Oh so literally just the Sixth AmendmentWestWingWatcher wrote:Ah, so its basically the "don't send an informant into the jail cell w/ the defendant who has invoked his 6A right to counsel in order to get him to talk about his crime" rule.TheWalrus wrote:https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/massiah-rule/
July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
- cricketlove00
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
- acijku2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:19 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?
- runthetrap1990
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Man I'm burnt today. I can't muster up the energy to do these 6 essays...
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=249162acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?
- acijku2
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:19 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
And that like the outlines, that link says apparent authority is an issue with contract liability to the principal. In question 1, the issue is tort liability to the principal and the model answer mentions apparent authority.TheWalrus wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=249162acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
The lecture notes and CMR do a really bad job of explaining this (in that they don't), but this is from the restatement (3rd) of agency (copied from here https://sites.google.com/site/kubusines ... -principal):acijku2 wrote:And that like the outlines, that link says apparent authority is an issue with contract liability to the principal. In question 1, the issue is tort liability to the principal and the model answer mentions apparent authority.TheWalrus wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=249162acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?
A principal is subject to direct liability to a third party harmed by an agent's conduct when agent acts with actual authority, principal is negligent in controlling/hiring the agent, or principal delegates performance of a duty to use care to protect other persons or their property to an agent who fails to perform the duty.
A principal is subject to vicarious liability to a 3rd party harmed by an agent's conduct if the agent is an employee acting within scope of employment, OR the agent commits a tort when acting with apparent authority in dealing with a third party or purportedly on behalf of the principal.
The direct vs. vicarious liability distinction is a negligible one. I wouldn't worry too much. In any event, whenever an agency question comes up I'd try to put at least something down about authority if it seems at all implicated (e.g., facts give rise to a question about apparent authority).
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Q 21 from Refresher:
Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.
3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k
Q: Which claims get into fed court?
A: All of them.
I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."
Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.
3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k
Q: Which claims get into fed court?
A: All of them.
I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:
Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.
3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k
Q: Which claims get into fed court?
A: All of them.
I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."
... but I could be wrong.
- cricketlove00
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I agree. I don't think I've seen anything specifically saying that is not the case, but AIC isn't even relevant if it is a FQ, so I'm assuming there would NOT be diversity jurisdiction for the unrelated negligence claim because of the low AIC. No supp jurisdiction either.Brian_Wildcat wrote:My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:
Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.
3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k
Q: Which claims get into fed court?
A: All of them.
I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."
... but I could be wrong.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I'm still unsure, but I'm leaning toward this being okay. Just because a claim presents a federal question does not preclude it from invoking diversity jurisdiction.cricketlove00 wrote:I agree. I don't think I've seen anything specifically saying that is not the case, but AIC isn't even relevant if it is a FQ, so I'm assuming there would NOT be diversity jurisdiction for the unrelated negligence claim because of the low AIC. No supp jurisdiction either.Brian_Wildcat wrote:My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:
Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.
3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k
Q: Which claims get into fed court?
A: All of them.
I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."
... but I could be wrong.
- WestWingWatcher
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Watch a 1 minute video of Joni telling you to avoid stressed out people — 2% completion.
Do a 3 hour practice test, and the review they say should take 3 hours — 0% completion.
Do a 3 hour practice test, and the review they say should take 3 hours — 0% completion.
-
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:37 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??
- EzraFitz
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Yeah I agree with this last statement. Also, if you read the explanation a few lines down from what was quoted, it notes that the federal securities claim would get to federal court under both FQ and Diversity. So this to me clearly points to it being usable for reaching the aggregate AIC.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:I'm still unsure, but I'm leaning toward this being okay. Just because a claim presents a federal question does not preclude it from invoking diversity jurisdiction.cricketlove00 wrote:I agree. I don't think I've seen anything specifically saying that is not the case, but AIC isn't even relevant if it is a FQ, so I'm assuming there would NOT be diversity jurisdiction for the unrelated negligence claim because of the low AIC. No supp jurisdiction either.Brian_Wildcat wrote:My guess is no. You can aggregate claims being brought in under diversity jurisdiction i.e. aggregate all state law claims. However, the securities claim is federal question.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Q 21 from Refresher:
Civ pro question about SMJ and aggregation.
3 claims:
1) Fed securities claim for $130k
2) breach of K related to Fed securities claim for $72k
3) unrelated negligence claim for $5k
Q: Which claims get into fed court?
A: All of them.
I understand that you can aggregate completely unrelated claims to pass the $75k threshold for diversity. But, what if, in this question, the breach of K claim weren't included? So you just have the Fed securities claim and the unrelated negligence claim. You can still get the negligence claim into fed court by using diversity jurisdiction and aggregating it with the Fed securities claim, right? I'm asking because Barbri's explanation states that "the customer may aggregate all the claims he has against the broker, and the aggregate amount of the state law claims ($77,000) [(the breach of k and the negligence claims)] meets the minimum amount in controversy requirement. Thus, the court has jurisdiction over the state law claims."
... but I could be wrong.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:15 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I found it very unhelpful. I am religious about following the Barbri plan but I'm not sure I can keep up with the CMR review program they've set up. It is also overwhelming to see all of the rules you don't yet know. I would maybe skim the CMR's charts, review areas you feel weak in, and then turn to the lecture review.Brian_Wildcat wrote:Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.
This is all on top of Barbri asking us to outline and grade every additional essay in each subject--it's a bit much IMO.
- EzraFitz
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 10:42 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Oh, I took the "outline and grade additional essays" to mean "do as many as you need to feel comfortable in the subject." I'm not doing all of them for sure.MrWhitman wrote:I found it very unhelpful. I am religious about following the Barbri plan but I'm not sure I can keep up with the CMR review program they've set up. It is also overwhelming to see all of the rules you don't yet know. I would maybe skim the CMR's charts, review areas you feel weak in, and then turn to the lecture review.Brian_Wildcat wrote:Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.
This is all on top of Barbri asking us to outline and grade every additional essay in each subject--it's a bit much IMO.
As for the CMR, I know exactly the areas of each subject where I struggle. I'm in depth going through the CMR for those. Otherwise I'm skimming the charts and bolded statements.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:59 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??
If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
What score does Barbri recommend as a suggested grade? Weirdly, Texas Barbri doesn't come with a suggested rubric.lawDC2017 wrote:I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??
If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.
- Toubro
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
If you're hitting target or are slightly below, you should be fine. You definitely don't need to be better than the target. @TheWalrus - they're on the opening pages of the MPQ bookTheWalrus wrote:What score does Barbri recommend as a suggested grade? Weirdly, Texas Barbri doesn't come with a suggested rubric.lawDC2017 wrote:I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??
If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Oh, I'm a dumbass. I thought he was talking about essays.Toubro wrote:If you're hitting target or are slightly below, you should be fine. You definitely don't need to be better than the target. @TheWalrus - they're on the opening pages of the MPQ bookTheWalrus wrote:What score does Barbri recommend as a suggested grade? Weirdly, Texas Barbri doesn't come with a suggested rubric.lawDC2017 wrote:I believe that attaining the suggested grades (and even a little bit below) would put you easily within the pass range. I had thought that Barbri's suggested grades were the average its students had gotten last year/in previous years on those tests. Since ~80% of those who use Barbri pass the bar (according to abovethelaw.com, citing "[Barbri] reps;" I couldn't find any actual statistics), if one scores average on the Barbri tests, he or she will easily pass the MBE. Being in the 30% percentile would still probably put you in the pass range.dhersz wrote:So how much better than Barbri's suggested grades for MBE questions do we need to be doing to be within the 'pass' range??
If anyone knows/thinks differently, please let me know.
And yeah, the goals are the average of the students who took it last year.
- runthetrap1990
- Posts: 432
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I had a sensible chuckle when the personal study plan told me to do "Outline and Self-Grade Additional Tort Essays" and then when you turn to the Additional Essays section you are greeted with "No additional questions" on the page.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:15 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
You are far more sensible than me. I shall follow your lead.EzraFitz wrote:Oh, I took the "outline and grade additional essays" to mean "do as many as you need to feel comfortable in the subject." I'm not doing all of them for sure.MrWhitman wrote:I found it very unhelpful. I am religious about following the Barbri plan but I'm not sure I can keep up with the CMR review program they've set up. It is also overwhelming to see all of the rules you don't yet know. I would maybe skim the CMR's charts, review areas you feel weak in, and then turn to the lecture review.Brian_Wildcat wrote:Is anyone actually reviewing the CMR today? I feel like it would be a waste of my time. planning on just reviewing lecture notes again.
This is all on top of Barbri asking us to outline and grade every additional essay in each subject--it's a bit much IMO.
As for the CMR, I know exactly the areas of each subject where I struggle. I'm in depth going through the CMR for those. Otherwise I'm skimming the charts and bolded statements.
- bda
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:14 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
How screwed am I if I'm still getting "below passing" on a number of essays...
-
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 1:45 pm
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
I think I'm missing something... How are people getting their essays graded? I've just been comparing my essay to the essays in the book.bda wrote:How screwed am I if I'm still getting "below passing" on a number of essays...
- bda
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:14 am
Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout
Based on the self-scoring checklist after each essay.itsme123 wrote:I think I'm missing something... How are people getting their essays graded? I've just been comparing my essay to the essays in the book.bda wrote:How screwed am I if I'm still getting "below passing" on a number of essays...
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login