July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

dhersz
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 10:37 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby dhersz » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:26 pm

Ok feeling a little screwed coming into the last week.

My Barbri MBE and quiz grades have been ok, generally a few points/percentage above what the recommended marks are.

My concern is with the essays. I've followed Barbri religiously and just don't feel like I have a strong enough grasp to put everything onto paper, I haven't memorized enough of the definitions (mainly because Barbri kept insisting that memorization isn't key). I don't know if I should scrap Barbri for the last week and just memorize like hell, or put all my faith in them?

How did this happen!

User avatar
crumb cake
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:36 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby crumb cake » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:33 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
In other words, you can sue a state as a private citizen (or corporation) if all the standing/ripeness/mootness requirements are met, and if you're suing because the state is infringing some constitutional right.


Thanks, that seems to fit Barbri's explanation which says "the court should grant a hearing because a federal question is involved." It says the 11th Amendment answer is wrong because the "purpose" of that amendment is to protect state sovereignty. So I guess if a lawsuit threatens state sovereignty, the 11th Amendment would be triggered.

RDA2930
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:40 pm

dhersz wrote:Ok feeling a little screwed coming into the last week.

My Barbri MBE and quiz grades have been ok, generally a few points/percentage above what the recommended marks are.

My concern is with the essays. I've followed Barbri religiously and just don't feel like I have a strong enough grasp to put everything onto paper, I haven't memorized enough of the definitions (mainly because Barbri kept insisting that memorization isn't key). I don't know if I should scrap Barbri for the last week and just memorize like hell, or put all my faith in them?

How did this happen!


Just had a semi-meltdown feeling the same way. FWIW my plan of attack is to generally do the Barbri plan for the next week, but reserve a few hours each night for straight memorization in the areas where I feel weak. My theory is that doing practice essays (which is the bulk of what's assigned next week) will help with memorization and generally conceptualizing how to attack essay problems, and making mini-outlines of the factor-based tests and major tested issues will get me where I need to be re: essays.

cyrilfiggis
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:35 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cyrilfiggis » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:06 pm

cricketlove00 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?


If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.


Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.

mcmenary
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby mcmenary » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:08 pm

crumb cake wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
In other words, you can sue a state as a private citizen (or corporation) if all the standing/ripeness/mootness requirements are met, and if you're suing because the state is infringing some constitutional right.


Thanks, that seems to fit Barbri's explanation which says "the court should grant a hearing because a federal question is involved." It says the 11th Amendment answer is wrong because the "purpose" of that amendment is to protect state sovereignty. So I guess if a lawsuit threatens state sovereignty, the 11th Amendment would be triggered.



cricketlove00 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?


If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.


On Question 27: 11a applies when citizen sues the state in federal court for individual U.S. constitutional violations. It bars the citizen from suing the state for past constitutional violations unless abrogated by congress (14asec5) or waived by the state. It allows citizens to sue individual officials for prospective injunctive relief (stop violating my rights). It *does not* apply when a citizen sues in federal court arguing that the state statute itself is unconstitutional nullity. Hope this made sense.

FormerChild
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby FormerChild » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:14 pm

For anyone who may be skeptical about Barbri's essays, their grading of the essays, etc. … I have been doing essays both on barbri and via http://www.ncbex.org/exams/mee/preparing/, and I've noticed at least 4 Barbri essay questions being the exact same as essay questions found on NCBE website, so I think its safe to assume Barbri gets them from here and isn't just making them up (at least for the most part). For example: Wills – Barbri's essay question 1 comes from February 2012 MEE; essay question 3 comes from February 2011. I've noticed it w/ other subjects too, but don't feel like looking to see which corresponds to what, just thought I'd share.

TXforeignlawyer
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:33 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TXforeignlawyer » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:19 pm

Took the refresher today and only got 44.... Went through all of the answers I got wrong but yeah, I agree some of them I was surprised by the answer. The prayer one for example.

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:21 pm

cyrilfiggis wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?


If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.


Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.


I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:24 pm

cricketlove00 wrote:
cyrilfiggis wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?


If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.


Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.


I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.


This doesn't fix the supplemental jurisdiction issue, but here's a direct quote from the CMR:

"If a case filed in state court contains a claim that would arise under federal law, and it is joined with a state law claim that does not invoke supplemental or diversity jurisdiction, the entire case can be removed to federal court."

User avatar
runthetrap1990
Posts: 429
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby runthetrap1990 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:25 pm

cricketlove00 wrote:
cyrilfiggis wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?


If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.


Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.


I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.


That is only case where the jurisdiction is based on diversity for the plaintiff. The limitation does not apply to a plaintiff with jurisdiction is based on Federal Question. Super minute difference but that's the reason why there is supplemental jurisdiction.

DR3
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:12 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby DR3 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:30 pm

SecTran question - if you have perfected re collateral and then add new value to it, do you need to reperfect re that collateral? With the exception of 20 day perfection grace period for certificated securities/instruments/negotiable documents.

RDA2930
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:33 pm

Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:35 pm

runthetrap1990 wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
cyrilfiggis wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:Question 35.

Yes, I get that the fed court can hear the FED claim. What the hell happened to the STATE claim? Isn't the court barred from hearing that because it doesn't qualify under supplemental? Or does getting and fed claim automatically allow destroying the diversity required for state law claims?


If you figure out the answer, please let me know. Because I have no idea.


Why wouldn't it qualify under supplemental jurisdiction? The P has a valid claim arising under federal question which arises from the same case/controversy (or transaction/occurrence) since both claims arise under the wrongful termination. I figured supp jx would be fine which would allow the court to grant the petition.


I swear my lecturer said that a plaintiff cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction.


That is only case where the jurisdiction is based on diversity for the plaintiff. The limitation does not apply to a plaintiff with jurisdiction is based on Federal Question. Super minute difference but that's the reason why there is supplemental jurisdiction.


Gotcha. I understand now. I think that was REALLY gleaned over in the lectures, which is probably my biggest critique with Barbri. Good to know. Thanks though!

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:36 pm

RDA2930 wrote:Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?


This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1109
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TheWalrus » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:41 pm

cricketlove00 wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?


This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.


Why is the corporation subject to PJ in A?

ConfusedL1
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 5:58 pm

Q93. I thought a donee beneficiary could NEVER sue the promisor. Q93 lays it out that the recipient of a gift CAN as soon as they rely on the promise.

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 48
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:06 pm

TheWalrus wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?


This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.


Why is the corporation subject to PJ in A?



Minimum contacts. They had 20 stores in state A.

bballbb02
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2016 8:45 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby bballbb02 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:51 pm

Brian_Wildcat wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Question on Refresher, Question 54:

Super confused as to "residency" for venue purposes and "citizenship" for diversity purposes. Aren't they the same thing? I approached this question disregarding the part of the problem that refers to the 20 stores that the corporation operates in State A, because I thought "residency" for venue and "citizenship" were the same thing--and I don't think the corporation would be a "citizen" of State A since it only has 20 stores there. Corporations are "citizens" of wherever they 1) are incorporated and 2) have principal place of business. Seems to be State A is neither for the corporation in question 54.

Am I wrong to think these are the same thing? The explanatory answer only says a corporation is deemed to reside wherever it would be subject personal jurisdiction. Does this mean citizenship and residency are different analyses altogether?


This question was garbage, tbh. However, I looked at the CMR and for venue purposes, corporations are residents of their PPB, place of corporation, and any place in which they are subject to PJ.


Why is the corporation subject to PJ in A?



Minimum contacts. They had 20 stores in state A.



I spent about 20 minutes trying to understand this issue when reviewing this problem..I guess for venue purposes a corporation resides whereever they are subject to PJ...when doing the problem I did not think 20 stores could mean you reside there for venue purposes,---stupid question by Barbri

JurorEight
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 3:36 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby JurorEight » Sat Jul 15, 2017 6:55 pm

Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 7:14 pm

JurorEight wrote:Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).


Yup

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:34 pm

Also, have you guys ever heard of the sixth amendment referred to as the "Messiah"? What on earth is she talking about?

User avatar
WestWingWatcher
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby WestWingWatcher » Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:39 pm

cricketlove00 wrote:
JurorEight wrote:Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).


Yup


YUP. My worst by far on the refresher.

cricketlove00 wrote:Also, have you guys ever heard of the sixth amendment referred to as the "Messiah"? What on earth is she talking about?


So I didn't watch her video, but I do remember the Massiah rule vaguely from crimpro. I think its something to do with not tricking someone into saying something incriminating after they invoke their 6A right to counsel (don't quote me on that though), but I don't remember it ever being referred to as the Massiah rule in any of the barbri material, so idk why she'd pull that out now.

User avatar
cricketlove00
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cricketlove00 » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:27 pm

WestWingWatcher wrote:
cricketlove00 wrote:
JurorEight wrote:Did anyone else think today's ConLaw questions (in general, beyond solely the legislative prayer question) were absurdly difficult? ConLaw had been one of my strongest subjects all summer long, but I only got 7/14 correct on the refresher (total score 66/100).


Yup


YUP. My worst by far on the refresher.

cricketlove00 wrote:Also, have you guys ever heard of the sixth amendment referred to as the "Messiah"? What on earth is she talking about?


So I didn't watch her video, but I do remember the Massiah rule vaguely from crimpro. I think its something to do with not tricking someone into saying something incriminating after they invoke their 6A right to counsel (don't quote me on that though), but I don't remember it ever being referred to as the Massiah rule in any of the barbri material, so idk why she'd pull that out now.


Crim is my wheelhouse. I took like every crim class I could in law school and I've never heard of it. LOL

User avatar
TheWalrus
Posts: 1109
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby TheWalrus » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:41 pm


User avatar
WestWingWatcher
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby WestWingWatcher » Sat Jul 15, 2017 10:09 pm

TheWalrus wrote:https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/massiah-rule/


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.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests