Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

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

Silver
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm

Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Sprout » Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:54 am

Hi all I thought it would be beneficial to have a single thread where people can ask questions and discuss black letter law for the July UBE. I personally am using barbri (+ other sources) and I have found myself getting confused at points. Regardless of prep method/course, it might be helpful to have a running list of topics with (hopefully) explanations. I'll go first.

In Civ Pro:

1. Is nonmutual issue preclusion an entirely separate thing than issue preclusion? Because, how can you use nonmmutual ever if it is an issue preclusion requirement that it can only be used against someone who was a party to case 1 (or someone "in privity with a party from case 1"?)

2. Is a JMOL literally the same as a directed verdict?

User avatar
sam91

Bronze
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby sam91 » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:02 am

Sprout wrote:1. Is nonmutual issue preclusion an entirely separate thing than issue preclusion? Because, how can you use nonmmutual ever if it is an issue preclusion requirement that it can only be used against someone who was a party to case 1 (or someone "in privity with a party from case 1"?)


More of a subset. It is "nonmutual" because the party using it, either offensively or defensively (i.e. the person who is asserting issue preclusion), was not a party to case one.

Sprout wrote:2. Is a JMOL literally the same as a directed verdict?


Yup. Same thing, different name.

User avatar
Sprout

Silver
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Sprout » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:09 am

Thank you that was helpful.

User avatar
sam91

Bronze
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby sam91 » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:44 am

Sprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.


No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOL

User avatar
cnk1220

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

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby cnk1220 » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:50 am

sam91 wrote:
Sprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.


No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOL



This is beyond what you asked but hopefully it helps reiterate

I remember seeing JMOL/JNOV issues tested in 2 ways on the MBE:

1. Bringing JNOV after trial w/o bringing JMOL during trial (can't do this).
2. Timing of when P and D can bring JMOL during trial.

User avatar
SilvermanBarPrep

Bronze
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby SilvermanBarPrep » Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:47 pm

Great idea, and I'll check back to this thread often to see if I can be of help.

Sean (Silverman Bar Prep).

User avatar
Toubro

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Toubro » Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:53 pm

Sprout wrote:
1. Is nonmutual issue preclusion an entirely separate thing than issue preclusion? Because, how can you use nonmmutual ever if it is an issue preclusion requirement that it can only be used against someone who was a party to case 1 (or someone "in privity with a party from case 1"?)



Just to expand on Sam's answer with an example,

CASE 1: P1 v. D1, P1 loses.

CASE 2: P1 v. D2, same issue, D2 will succeed on a 12(b)(6) against P1 (assuming all other issue preclusion requirements are met). This is nonmutual DEFENSIVE issue preclusion.

CASE 3: P2 v. P1, same issue, P2 will succeed in precluding P1 from litigating that issue again (assuming all other issue preclusion requirements are met). This is nonmutual OFFENSIVE issue preclusion, and the Supreme Court OK'd it if some criteria are met as a matter of federal preclusion law, so state courts would have to apply it if CASE 1 was from a federal district court (many states hate doing this because nonmutual offensive preclusion isn't sanctioned by their own laws, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

Now back to CASE 1: P1 v. D1, but imagine P1 wins.

CASE 2: P1 v. D2, P1 tries to use the judgment to preclude D2 from litigating it again. Can't do this, because of the rule you cited in your question.

User avatar
Sprout

Silver
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Sprout » Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:10 pm

Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused

User avatar
BulletTooth

Bronze
Posts: 126
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby BulletTooth » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:40 pm

Sprout wrote:Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused


An executory interest is a future interest in a third person that cuts short the previous estate before before it would have naturally terminated. A remainder is a future interest in a third party that is intended to take effect after the natural termination of the preceding estate.

The key difference between executory interests and remainders is that an executory interest cuts short the previous estate before it would have naturally terminated, while a remainder takes effect upon the natural termination of the preceding estate.

For instance, "O to A and his heirs so long as the A does not use the land commercially, but if A uses the land commercially, then to B" creates an executory interest in B because B's future interest would cut short A's estate before it naturally terminated. But "O to A for life and then to B" creates a remainder because B takes upon the natural termination of A's estate (when A dies).

User avatar
Sprout

Silver
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Sprout » Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:39 pm

Thank you so much
BulletTooth wrote:
- that was extremely helpful.

User avatar
pancakes3

Platinum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby pancakes3 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:36 pm

how is driving a car through a red light into a crosswalk full of people not murder but throwing a brick off some scaffolding murder?

i never liked crim law.

User avatar
TheWalrus

Silver
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby TheWalrus » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:17 pm

Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?

Bobby_Axelrod

New
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Bobby_Axelrod » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:19 pm

TheWalrus wrote:Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?


Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.

User avatar
TheWalrus

Silver
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby TheWalrus » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:21 pm

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?


Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.


Ok, so B's interest is still valid. That's what I was presuming, but just wanted to make sure.


pancakes3 wrote:how is driving a car through a red light into a crosswalk full of people not murder but throwing a brick off some scaffolding murder?

i never liked crim law.


95% of crim law is intent. Only reason I don't hate it, they basically have to tell you the answer in the question.

User avatar
pancakes3

Platinum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby pancakes3 » Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:42 pm

TheWalrus wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:how is driving a car through a red light into a crosswalk full of people not murder but throwing a brick off some scaffolding murder?

i never liked crim law.


95% of crim law is intent. Only reason I don't hate it, they basically have to tell you the answer in the question.


for the car question, the driver didn't have intent. for the scaffolding question the statute included malignant heart and i didn't catch that.

you're right that everything is in the question. still hate it though.

User avatar
Toubro

Bronze
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby Toubro » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:48 pm

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:
TheWalrus wrote:Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?


Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.


Yes, so it's not a remainder. It's a springing executory interest.

User avatar
pancakes3

Platinum
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby pancakes3 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:06 pm

we're to assume pure comparative negligence unless otherwise stated?

ConfusedL1

Bronze
Posts: 280
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Postby ConfusedL1 » Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:28 pm

FYI, there's a thread already for most of the same exact stuff...

MBE Question Thread
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=278465



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Transfer2016 and 12 guests