2018 February CA Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
Dirty Deeds

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Dirty Deeds » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:53 pm

For Essay #1, did anyone else discuss that rescission highly unlikely due to contract "merging" into deed? I went through misrep/omission analysis and concluded that rescission won't work but P can sue for damages.

hope2018

New
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby hope2018 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:59 pm

Dirty Deeds wrote:For Essay #1, did anyone else discuss that rescission highly unlikely due to contract "merging" into deed? I went through misrep/omission analysis and concluded that rescission won't work but P can sue for damages.


Merger will not apply when there is fraud or misrepresentation (exception to the rule of merger).

Dirty Deeds

New
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:41 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Dirty Deeds » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:17 pm

hope2018 wrote:
Dirty Deeds wrote:For Essay #1, did anyone else discuss that rescission highly unlikely due to contract "merging" into deed? I went through misrep/omission analysis and concluded that rescission won't work but P can sue for damages.


Merger will not apply when there is fraud or misrepresentation (exception to the rule of merger).


Right. Well, hopefully doesn't result in deduction of points as it I just briefly mentioned it in conclusion.

BrainToast

New
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:33 pm

Dirty Deeds wrote:
hope2018 wrote:
Dirty Deeds wrote:For Essay #1, did anyone else discuss that rescission highly unlikely due to contract "merging" into deed? I went through misrep/omission analysis and concluded that rescission won't work but P can sue for damages.


Merger will not apply when there is fraud or misrepresentation (exception to the rule of merger).


Right. Well, hopefully doesn't result in deduction of points as it I just briefly mentioned it in conclusion.


I had the standing in my intro as part of standing.
I haven’t seen this mentioned but I thought the third case gave standing to challenge charitable trusts to anyone with a special interest. I had a section about it.

Baller31

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Baller31 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:34 pm

Mxmasterr wrote:
hope2018 wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
legallyblonde21 wrote:Freaking out a little about the PT...I specifically did not address standing and only discussed contract/gift/gift type.

I included a sentence about how standing was not being addressed because it was not specifically asked for, but a standing analysis could be done if requested.

I read the prompt at least 5 times and it did not ask for a standing analysis. It mentioned that the partner thought they might have a standing argument, but only asked for a memo about the contact/gift issues.

Was I very wrong not to address standing? I thought about doing it, but actually thought points might be deducted for not following the directions so I didn’t.


I don't think so. The only clear instruction was to let the requesting partner know if there was a transfer by contract, or whether it was a gift, and if a gift, what kind of gift (i.e., conditional or unconditional). There was a mention of whether Plaintiff even had standing in the sentence prior to this request, but the analysis asked for was only to help her understand whether standing was there through an analysis of contract/gift... which almost sounded like the partner would make her own decision on standing apart from the memo.

However, I did include a section on standing because there was a case devoted to the issue. Also because in practice standing would have been the most important issue--so it was my first section. If you can dismiss the case on lack of standing, then that is your best argument because the judge doesn't even have to reach the merits of the case. It's done.

In short: you did not do anything that indicated you weren't following instructions. You weren't very wrong to not address standing. The prompt, in my opinion, indicated that the partner who assigned the memo would make that decision based on contract/gift analysis alone.


It was a weird prompt. I had time so i reread the thing a few times. It definitely said they wanted us to focus on gift v contract and then tell them what type of gift it was. However it never said do not talk about standing, it did that with the fact section, it said the other lawyer thought she could figure out standing with that analysis.
I figured well they gave it to us, and I suspect the lawyer would want to know so I kinda put it out in a paragraph where I was like a this may help with your standing argument .

I threw out it could be a conditional gift or a per session charitable trust. That one case said anytime u give to an educational institutions for an educational purposes it's a charitable trust by law. It just seemed directly on point, are facts were exactly that it be a per session charitable trust ... And a trust at least in the real world is type of gift device.




ugh...I forgot to mention charitable trust under conditional, I said it is non commercial transaction for purpose of supporting education...did not include charitable trust.


I struggled with whether to include anything about standing or the trust tbh cause of the way the question was written. But i was like well the there is no other reason for this third case and our facts match up perfectly with a charitable trust by law rule, so i just did maybe like 4 sentences max on standing and that this is probably considered a charitable trust.



https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home ... orcea.html

Based on the article above, I believe what they were looking for in the PT was whether the transfer was a gift made without consideration and/or if so whether it was a charitable trust. The article above quotes a California code on the subject matter and talks about how a gift with no consideration usually would be deemed charitable. It would make sense why the first case focused on what a gift was, the second case focused on the effects of consideration, and the third case focused on what a charitable trust is. It also seems like it may have been important to discuss the cy pres doctrine a little bit, being that Trusts is in essay land.

Calibar

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:28 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Calibar » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:35 pm

Did people talk about the parole evidence rule on the first question about rescinding the contract?

Bla Bla Bla Blah

Bronze
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:36 pm

Dirty Deeds wrote:
hope2018 wrote:
Dirty Deeds wrote:For Essay #1, did anyone else discuss that rescission highly unlikely due to contract "merging" into deed? I went through misrep/omission analysis and concluded that rescission won't work but P can sue for damages.


Merger will not apply when there is fraud or misrepresentation (exception to the rule of merger).


Right. Well, hopefully doesn't result in deduction of points as it I just briefly mentioned it in conclusion.


I think it would help. We were asked to discuss in terms of misrepresentation and omission. There were no misrepresentations made, which wouldn't support fraud. And since common law fraud requires an intentional material misrepresentation, then you can't rescind on the basis of that. I mentioned merger because fraud and misrepresentation never occurred, limiting remedies to monetary damages.

Calibar

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:28 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Calibar » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:39 pm

On essay 1 (contract rescission) did people talk about the parole evidence rule? And did you all go through the injunction analysis on the nuisance claim (balancing of the hardships etc.)?

Baller31

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Baller31 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:43 pm

Calibar wrote:Did people talk about the parole evidence rule on the first question about rescinding the contract?


Yes, as a defense, but said there would still be a misrepresentation and a failure to disclose so the defense will fail.

Mxmasterr

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:43 pm

Calibar wrote:Did people talk about the parole evidence rule on the first question about rescinding the contract?


I did. I rejected it, but it was a defense i raised.

Mxmasterr

New
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:14 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:43 pm

BrainToast wrote:
Dirty Deeds wrote:
hope2018 wrote:
Dirty Deeds wrote:For Essay #1, did anyone else discuss that rescission highly unlikely due to contract "merging" into deed? I went through misrep/omission analysis and concluded that rescission won't work but P can sue for damages.


Merger will not apply when there is fraud or misrepresentation (exception to the rule of merger).


Right. Well, hopefully doesn't result in deduction of points as it I just briefly mentioned it in conclusion.


I had the standing in my intro as part of standing.
I haven’t seen this mentioned but I thought the third case gave standing to challenge charitable trusts to anyone with a special interest. I had a section about it.


That's essentially what I said.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:35 pm

Mxmasterr wrote:
Calibar wrote:Did people talk about the parole evidence rule on the first question about rescinding the contract?


I did. I rejected it, but it was a defense i raised.


I raised it as an issue was well.

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:20 pm

Mxmasterr wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
legallyblonde21 wrote:Freaking out a little about the PT...I specifically did not address standing and only discussed contract/gift/gift type.

I included a sentence about how standing was not being addressed because it was not specifically asked for, but a standing analysis could be done if requested.

I read the prompt at least 5 times and it did not ask for a standing analysis. It mentioned that the partner thought they might have a standing argument, but only asked for a memo about the contact/gift issues.

Was I very wrong not to address standing? I thought about doing it, but actually thought points might be deducted for not following the directions so I didn’t.


I don't think so. The only clear instruction was to let the requesting partner know if there was a transfer by contract, or whether it was a gift, and if a gift, what kind of gift (i.e., conditional or unconditional). There was a mention of whether Plaintiff even had standing in the sentence prior to this request, but the analysis asked for was only to help her understand whether standing was there through an analysis of contract/gift... which almost sounded like the partner would make her own decision on standing apart from the memo.

However, I did include a section on standing because there was a case devoted to the issue. Also because in practice standing would have been the most important issue--so it was my first section. If you can dismiss the case on lack of standing, then that is your best argument because the judge doesn't even have to reach the merits of the case. It's done.

In short: you did not do anything that indicated you weren't following instructions. You weren't very wrong to not address standing. The prompt, in my opinion, indicated that the partner who assigned the memo would make that decision based on contract/gift analysis alone.


It was a weird prompt. I had time so i reread the thing a few times. It definitely said they wanted us to focus on gift v contract and then tell them what type of gift it was. However it never said do not talk about standing, it did that with the fact section, it said the other lawyer thought she could figure out standing with that analysis.
I figured well they gave it to us, and I suspect the lawyer would want to know so I kinda put it out in a paragraph where I was like a this may help with your standing argument .

I threw out it could be a conditional gift or a per session charitable trust. That one case said anytime u give to an educational institutions for an educational purposes it's a charitable trust by law. It just seemed directly on point, are facts were exactly that it be a per session charitable trust ... And a trust at least in the real world is type of gift device.




This entire exam felt like a racehorse! With respect to Q1, I did discuss the Parol Evidence Rule as an issue at the beginning of my analysis (so I hope that doesn't knock off points). Also, I forgot to discuss L's commenting on his witnesses testimony during closing. As I was typing, I thought to myself, "Oh yeah, don't forget to discuss the issue of L commenting on . . . ." But, by the time the hour was up, I had forgotten and was moving on. Lesson learned -- taking a mental note of something without writing it down is not a good idea. Lesson learned for -- dare I say -- next time . . . ugh. With respect to Q2, I totally interpreted the question as being about Speech, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause. I am concerned that my speech discussion is misplaced and that will make a bad impression for the grader. With respect to Q 3, I did not raise Negligence as an issue. With respect to Q's 4 and 5 there is nothing memorable other than the fact that they were racehorses.

The PT was difficult. I did discuss standing as a last consideration. And, now I am thinking, "Was that "not following the instructions"? Was that a trap?" . . . FML!!!

As the days pass the less I can recollect about what I wrote and how I argued. Looking back, I am not sure that I felt like -- or did -- or would have -- had the time to go back and add things that I didn't discuss within the hour. The whole thing felt like a racehorse. Especially on the PT!! It was like there was NO time to go back and re-read things or add things. It was rough.

Anon007

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Anon007 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:40 pm

What'sUP? wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Calibar wrote:Did people talk about the parole evidence rule on the first question about rescinding the contract?


I did. I rejected it, but it was a defense i raised.


I raised it as an issue was well.


I discussed Parol Evidence Rule. I used it to get the contemporaneous statements during negotiation into the court for consideration re the questions of misrep/non-disclosure. Was a very short/concise section of my answer, nothing too major.

Anon007

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:17 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Anon007 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:00 pm

What'sUP? wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
legallyblonde21 wrote:Freaking out a little about the PT...I specifically did not address standing and only discussed contract/gift/gift type...Was I very wrong not to address standing? I thought about doing it, but actually thought points might be deducted for not following the directions so I didn’t.


I don't think so. The only clear instruction was to let the requesting partner know if there was a transfer by contract, or whether it was a gift, and if a gift, what kind of gift (i.e., conditional or unconditional). There was a mention of whether Plaintiff even had standing in the sentence prior to this request, but the analysis asked for was only to help her understand whether standing was there through an analysis of contract/gift... which almost sounded like the partner would make her own decision on standing apart from the memo.


It was a weird prompt. I had time so i reread the thing a few times. It definitely said they wanted us to focus on gift v contract and then tell them what type of gift it was. However it never said do not talk about standing, it did that with the fact section, it said the other lawyer thought she could figure out standing with that analysis.
I figured well they gave it to us, and I suspect the lawyer would want to know so I kinda put it out in a paragraph where I was like a this may help with your standing argument .

I threw out it could be a conditional gift or a per session charitable trust. That one case said anytime u give to an educational institutions for an educational purposes it's a charitable trust by law. It just seemed directly on point, are facts were exactly that it be a per session charitable trust ... And a trust at least in the real world is type of gift device.



With respect to Q2, I totally interpreted the question as being about Speech, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause. I am concerned that my speech discussion is misplaced and that will make a bad impression for the grader. With respect to Q 3, I did not raise Negligence as an issue. With respect to Q's 4 and 5 there is nothing memorable other than the fact that they were racehorses.

The PT was difficult. I did discuss standing as a last consideration. And, now I am thinking, "Was that "not following the instructions"? Was that a trap?" . . . FML!!!

It was rough.


On the PT, I didnt address standing. In my intro email thing to the partner I just said I believed that the objective analysis re the gift/contract and gift type would be helpful to her determination re standing under [citation to the standing law they gave]. If I had time at the end (I ran out), I would maybe have put a little more in the intro email part about the case but still would not have added a full discussion on it bc it wasnt asked for. Just my view though. My PT was basically 4 sections: (1) heading w/ firm letterhead and all the To/From stuff and a little email saying the memo was attached and referencing standing law (but no analysis re standing); (2) Memo Intro setting out section for memo; (3) Gift v Contract; (4) Gift Type. I would have added a Conclusion but ran out of time = ouch.

On Q2, I also spoke about Free Speech in context of words in the cafeteria, ultimately concluding that there was no claim for the prisoner there. While there is a lot of free speech stuff up front in the essay bc of that analysis, the second half of the essay piggy backs off of it bc speech was an issue to discuss for the restriction of access to the book. So even though addressing it for the cafeteria was wrong, the graders will see that the knowledge is there and applied where needed for the book. I spoke about Free Exercise and Establishment clauses for the cafeteria language, book and tea. I did NOT address equal protection w/ rational basis review bc, well, I couldnt think of it.

On Q3, I did not discuss negligence. I discussed nuisance, trespass to land, trespass to chattel/conversion, strict liability for the trespassing dog.

jduckits

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:18 pm

Anon007 wrote:
What'sUP? wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
legallyblonde21 wrote:Freaking out a little about the PT...I specifically did not address standing and only discussed contract/gift/gift type...Was I very wrong not to address standing? I thought about doing it, but actually thought points might be deducted for not following the directions so I didn’t.


I don't think so. The only clear instruction was to let the requesting partner know if there was a transfer by contract, or whether it was a gift, and if a gift, what kind of gift (i.e., conditional or unconditional). There was a mention of whether Plaintiff even had standing in the sentence prior to this request, but the analysis asked for was only to help her understand whether standing was there through an analysis of contract/gift... which almost sounded like the partner would make her own decision on standing apart from the memo.


It was a weird prompt. I had time so i reread the thing a few times. It definitely said they wanted us to focus on gift v contract and then tell them what type of gift it was. However it never said do not talk about standing, it did that with the fact section, it said the other lawyer thought she could figure out standing with that analysis.
I figured well they gave it to us, and I suspect the lawyer would want to know so I kinda put it out in a paragraph where I was like a this may help with your standing argument .

I threw out it could be a conditional gift or a per session charitable trust. That one case said anytime u give to an educational institutions for an educational purposes it's a charitable trust by law. It just seemed directly on point, are facts were exactly that it be a per session charitable trust ... And a trust at least in the real world is type of gift device.



With respect to Q2, I totally interpreted the question as being about Speech, the Establishment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause. I am concerned that my speech discussion is misplaced and that will make a bad impression for the grader. With respect to Q 3, I did not raise Negligence as an issue. With respect to Q's 4 and 5 there is nothing memorable other than the fact that they were racehorses.

The PT was difficult. I did discuss standing as a last consideration. And, now I am thinking, "Was that "not following the instructions"? Was that a trap?" . . . FML!!!

It was rough.


On the PT, I didnt address standing. In my intro email thing to the partner I just said I believed that the objective analysis re the gift/contract and gift type would be helpful to her determination re standing under [citation to the standing law they gave]. If I had time at the end (I ran out), I would maybe have put a little more in the intro email part about the case but still would not have added a full discussion on it bc it wasnt asked for. Just my view though. My PT was basically 4 sections: (1) heading w/ firm letterhead and all the To/From stuff and a little email saying the memo was attached and referencing standing law (but no analysis re standing); (2) Memo Intro setting out section for memo; (3) Gift v Contract; (4) Gift Type. I would have added a Conclusion but ran out of time = ouch.

On Q2, I also spoke about Free Speech in context of words in the cafeteria, ultimately concluding that there was no claim for the prisoner there. While there is a lot of free speech stuff up front in the essay bc of that analysis, the second half of the essay piggy backs off of it bc speech was an issue to discuss for the restriction of access to the book. So even though addressing it for the cafeteria was wrong, the graders will see that the knowledge is there and applied where needed for the book. I spoke about Free Exercise and Establishment clauses for the cafeteria language, book and tea. I did NOT address equal protection w/ rational basis review bc, well, I couldnt think of it.

On Q3, I did not discuss negligence. I discussed nuisance, trespass to land, trespass to chattel/conversion, strict liability for the trespassing dog.


I can’t remember the calls of the question exactly at this point, but I felt that on Q2 they were looking for Establishment Clause on the first prompt and Free Exercise on the second prompt. There was also a Content Based Speech argument for the book & tea. But I said the state had a compelling government interest to keep the hallucinogenic tea out of the prison for free exercise purposes & added least restrictive means for speech content purposes.

In addition I used the Sincerity test for free exercise. Anybody else use?

Bla Bla Bla Blah

Bronze
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:44 pm

Anon007 wrote:
What'sUP? wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Calibar wrote:Did people talk about the parole evidence rule on the first question about rescinding the contract?


I did. I rejected it, but it was a defense i raised.


I raised it as an issue was well.


I discussed Parol Evidence Rule. I used it to get the contemporaneous statements during negotiation into the court for consideration re the questions of misrep/non-disclosure. Was a very short/concise section of my answer, nothing too major.


Smart. Definitely doesn't hurt to raise the issue and get more points, because it's definitely an issue in that question. I remember thinking about it, but since it wasn't in my outline, I totally foegot to address it. I remember finishing knowing that I had forgotten something that I could have discussed. Bummer. The importance of writing things down.

bigballerbrand

New
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:10 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby bigballerbrand » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:35 pm

Sort of blanking on some of the details, but these are the ones that stand out for me...

Con Law Essay
1. Discussed Establishment Clause for the first question
2. Discussed Free Exercise, Due Process, and Equal Protection for the book and the tea
3. Thought about doing free speech, but just didn't have time to get to it

Torts/Property
1. Discussed Assault, Battery, IIED, and Nuisance re: smokehouse
2. Discussed Trespassing re: the dog, but didn't discuss negligence or strict liability
3. Discussed easement by prescription (but not super thoroughly)
4. I barely finished answering the part about Takings.

Crimes
1. Not too tricky. It was a lot of "see above"s once you set up the organization for the very first question, and then analyzing the hell out of the warrant exceptions (especially exigency and consent).
2. Also threw in the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree since I was discussing the Exclusionary Rule anyhow.

PT
1. Based on my practices/strategy, I did the PT first and finished it after 1 hr 35 minutes.
2. It was basically I. Brief Overview, II. Analysis, III. Conclusion
3. The analysis broke into three major sub-sections: (1) gift or contract? (2) what sort of gift? (3) standing?

cgc210

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby cgc210 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:55 pm

Baller31 wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
hope2018 wrote:
Mxmasterr wrote:
Bla Bla Bla Blah wrote:
legallyblonde21 wrote:Freaking out a little about the PT...I specifically did not address standing and only discussed contract/gift/gift type.

I included a sentence about how standing was not being addressed because it was not specifically asked for, but a standing analysis could be done if requested.

I read the prompt at least 5 times and it did not ask for a standing analysis. It mentioned that the partner thought they might have a standing argument, but only asked for a memo about the contact/gift issues.



Was I very wrong not to address standing? I thought about doing it, but actually thought points might be deducted for not following the directions so I didn’t.


I don't think so. The only clear instruction was to let the requesting partner know if there was a transfer by contract, or whether it was a gift, and if a gift, what kind of gift (i.e., conditional or unconditional). There was a mention of whether Plaintiff even had standing in the sentence prior to this request, but the analysis asked for was only to help her understand whether standing was there through an analysis of contract/gift... which almost sounded like the partner would make her own decision on standing apart from the memo.

However, I did include a section on standing because there was a case devoted to the issue. Also because in practice standing would have been the most important issue--so it was my first section. If you can dismiss the case on lack of standing, then that is your best argument because the judge doesn't even have to reach the merits of the case. It's done.

In short: you did not do anything that indicated you weren't following instructions. You weren't very wrong to not address standing. The prompt, in my opinion, indicated that the partner who assigned the memo would make that decision based on contract/gift analysis alone.


It was a weird prompt. I had time so i reread the thing a few times. It definitely said they wanted us to focus on gift v contract and then tell them what type of gift it was. However it never said do not talk about standing, it did that with the fact section, it said the other lawyer thought she could figure out standing with that analysis.
I figured well they gave it to us, and I suspect the lawyer would want to know so I kinda put it out in a paragraph where I was like a this may help with your standing argument .

I threw out it could be a conditional gift or a per session charitable trust. That one case said anytime u give to an educational institutions for an educational purposes it's a charitable trust by law. It just seemed directly on point, are facts were exactly that it be a per session charitable trust ... And a trust at least in the real world is type of gift device.




ugh...I forgot to mention charitable trust under conditional, I said it is non commercial transaction for purpose of supporting education...did not include charitable trust.


I struggled with whether to include anything about standing or the trust tbh cause of the way the question was written. But i was like well the there is no other reason for this third case and our facts match up perfectly with a charitable trust by law rule, so i just did maybe like 4 sentences max on standing and that this is probably considered a charitable trust.



https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home ... orcea.html

Based on the article above, I believe what they were looking for in the PT was whether the transfer was a gift made without consideration and/or if so whether it was a charitable trust. The article above quotes a California code on the subject matter and talks about how a gift with no consideration usually would be deemed charitable. It would make sense why the first case focused on what a gift was, the second case focused on the effects of consideration, and the third case focused on what a charitable trust is. It also seems like it may have been important to discuss the cy pres doctrine a little bit, being that Trusts is in essay land.



Part of the PT is to follow instructions, it specifically said he wanted to know if it was a gift, contract, if gift, what kind. I included the rule really charitable trust, but did not mention standing at all. I went back and forth trying to figure out if I should add it, but in the end decided not to. I'm more worried that my headings were not objective, since I used them to state my conclusion..

BrainToast

New
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:07 am

On the prison religion fact pattern, did anyone do a due process analysis on the refusals? Taking away right to freelg exercise? Procedural and substantive?

jduckits

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:13 am

BrainToast wrote:On the prison religion fact pattern, did anyone do a due process analysis on the refusals? Taking away right to freelg exercise? Procedural and substantive?


I’m pretty sure the call of the question asked for 1st amendment actions.

Calibar

New
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:28 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Calibar » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:41 am

I did that sincerity test too on the free exercise piece with regard to the book and tea (court doesn’t normally declare a religion invalid check validity based on whether they hold beliefs as one would in an orthodox religion, whether the belief was sincerely held, and whether it was neutrally applied/had discriminatory effect) I talked about how outlawing peyote was upheld. Did not talk about due process or free speech.

I did not do a negligence or strict liability analysis on q3 but did talk about nuisance went through the injunction analysis (balancing of the hardships), laches defense, trespass claim, conversion of fence claim and then as defenses prescriptive easement, implied easement, recovery of Chattel (but he didn’t give required notice).

Baller31

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Baller31 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:47 am

BrainToast wrote:On the prison religion fact pattern, did anyone do a due process analysis on the refusals? Taking away right to freelg exercise? Procedural and substantive?


Yes, I talked about procedural due process as a deprivation of a liberty right-religion without an opportunity to be heard at the least and also under substantive due process under the same liberty/fundamental right of religion. Didn't say he had a property right because there was no entitlement per se. Also, there was a subtle 11th Amendment issue because it was the prison officials who were the actors and not the County Jail, so I just mentioned there was no 11th Amendment problem since the challenger would be suing the actual prison/state officials.

jduckits

New
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:02 am

Calibar wrote:I did that sincerity test too on the free exercise piece with regard to the book and tea (court doesn’t normally declare a religion invalid check validity based on whether they hold beliefs as one would in an orthodox religion, whether the belief was sincerely held, and whether it was neutrally applied/had discriminatory effect) I talked about how outlawing peyote was upheld. Did not talk about due process or free speech.

I did not do a negligence or strict liability analysis on q3 but did talk about nuisance went through the injunction analysis (balancing of the hardships), laches defense, trespass claim, conversion of fence claim and then as defenses prescriptive easement, implied easement, recovery of Chattel (but he didn’t give required notice).


I discussed the peyote in my analysis but forgot about some Prisoner rights being rationally related to a penological interest. That would have been true for the tea for sure. I said that the government had a compelling interest to keep the hallucinating tea out... On Q3 I didn’t argue any defenses to Nuisance. Did Prescriptive easement and license for defenses to the trespass.
Have you ever known of anyone who got higher than a 55 on a PT if they didn’t finish it? I didn’t get to conclusion. Plus I didn’t proof read, which scares me.

Baller31

New
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Baller31 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:07 am

Baller31 wrote:
BrainToast wrote:On the prison religion fact pattern, did anyone do a due process analysis on the refusals? Taking away right to freelg exercise? Procedural and substantive?


Yes, I talked about procedural due process as a deprivation of a liberty right-religion without an opportunity to be heard at the least and also under substantive due process under the same liberty/fundamental right of religion. Didn't say he had a property right because there was no entitlement per se. Also, there was a subtle 11th Amendment issue because it was the prison officials who were the actors and not the County Jail, so I just mentioned there was no 11th Amendment problem since the challenger would be suing the actual prison/state officials. There is a very similar essay that was tested with the same set up that addressed due process when the free exercise clause was implicated.



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests