy issue and the Blockburger test? Thanks.

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 19, 2017 9:31 pm

sunshine9191 wrote:hey guys! I have a question about the admission ticket for the bar exam and hope somebody can answer that.. I'm sitting for the exam in PA and nowhere does it ask to bring a passport picture.. I find it odd because all of my classmates out of state had to upload theirs electronically to merge with the ticket. Am I missing anything? Maybe I'm just paranoid I just think it's weird they don't require it.. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thank you

I can't speak for PA, but NY just requires a government ID - no separate picture. I think the lack of passport picture requirement is more common than you think!

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:18 pm

gatorfan163287 wrote:Quick question about felony murder merging.

I usually copy and paste law from questions I got wrong on practice sets into my outline and for the merger doctrine I have "arson will merge into felony murder if they are the result of the same act."

I was working through Emmanuel's today and question 33 presented the same fact pattern and the answer was the D should be convicted of both murder and arson.

Anyone have any advice on if the underlying BARRK felonies for felony murder merge into the murder itself or not? Or how this would tie into the double jeopardy issue and the Blockburger test? Thanks.


I was confused about this too. I got to the right answer by process of elimination, but was stuck on this for awhile because I thought arson merged into felony murder.

The Themis outline says: "The underlying felony will generally 'merge' into the crime of felony murder for the purposes of Double Jeopardy... For example, in the majority of jurisdictions, a D who kills the proprietor of a store while committing a robbery can be convicted only of felony murder; the robbery conviction would 'merge' into the felony-murder conviction. A minority of jurisdictions have enacted statutes explicitly allowing cumulative punishcment for both the felony and underlying felony;... for purpose of the bar exam, you should assume that cumulative punishment violates Double Jeopardy."

User avatar
MelaPela

New
Posts: 80
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:41 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby MelaPela » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:24 pm

MelaPela wrote:
gatorfan163287 wrote:Quick question about felony murder merging.

I usually copy and paste law from questions I got wrong on practice sets into my outline and for the merger doctrine I have "arson will merge into felony murder if they are the result of the same act."

I was working through Emmanuel's today and question 33 presented the same fact pattern and the answer was the D should be convicted of both murder and arson.

Anyone have any advice on if the underlying BARRK felonies for felony murder merge into the murder itself or not? Or how this would tie into the double jeopardy issue and the Blockburger test? Thanks.


I was confused about this too. I got to the right answer by process of elimination, but was stuck on this for awhile because I thought arson merged into felony murder.

The Themis outline says: "The underlying felony will generally 'merge' into the crime of felony murder for the purposes of Double Jeopardy... For example, in the majority of jurisdictions, a D who kills the proprietor of a store while committing a robbery can be convicted only of felony murder; the robbery conviction would 'merge' into the felony-murder conviction. A minority of jurisdictions have enacted statutes explicitly allowing cumulative punishcment for both the felony and underlying felony;... for purpose of the bar exam, you should assume that cumulative punishment violates Double Jeopardy."


For anyone interested, here's the question:

A businessman lived on the second floor of a small convenience store/gas station that he owned. One night he refused to sell a customer a six-pack of beer after hours, saying he could not violate the state laws. The customer became enraged and deliberately drove his car into one of the gasoline pumps, severing it from its base. There was an ensuing explosion causing a ball of fire to go from the underground gasoline tank into the building. As a result, the building burned to the ground and the businessman was killed.

In a common-law jurisdiction, if the customer is charged with murder and arson, he should be

A. convicted of both offenses.
B. convicted of involuntary manslaughter and acquitted of arson.
C. convicted of arson and involuntary manslaughter.
D. acquitted of both offenses

The correct answer is A.

uceoledinbdnrn

Bronze
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:06 am

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby uceoledinbdnrn » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:25 pm

Not that this is relevant right now but how can state statutes supersede a Constitutional limitation?

User avatar
twenty

Gold
Posts: 3189
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2017

Postby twenty » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:42 pm

uceoledinbdnrn wrote:Not that this is relevant right now but how can state statutes supersede a Constitutional limitation?


Example?



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests