2018 February CA Bar

Discussions related to the bar exam are found in this forum
scard

New
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:34 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby scard » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:14 am

Anyone else remember to discuss inadequate legal remedies being necessary to rescind the contract?

Seller would argue that the leaky roof can be cured with money to repair as well as money for any lost profits caused by the repair.

Calibar

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Calibar » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:25 am

jduckits wrote:
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.


I talked about a license on part 2 of q3 too. And same on pt. Totally ran out of time no conclusion and didn’t get to proof.

BrainToast

New
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:29 am

jduckits 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?


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


I thought it asked what constitutional challenges can he make.

jduckits

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:45 am

BrainToast wrote:
jduckits 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?


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


I thought it asked what constitutional challenges can he make.


I could be wrong but I thought it specified 1st amendment... I’m sure it definitely can’t harm you though to mention due process, etc.

BrainToast

New
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 12:04 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby BrainToast » Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:09 am

jduckits wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
jduckits 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?


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


I thought it asked what constitutional challenges can he make.


I could be wrong but I thought it specified 1st amendment... I’m sure it definitely can’t harm you though to mention due process, etc.

Yeah who knows man. Check out my user nAme haha
I did a quick one. Used most of my time arguing the religion clauses.

jduckits

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:33 am

BrainToast wrote:
jduckits wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
jduckits 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?


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


I thought it asked what constitutional challenges can he make.


I could be wrong but I thought it specified 1st amendment... I’m sure it definitely can’t harm you though to mention due process, etc.

Yeah who knows man. Check out my user nAme haha
I did a quick one. Used most of my time arguing the religion clauses.


Lol! After that test my brain is surely Toast!

Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:47 am

jduckits wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
jduckits wrote:
BrainToast wrote:
jduckits 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?


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


I thought it asked what constitutional challenges can he make.


I could be wrong but I thought it specified 1st amendment... I’m sure it definitely can’t harm you though to mention due process, etc.

Yeah who knows man. Check out my user nAme haha
I did a quick one. Used most of my time arguing the religion clauses.


Lol! After that test my brain is surely Toast!


I definitely talked about the impications this question had on the free eating of toast. I narrowly applied the Butter test. The only possible remedy, obviously, was marmalade... applied rationally by the Attorney Toaster.

Anyone else discuss this issue?! Feel like it was a winner.

Mxmasterr

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:38 am

cgc210 wrote:
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..


I agree, but the question never said do not address standing and it never said ONLY tell us what type of gift it was. Further the lawyer said she was planning on making a standing argument .... If that was ur boss and u found a case u wouldn't bring it up at least briefly in the memo? That was my thinking at the end of the day.. I only did maybe 3 sentencing on standing at the end basically providing the case cite and saying that the man have a future interest. It definitely was not a huge thing most of the analysis was on gift v contract and then on conditional gift and it being likely a charitable trust.

Mxmasterr

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Tue Mar 06, 2018 7:39 am

BrainToast wrote:
jduckits 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?


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


I thought it asked what constitutional challenges can he make.


I believe this is correct and unfortunately I could only think of first amendment challenges

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:52 pm

bigballerbrand wrote: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?


On Q3 I didn't discuss negligence or easement by prescription -- totally blanked on the easement issue -- another issue down . . . argh!!!!

What'sUP?

New
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby What'sUP? » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:53 pm

bigballerbrand wrote: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?


And. . .on the PT, I finished, but my CONCLUSION was brief . . . as in BUHREEF! More points knocked off . . . ugh . . . again!

Cem2030

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:46 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Cem2030 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 4:05 pm

How did you guys handle the takings question? I vaguely remember the issue being whether the town's offer (which exceeded other comparables in the area) was sufficient compensation. I think I said that it was sufficient despite the fact that she had a higher offer for her house several years ago.

jduckits

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby jduckits » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:25 pm

Cem2030 wrote:How did you guys handle the takings question? I vaguely remember the issue being whether the town's offer (which exceeded other comparables in the area) was sufficient compensation. I think I said that it was sufficient despite the fact that she had a higher offer for her house several years ago.


I defined taking, then discussed public purpose, then jumped to Just Compensation (I shiuld have jumped to is it a taking? Spelling it out, but I didn’t), then I explained that it was likely just Compensation but the value at the time of the taking is the value to the Owner technically not based on appraisals or future use but present value to the owner. But I concluded that the county probably prevailed with the offer. I then did a section on Inverse Condemnation basically rehashing what I just discussed & concluded that it was possible for her to get more $$$ but unlikely...

Anon007

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Anon007 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:31 pm

Cem2030 wrote:How did you guys handle the takings question? I vaguely remember the issue being whether the town's offer (which exceeded other comparables in the area) was sufficient compensation. I think I said that it was sufficient despite the fact that she had a higher offer for her house several years ago.


Yes, issue was whether compensation from govt was sufficient - Relevant facts were her very high offer (a few years ago) versus comps in the neighbourhood (more recent). She wanted to challenge bc the govt offer was below her old offer and didnt include moving expenses/incidentals.

I started with the rule re taking for public purpose with just compensation and noted/explained (1) implied v. actual (this was actual due to govt actions); (2) public purpose requires reasonable govt beleif re public benefit (I think they wanted it for a park? = sufficient); (3) just compensation is loss/value to the person, not the benefit to the taker/buyer. For just comp, I mentioned every property unique but comparable nearby plots are good indicator and more helpful than a solitary offer that is a few years old. As I type this I realise that I didnt raise the issue that a couple years ago could have been before the smokestack and so the value may have been higher...sigh. I said she couldnt get incidentals or moving expenses bc just comp is limited to the value of the land to the person (possibly made that up but feels remotely accurate based on my recollection of barbri lectures).

Anon007

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Anon007 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 5:41 pm

Anon007 wrote:
Cem2030 wrote:How did you guys handle the takings question? I vaguely remember the issue being whether the town's offer (which exceeded other comparables in the area) was sufficient compensation. I think I said that it was sufficient despite the fact that she had a higher offer for her house several years ago.


Yes, issue was whether compensation from govt was sufficient - Relevant facts were her very high offer (a few years ago) versus comps in the neighbourhood (more recent). She wanted to challenge bc the govt offer was below her old offer and didnt include moving expenses/incidentals.

I started with the rule re taking for public purpose with just compensation and noted/explained (1) implied v. actual (this was actual due to govt actions); (2) public purpose requires reasonable govt beleif re public benefit (I think they wanted it for a park? = sufficient); (3) just compensation is loss/value to the person, not the benefit to the taker/buyer. For just comp, I mentioned every property unique but comparable nearby plots are good indicator and more helpful than a solitary offer that is a few years old. As I type this I realise that I didnt raise the issue that a couple years ago could have been before the smokestack and so the value may have been higher...sigh. I said she couldnt get incidentals or moving expenses bc just comp is limited to the value of the land to the person (possibly made that up but feels remotely accurate based on my recollection of barbri lectures).


...and if you want to feel bad about whatever it is you wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_compensation

Cem2030

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:46 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Cem2030 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:03 pm

Anon007 wrote:
Anon007 wrote:
Cem2030 wrote:How did you guys handle the takings question? I vaguely remember the issue being whether the town's offer (which exceeded other comparables in the area) was sufficient compensation. I think I said that it was sufficient despite the fact that she had a higher offer for her house several years ago.


Yes, issue was whether compensation from govt was sufficient - Relevant facts were her very high offer (a few years ago) versus comps in the neighbourhood (more recent). She wanted to challenge bc the govt offer was below her old offer and didnt include moving expenses/incidentals.

I started with the rule re taking for public purpose with just compensation and noted/explained (1) implied v. actual (this was actual due to govt actions); (2) public purpose requires reasonable govt beleif re public benefit (I think they wanted it for a park? = sufficient); (3) just compensation is loss/value to the person, not the benefit to the taker/buyer. For just comp, I mentioned every property unique but comparable nearby plots are good indicator and more helpful than a solitary offer that is a few years old. As I type this I realise that I didnt raise the issue that a couple years ago could have been before the smokestack and so the value may have been higher...sigh. I said she couldnt get incidentals or moving expenses bc just comp is limited to the value of the land to the person (possibly made that up but feels remotely accurate based on my recollection of barbri lectures).


...and if you want to feel bad about whatever it is you wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_compensation


Yes, and the facts indicated that the gov't offer was very generous: I think it was three times the amount of the comps in the neighborhood. Given that information, I concluded that she would be wise to use the generous offer to cover any incidental moving expenses. I also thought that the solitary offer five years ago was not a good measure because it was offered before the smelly smokehouse was installed next door.

Cem2030

New
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:46 am

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Cem2030 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:09 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.


Quick question: I thought about the cy press doctrine while writing but I thought were not supposed to/expected to bring in outside knowledge when writing the PT. Is it generally okay to bring in outside information?

Mxmasterr

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:22 pm

Cem2030 wrote:
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.


Quick question: I thought about the cy press doctrine while writing but I thought were not supposed to/expected to bring in outside knowledge when writing the PT. Is it generally okay to bring in outside information?



No you don't bring in outside knowledge.

Baller31

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Baller31 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:50 pm

Cem2030 wrote:
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.


Quick question: I thought about the cy press doctrine while writing but I thought were not supposed to/expected to bring in outside knowledge when writing the PT. Is it generally okay to bring in outside information?


We are allowed to bring in outside knowledge if it is pertinent to answer the question or issue. I believe the instructions says something to the extent of you may use your legal knowledge to solve the problems on the Pt. Also, I had a tutor who specializes in Pt's and he relayed this information to me in the past. It probably doesn't necessarily matter if you didn't talk about cy pres. Just shows you know what the issue is, that's about it.

Baller31

New
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:11 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Baller31 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:54 pm

Cem2030 wrote:
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.


Quick question: I thought about the cy press doctrine while writing but I thought were not supposed to/expected to bring in outside knowledge when writing the PT. Is it generally okay to bring in outside information?


It's in the instructions that you should use your general knowledge of the law also.

Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:17 pm

True.

Bla Bla Bla Blah

New
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:01 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Bla Bla Bla Blah » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:36 am

Apparently, I took the wrong state bar exam. Utah's Bar conventions seem fun. :D

User avatar
catechumen

New
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 11:20 pm

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby catechumen » Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:05 pm

I guess just about everyone has left the board until a week before results come out. How disappointing. For those of you that are still left, when are you going to start studying again?

Mxmasterr

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Mxmasterr » Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:28 pm

catechumen wrote:I guess just about everyone has left the board until a week before results come out. How disappointing. For those of you that are still left, when are you going to start studying again?


once i find out i have officially failed

Anon007

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

Re: 2018 February CA Bar

Postby Anon007 » Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:59 pm

Mxmasterr wrote:
catechumen wrote:I guess just about everyone has left the board until a week before results come out. How disappointing. For those of you that are still left, when are you going to start studying again?


once i find out i have officially failed


Still here and checking back regularly - happy to chat about the essays more but its seems like we've pretty much hashed out everything and/or nobody has anything further to add.

There is absolutely no way that I am picking up outlines before we get results.

Fun dates:
May 11 - Results released online
June 15 - Deadline to register for July exam



Return to “Bar Exam Prep and Discussion Forum?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ubebarstudying and 22 guests