July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 11:51 am

Brian_Wildcat wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
EzraFitz wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


And what's the difference in standard?

The city buses are limited public forums, so the restrictions need be only viewpoint neutral and rational basis. This is why it's ok for them to allow no political ads at all on city buses (but they couldn't say only Democrat ads or only Republican ads).

Designated public forums and public forums have the same standard. Strict Scrutiny for content-based restrictions, intermediate (time/place/manner, important gov't interest, narrowly tailored, alternate channels open) for content neutral restrictions.


Thanks, this is helpful.

Not to belabor the point, but I thought if there was a content-based restriction in a public/designated public forum, it automatically failed. Is that just because strict scrutiny is impossible for the gov't to meet? So it "automatically" fails but not really because ~theoretically~ the gov't could show narrowly tailored to compelling interest? Just trying to figure out the applicable rules in case this comes up on an essay.


Limited public forums are tricky because content restriction CAN be improper based on the forum's intended purpose/use. So, if the government says "this school space is open for students to debate whatever just come on down" they can't later go back and regulate the hell out of it based on content just because there's a new issue they don't like.

Re automatically failing, yes. I don't think there's a single case where a content restriction was compelling enough, but others correct me if I'm wrong on that.



The school would be a designated public forum in that case and would be subject to the same rules as a public forum.


I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.

californiauser
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby californiauser » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:28 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate

JoeSeperac
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 3:30 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby JoeSeperac » Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:38 pm

RDA2930 wrote:
bballbb02 wrote:Are grounds of government buildings/courthouses public forums?? And what about classrooms and the sides of city buses and buildings?? Confusing

Sidewalks and streets in front of public buildings/sidewalks and streets in general are traditional public forums. The actual grounds of a government building are not (e.g., the steps of a courthouse).

Classrooms are not public forums unless they are "thrown open" by the government (usually this is done by allowing extracurricular groups to meet in them after school hours).

Not sure about sides of a city-owned bus but pretty sure they aren't public forums since that's likely either 1) advertising and/or 2) government speech.


Examinees ask me this every exam and here is my default response:

Restrictions on speech may be content-based or content-neutral. Labeling a regulation of speech as either content-based, or conduct-based (content-neutral) is a necessary first step. A law is content-based if the government targets the impact of the communication of the speech. This is identified in two ways: viewpoint restrictions, which limit speech based upon an opinion it espouses, or subject-matter restrictions, which limit speech based upon its topic. Both of these are impermissible under the First Amendment, as freedom of expression is at the very core of the Amendment. Thus, content-based regulations of speech are presumptively unconstitutional and content-based restrictions are subject to strict scrutiny (the state must show that the measure is necessary and narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest). Content-neutral regulations, however, are generally subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny in determining their constitutionality (the law must be narrowly drawn to further a substantial government interest).

Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are content-neutral rather than content-based and are therefore not subject to the same heightened level of scrutiny as are content-based restrictions. The level of scrutiny to be applied depends entirely on the forum in which the regulation attempts to limit speech. For example, if a forum is a public forum (government property that traditionally has been open to expressive activity), it is subject to strict scrutiny for speech regulation. A designated public forum is government owned property that the government has opened up to speech (e.g. school facilities are non-public forums in the evenings and on the weekends, but can open the place as a limited public forum on particular nights to host community debates). The state need not continue to make the forum available but if it does it cannot discriminate on basis of content. In such cases, time, place and manner regulations must be narrowly tailored and substantially related to an important government interest and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. For example, schools that open their facilities to speech may not prohibit religious speech. In a non-public forum, the government only needs to show that the regulation is rationally related to serve the interest. Thus, if the forum is nonpublic, a regulation based upon the content of speech is permissible as long as the regulation is reasonable in light of the purpose of the forum (e.g. a prohibition on antiwar protests during a military open house because of the excessive need for security to protect the protesters).

According to the First Amendment Center: “One must be careful in discussing the public-forum doctrine, because courts do not apply the doctrine with consistency. For example, some courts equate a limited public forum with a designated public forum. Other courts distinguish between the two, as a 2001 federal district court in Pennsylvania did in Zapach v. Dismuke. That court noted that “there is some uncertainty whether limited public fora are a subset of designated public fora or a type of nonpublic fora.” See http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/spe ... c-meetings

However, it doesn’t matter what anyone else says – it only matters what NCBE says. In searching the OPE 1-4 questions from 2006-2013 (the most up to date and relevant MBE questions with answer explanations from NCBE), there are 2 questions dealing with public forums, but both are based on viewpoint-based restrictions. The first question is 2006-NCBE-OPE1 QUESTION 060. It discusses limited public forums and states that the test is strict scrutiny which requires proving that the denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. The second question is 2008-NCBE-OPE2 QUESTION 003. It discusses designated public forums and states that the test is strict scrutiny which requires proving that the denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. Accordingly, for content-based government restrictions, NCBE regards limited and designated public forums as the same. The First Amendment Center likewise says: “The government may not impose viewpoint-based restrictions on expression in a limited public forum unless those restrictions serve a compelling state interest and are narrowly drawn to achieve that end.” As such, if a forum is created for a limited purpose for use by certain groups (e.g., student groups) or for the discussion of certain subjects (e.g., school board business) a content-based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest and content-based government restrictions on speech in a designated/limited public forum are subject to the same strict scrutiny as restrictions in a traditional public forum.

Looking back at older NCBE questions, there is one viewpoint neutral limited public forum question and that is 1992-NCBE-MBEX QUESTION 125. This question states that the government may regulate speech in public and limited public forums with reasonable time/place/manner restrictions that are (i) content-neutral, (ii) narrowly tailored to serve an important/significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. This corresponds with my outline. Accordingly, I suggest you rely on my outline (which corresponds with NCBE) unless BARBRI can provide you with further clarification.

The inside of a bus is a non-public forum so the govt can regulate such speech as long as there’s no viewpoint discrimination (must pass rational basis test). In Lehman, a city policy allowed commercial advertising in the interior of city buses, but not more explicitly political or generally controversial ads. The plurality opinion in Lehman justified the ban on political advertising inside buses on the ground that the inside of a bus is a non-public forum (because the bus riders were a captive audience) and the regulation was content selective, so all the govt had to do was show they had acted reasonably.

The outside of a bus is a designated public forum (so strict scrutiny applies). Some courts have recently held that the outside of a bus is a limited public forum, but unless NCBE says otherwise, you should regard the outside of a bus as a designated public forum:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw ... o-bus.html

If courts can’t even agree what forum is applicable to a situation, how can bar examinees determine what forum applies to a certain situation. Thus, focus on the past tested rules and apply them the same way and nothing more. Otherwise, you will simply be going down a rabbit hole.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:17 pm

californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate


See comments from below poster, but the NCBE disagrees with you. Again, I think this has to do with the purpose/intent of the forum.

Here's the the NCBE Online Practice Exam 1 - #60 - Constitutional Law

"A group of students at a state university's law school wished to debate the future of affirmative action in that state and at that law school. For this debate they requested the use of a meeting room in the law school that is available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use. Speakers presenting all sides of the issue were scheduled to participate. The law school administration refused to allow the use of any of its meeting rooms for this purpose solely because it believed that "such a debate, even if balanced, would have a negative effect on the morale of the law school community and might cause friction among the students that would disrupt the institution's educational mission."

Is the refusal of the law school administration to allow the use of its meeting room for this purpose constitutional?

Answer: (A) No, because the law school administration cannot demonstrate that its action was necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
Correct. The law school's denial of the meeting room to the student group violates the speech clause of the First Amendment. The meeting rooms are a limited public forum because the law school made the rooms generally available for extracurricular student use. Because the meeting rooms are a limited public forum, the law students had a First Amendment right to use a room for expressive activity consistent with their purpose (i.e., extracurricular student use). Because the law school's denial of the room was based on the content of the students' expression, the denial must be tested by strict scrutiny, which requires the law school to prove that its denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. It is unusual for the courts to uphold content-based speech restrictions at strict scrutiny, and the law school's concerns here are clearly insufficient to meet that test."

californiauser
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby californiauser » Sat Jul 22, 2017 1:56 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate


See comments from below poster, but the NCBE disagrees with you. Again, I think this has to do with the purpose/intent of the forum.

Here's the the NCBE Online Practice Exam 1 - #60 - Constitutional Law

"A group of students at a state university's law school wished to debate the future of affirmative action in that state and at that law school. For this debate they requested the use of a meeting room in the law school that is available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use. Speakers presenting all sides of the issue were scheduled to participate. The law school administration refused to allow the use of any of its meeting rooms for this purpose solely because it believed that "such a debate, even if balanced, would have a negative effect on the morale of the law school community and might cause friction among the students that would disrupt the institution's educational mission."

Is the refusal of the law school administration to allow the use of its meeting room for this purpose constitutional?

Answer: (A) No, because the law school administration cannot demonstrate that its action was necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
Correct. The law school's denial of the meeting room to the student group violates the speech clause of the First Amendment. The meeting rooms are a limited public forum because the law school made the rooms generally available for extracurricular student use. Because the meeting rooms are a limited public forum, the law students had a First Amendment right to use a room for expressive activity consistent with their purpose (i.e., extracurricular student use). Because the law school's denial of the room was based on the content of the students' expression, the denial must be tested by strict scrutiny, which requires the law school to prove that its denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. It is unusual for the courts to uphold content-based speech restrictions at strict scrutiny, and the law school's concerns here are clearly insufficient to meet that test."


Can you provide the other answer choices?
Last edited by californiauser on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:05 pm

Question on Contracts Set 6, Question 1:

I've scoured the CMR and can't find any justification for why the detrimental reliance exception wouldn't allowed the nephew to compel the customer or get damages. There is literally nothing that says that the promisee himself must tell the donee beneficiary about the contract for the beneficiary to have rights under the contract. It's my understanding that as long as an intended donee beneficiary is aware of his interest in the contract, and then reasonably relies on it, he can sue the promisee for performance/damages.

Can anyone explain this? (edited for clarity)
Last edited by RDA2930 on Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:12 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate


See comments from below poster, but the NCBE disagrees with you. Again, I think this has to do with the purpose/intent of the forum.

Here's the the NCBE Online Practice Exam 1 - #60 - Constitutional Law

"A group of students at a state university's law school wished to debate the future of affirmative action in that state and at that law school. For this debate they requested the use of a meeting room in the law school that is available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use. Speakers presenting all sides of the issue were scheduled to participate. The law school administration refused to allow the use of any of its meeting rooms for this purpose solely because it believed that "such a debate, even if balanced, would have a negative effect on the morale of the law school community and might cause friction among the students that would disrupt the institution's educational mission."

Is the refusal of the law school administration to allow the use of its meeting room for this purpose constitutional?

Answer: (A) No, because the law school administration cannot demonstrate that its action was necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
Correct. The law school's denial of the meeting room to the student group violates the speech clause of the First Amendment. The meeting rooms are a limited public forum because the law school made the rooms generally available for extracurricular student use. Because the meeting rooms are a limited public forum, the law students had a First Amendment right to use a room for expressive activity consistent with their purpose (i.e., extracurricular student use). Because the law school's denial of the room was based on the content of the students' expression, the denial must be tested by strict scrutiny, which requires the law school to prove that its denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. It is unusual for the courts to uphold content-based speech restrictions at strict scrutiny, and the law school's concerns here are clearly insufficient to meet that test."




"available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use." = Limited public forum

If, instead, it was open to any group who wanted use it after school it would be a designated public forum.

Maybe that is where we are getting tripped up. Also, if it were a limited public forum it could discriminate based on subject matter but not based on viewpoint. Where is the viewpoint discrimination? Page 49 of handout if you want to look.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:14 pm

californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate


See comments from below poster, but the NCBE disagrees with you. Again, I think this has to do with the purpose/intent of the forum.

Here's the the NCBE Online Practice Exam 1 - #60 - Constitutional Law

"A group of students at a state university's law school wished to debate the future of affirmative action in that state and at that law school. For this debate they requested the use of a meeting room in the law school that is available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use. Speakers presenting all sides of the issue were scheduled to participate. The law school administration refused to allow the use of any of its meeting rooms for this purpose solely because it believed that "such a debate, even if balanced, would have a negative effect on the morale of the law school community and might cause friction among the students that would disrupt the institution's educational mission."

Is the refusal of the law school administration to allow the use of its meeting room for this purpose constitutional?

Answer: (A) No, because the law school administration cannot demonstrate that its action was necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
Correct. The law school's denial of the meeting room to the student group violates the speech clause of the First Amendment. The meeting rooms are a limited public forum because the law school made the rooms generally available for extracurricular student use. Because the meeting rooms are a limited public forum, the law students had a First Amendment right to use a room for expressive activity consistent with their purpose (i.e., extracurricular student use). Because the law school's denial of the room was based on the content of the students' expression, the denial must be tested by strict scrutiny, which requires the law school to prove that its denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. It is unusual for the courts to uphold content-based speech restrictions at strict scrutiny, and the law school's concerns here are clearly insufficient to meet that test."


Can you provide the other answer choices?


http://www.celebrationbarreview.com/wp- ... book-2.pdf

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:18 pm

RDA2930 wrote:Question on Contracts Set 6, Question 1:

I've scoured the CMR and can't find any justification for why the detrimental reliance exception wouldn't allowed the nephew to compel the customer or get damages. There is literally nothing that says that the promisee himself must tell the donee beneficiary about the contract for the beneficiary to have rights under the contract. It's my understanding that as long as an intended donee beneficiary is aware of his interest in the contract, he can sue the promisee for performance/damages. Can anyone explain this?



That one tripped me up too. As I understand it even if a donee beneficiary knows about the interest they cannot sue the promisor. The only way to do so is if they relied to their detriment. The main issue in that question IIRC is whether the Uncle/Customer should have known the nephew would have acted n reliance on the contract. The answer was no because he never communicated that promise to the nephew and didn't direct the business to notify the nephew that he was receiving the bike.

I think that is right.

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

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby JurorEight » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:26 pm

californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate



So would a public library's meeting room be a designated public forum or a limited public forum?

RDA2930
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 7:29 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RDA2930 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:27 pm

Brian_Wildcat wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Question on Contracts Set 6, Question 1:

I've scoured the CMR and can't find any justification for why the detrimental reliance exception wouldn't allowed the nephew to compel the customer or get damages. There is literally nothing that says that the promisee himself must tell the donee beneficiary about the contract for the beneficiary to have rights under the contract. It's my understanding that as long as an intended donee beneficiary is aware of his interest in the contract, he can sue the promisee for performance/damages. Can anyone explain this?



That one tripped me up too. As I understand it even if a donee beneficiary knows about the interest they cannot sue the promisor. The only way to do so is if they relied to their detriment. The main issue in that question IIRC is whether the Uncle/Customer should have known the nephew would have acted n reliance on the contract. The answer was no because he never communicated that promise to the nephew and didn't direct the business to notify the nephew that he was receiving the bike.

I think that is right.



Ah okay, got it. Thanks. Barbri's shitty question/answer drafting strikes again.

californiauser
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby californiauser » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:31 pm

JurorEight wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate



So would a public library's meeting room be a designated public forum or a limited public forum?


My understanding is that it would be considered limited because it's not historically linked with speech and assembly

californiauser
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby californiauser » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:33 pm

Brian_Wildcat wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate


See comments from below poster, but the NCBE disagrees with you. Again, I think this has to do with the purpose/intent of the forum.

Here's the the NCBE Online Practice Exam 1 - #60 - Constitutional Law

"A group of students at a state university's law school wished to debate the future of affirmative action in that state and at that law school. For this debate they requested the use of a meeting room in the law school that is available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use. Speakers presenting all sides of the issue were scheduled to participate. The law school administration refused to allow the use of any of its meeting rooms for this purpose solely because it believed that "such a debate, even if balanced, would have a negative effect on the morale of the law school community and might cause friction among the students that would disrupt the institution's educational mission."

Is the refusal of the law school administration to allow the use of its meeting room for this purpose constitutional?

Answer: (A) No, because the law school administration cannot demonstrate that its action was necessary to vindicate a compelling state interest.
Correct. The law school's denial of the meeting room to the student group violates the speech clause of the First Amendment. The meeting rooms are a limited public forum because the law school made the rooms generally available for extracurricular student use. Because the meeting rooms are a limited public forum, the law students had a First Amendment right to use a room for expressive activity consistent with their purpose (i.e., extracurricular student use). Because the law school's denial of the room was based on the content of the students' expression, the denial must be tested by strict scrutiny, which requires the law school to prove that its denial was necessary to serve a compelling governmental interest. It is unusual for the courts to uphold content-based speech restrictions at strict scrutiny, and the law school's concerns here are clearly insufficient to meet that test."




"available on a first-come, first-served basis for extracurricular student use." = Limited public forum

If, instead, it was open to any group who wanted use it after school it would be a designated public forum.

Maybe that is where we are getting tripped up. Also, if it were a limited public forum it could discriminate based on subject matter but not based on viewpoint. Where is the viewpoint discrimination? Page 49 of handout if you want to look.


Is the fact that it's a meeting room vs. a classroom dispositive?

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:35 pm

californiauser wrote:
JurorEight wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate



So would a public library's meeting room be a designated public forum or a limited public forum?


My understanding is that it would be considered limited because it's not historically linked with speech and assembly


We'd need more information about its purpose (i.e. conditions, etc.) to really know. Limited and designated are especially tricky distinctions. For the MBE, I would do what Joe says and basically treat them the same for content regulation unless it's 100% clear they aren't (i.e. the question specifies)

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:36 pm

JoeSeperac wrote:[

Examinees ask me this every exam and here is my default response:



Thanks for this. Very well reasoned analysis.

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:04 pm

Is truth an absolute defense for a non-public concern about a public figure? This rarely comes up because of the overlap, but I could imagine a scenario.

User avatar
cnk1220
Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby cnk1220 » Sat Jul 22, 2017 10:33 pm

ConfusedL1 wrote:Is truth an absolute defense for a non-public concern about a public figure? This rarely comes up because of the overlap, but I could imagine a scenario.



As long as you're dealing with the tort of defamation, I believe truth is an absolute defense (i.e. always a defense- the topic doesnt matter).

If you're talking about the umbrella tort of invasion of privacy that includes intrusion upon seclusion or public disclosure of private facts, truth is not a defense for those torts.

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Toubro » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:16 am

Brian_Wildcat wrote:
RDA2930 wrote:Question on Contracts Set 6, Question 1:

I've scoured the CMR and can't find any justification for why the detrimental reliance exception wouldn't allowed the nephew to compel the customer or get damages. There is literally nothing that says that the promisee himself must tell the donee beneficiary about the contract for the beneficiary to have rights under the contract. It's my understanding that as long as an intended donee beneficiary is aware of his interest in the contract, he can sue the promisee for performance/damages. Can anyone explain this?



That one tripped me up too. As I understand it even if a donee beneficiary knows about the interest they cannot sue the promisor. The only way to do so is if they relied to their detriment. The main issue in that question IIRC is whether the Uncle/Customer should have known the nephew would have acted n reliance on the contract. The answer was no because he never communicated that promise to the nephew and didn't direct the business to notify the nephew that he was receiving the bike.

I think that is right.


That's because the detrimental reliance language basically comes from the promissory estoppel theory, which requires "a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action." So bc Uncle never made any promise to the donee, a court cannot estop him from denying his promise because none exists.

User avatar
Toubro
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Toubro » Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:33 am

ConfusedL1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:
JurorEight wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate



So would a public library's meeting room be a designated public forum or a limited public forum?


My understanding is that it would be considered limited because it's not historically linked with speech and assembly


We'd need more information about its purpose (i.e. conditions, etc.) to really know. Limited and designated are especially tricky distinctions. For the MBE, I would do what Joe says and basically treat them the same for content regulation unless it's 100% clear they aren't (i.e. the question specifies)


But what do you mean by "treat them the same for content regulation"? Like, even viewpoint neutral regulation of content in a limited public forum (à la their after school extracurricular space in OPE1 Question 60) would trigger strict scruitny?

I am happy to do it this way but you gotta acknowledge that this flies in the face of the lecture handout and Conviser . . .

ConfusedL1
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby ConfusedL1 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:50 am

Toubro wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
californiauser wrote:
JurorEight wrote:
californiauser wrote:
ConfusedL1 wrote:
I don't think it's; it's being limited to students, not the general public.


Designated public forum = area opened to be used for general speech, e.g., classrooms for all students to use. Limited public forum = speech for a specific purpose, e.g., public high school gym being used for a single political debate



So would a public library's meeting room be a designated public forum or a limited public forum?


My understanding is that it would be considered limited because it's not historically linked with speech and assembly


We'd need more information about its purpose (i.e. conditions, etc.) to really know. Limited and designated are especially tricky distinctions. For the MBE, I would do what Joe says and basically treat them the same for content regulation unless it's 100% clear they aren't (i.e. the question specifies)


But what do you mean by "treat them the same for content regulation"? Like, even viewpoint neutral regulation of content in a limited public forum (à la their after school extracurricular space in OPE1 Question 60) would trigger strict scruitny?

I am happy to do it this way but you gotta acknowledge that this flies in the face of the lecture handout and Conviser . . .


Yep, I do. See Joe's explanation above for a more comprehensive explanation.

SowhatsNU
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:15 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby SowhatsNU » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:22 am

What're you guys doing for the last two days? Essay prep, a general overview of everything, or something different?

User avatar
BuddyHoller
Posts: 353
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:30 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby BuddyHoller » Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:44 am

SowhatsNU wrote:What're you guys doing for the last two days? Essay prep, a general overview of everything, or something different?


Doing some essay prep b/c I haven't done all that much yet relative to MBE. Reviewing the big outlines for a list of topics I flagged while taking the Simulated MBE. I might work through an MPT, but that's the lowest priority.

NB12017
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:48 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby NB12017 » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:30 pm

I've been reviewing MPTs. I think we give that section short shrift because we've all had AT LEAST the minimum experience of writing briefs in our legal writing classes on top of any professional legal experience and you don't really need to know anything. That's incredibly misleading. I don't know about any of you, but I don't have a lot of experience with applying new law to a new situation in 90 minutes. Plus some the instructions in the task memo can be downright quirky or unintuitive.

Barbri's MPT model persuasive crim law answer: <carefully organized, nuanced memos that lay out text of a statute and craftily applies precedent>

My MPT answer: "That ***********'s guilty and here's why. Oh and here's some law if you care about that kind of thing."

However, the name of my game right now isn't accuracy. Just exposure. Running through MPCs just to get exposure to whatever novel concepts I might not have before. Skimming essays and seeing what answers jump out or it's unfamiliar. When it comes to the written stuff, I can survive not being an expert. But not having any idea WTF they're talking about would be a real problem.

Tomorrow? IDK. I imagine I'll just skim a number of different subjects and try to rest.

This may be a silly question, but are any of you planning to study during lunch breaks?

User avatar
RCinDNA
Posts: 250
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:55 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby RCinDNA » Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:32 pm

SowhatsNU wrote:What're you guys doing for the last two days? Essay prep, a general overview of everything, or something different?


General overview of a few topics that I am strong in to keep confidence up - going through flash cards and reading some essay outline notes for expected questions. It's all pretty much about reminding myself that I know the material at this point.

Brian_Wildcat
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: July 2017 -- Barbri UBE Hangout

Postby Brian_Wildcat » Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:24 pm

NB12017 wrote:
My MPT answer: "That ***********'s guilty and here's why. Oh and here's some law if you care about that kind of thing."


This is absolutely me.


NB12017 wrote:
This may be a silly question, but are any of you planning to study during lunch breaks?


That is my plan for the first day at least. not sure how much that would help with MBE. I have short outlines that I can run skim through. I also have one-sheets. probably going to be my go to.




Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests