1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[lifestooquick]

I have no motivation. Exam on Tuesday.

Currently I'm stressed about not being stressed.

I feel the same...it's so weird. COMPLETELY different from last semester.

[SilverE2]

Also, BarBri really needs to design a website that works with Chrome. Having to use IE is freaking annoying.

Try this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... mmjbdenadd

[crossarmant]

O conveys to P and his heirs provided the land continues to be used for farming.


Why is this a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and not fee simple determinable?

Because it doesn't convey a durational limit. FSD requires speech such as "For as long as" "While", etc. FSSCS attached a condition to the grant, it follows the grant rather than before the grant. If it were a FSD, it'd be "O conveys to P and his heirs while the land is used for farming"

[lifestooquick]

Also, BarBri really needs to design a website that works with Chrome. Having to use IE is freaking annoying.

Try this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/deta ... mmjbdenadd

I have that, it doesn't work on their website So weird.

[hijodehombre]

O conveys to P and his heirs provided the land continues to be used for farming.


Why is this a fee simple subject to condition subsequent and not fee simple determinable?

Two ways to do this:

(1) "provided that" usually implies FSSCS
(2) but also, and more importantly, the conveyance is characterized by words of condition, not duration

[dabomb75]

I know this may make me sound like a crazy person, but I miss property. I so wish I was doing RAP and conveyances rather than stupid boring MPC provisions and criminal law theory

[akili]

I know this may make me sound like a crazy person, but I miss property. I so wish I was doing RAP and conveyances rather than stupid boring MPC provisions and criminal law theory

If you are crazy, then so am I.

[TTTLS]

Why am I enjoying school right now? What has finals done to me? Am I becoming a masochist?

[jess]

.

[LSATmakesMeNeurotic]

Civ Pro Question:

Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?

[Metaread]

Con Law question: Is Wickard still good law, or did Lopez and Morrison essentially overrule it?

[BlueDiamond]

Civ Pro Question:

Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?

i read freer like a week ago so i think the answer is yes.. however, i read free like a WEEK ago and have been drinking

it passes (a) because its got the common nucleus and passes Gibbs test
then it passes (b) because the that only excepts claims that have diverse parties

Edit: just looked and its a gray area according to Freer
page 631 of his supp - he says literally read it should allow it to join but basically the drafters of the statutes messed up because the result renders complete diversity meaningless

[Flips88]

Con Law question: Is Wickard still good law, or did Lopez and Morrison essentially overrule it?

Nah Wickard is still good law, though it's unclear if it would come out the same way if heard today.

[jess]

.

[hijodehombre]

Con Law question: Is Wickard still good law, or did Lopez and Morrison essentially overrule it?

Nah Wickard is still good law, though it's unclear if it would come out the same way if heard today.

Agree. The problem with Lopez and Morrison was that those statutes, Gun-Free Schools and VAWA, were not regulating economic activity, according to the SCOUTS.

[JenDarby]

Civ Pro Question:

Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?

i read freer like a week ago so i think the answer is yes.. however, i read free like a WEEK ago and have been drinking

it passes (a) because its got the common nucleus and passes Gibbs test
then it passes (b) because the that only excepts claims that have diverse parties

Edit: just looked and its a gray area according to Freer
page 631 of his supp - he says literally read it should allow it to join but basically the drafters of the statutes messed up because the result renders complete diversity meaningless

I feel like 1367(b) addresses this -

"the district courts shall not have supplemental jurisdiction under subsection (a) over claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 14, 19, 20, or 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or over claims by persons proposed to be joined as plaintiffs under Rule 19 of such rules, or seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24 of such rules, when exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332."

oh, NM. I read your question wrong. It looks good under statutory language actually, since its not AGAINST said parties.

[Bildungsroman]

Civ Pro Question:

Two plaintiffs joined by Rule 20 sue a Defendant. P1's claim is for 100k, P2 for 80k. P2 and D are not diverse. The two claims share a common nucleus of operative fact. Would P2 be able to make this claim under supplemental jxn?

i read freer like a week ago so i think the answer is yes.. however, i read free like a WEEK ago and have been drinking

it passes (a) because its got the common nucleus and passes Gibbs test
then it passes (b) because the that only excepts claims that have diverse parties

Edit: just looked and its a gray area according to Freer
page 631 of his supp - he says literally read it should allow it to join but basically the drafters of the statutes messed up because the result renders complete diversity meaningless

According to my class notes and my reading of 28 U.S.C. §1367: in a lawsuit in which the court's jurisdiction is derived entirely from §1332 (diversity jurisdiction) between the original plaintiff and defendant, the defendant adding a plaintiff under Rule 20 doesn't defeat jurisdiction even if it destroys complete diversity.

[JenDarby]

According to my class notes and my reading of 28 U.S.C. §1367: in a lawsuit in which the court's jurisdiction is derived entirely from §1332 (diversity jurisdiction) between the original plaintiff and defendant, the defendant adding a plaintiff under Rule 20 doesn't defeat jurisdiction even if it destroys complete diversity.

Yep, this. I got in a ninja edit, but didn't have time to delete my comment ha.

[LSATmakesMeNeurotic]

Okay, I was confused at first because it seems like after the Exxon case, you need to have complete diversity between the parties because Exxon didn't want to overrule Strawbridge, and since the two plaintiffs are joining together, it destroys complete diversity and allowing that would override Strawbridge?

That was a horribly formulated question, but you get the idea.

[beachbum]

I have no motivation. Exam on Tuesday.

Currently I'm stressed about not being stressed.

I feel the same...it's so weird. COMPLETELY different from last semester.

[JenDarby]

Okay, I was confused at first because it seems like after the Exxon case, you need to have complete diversity between the parties because Exxon didn't want to overrule Strawbridge, and since the two plaintiffs are joining together, it destroys complete diversity and allowing that would override Strawbridge?

That was a horribly formulated question, but you get the idea.

My outline says this for Exxon: "When P1 meets the amount and P2 does not, P2 CAN bootstrap to P1 under supplemental jurisdiction (Exxon Mobil Corp.)"

Exxon Mobile v Allapattah Services (US 2005) enactment of §1367 overruled Zahn.
a. When the complaint includes at least one that satisfies the amount in controversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the DC has original jurisdiction over that claim and the court can then turn to whether it has a constitutional and statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction
b. When the named representative satisfied the amount-in-controversy req, a fed court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ps whose claims do not meet the req, provided their claims are part of the same case/controversy as those who do

Exxon allows for supplemental jurisdiction, despite the fact that it would destroy diversity by failing the amount in controversy requirement. I think it's that Strawbridge doesn't apply to the SJ portion of your question for a P brought in under Rule 20, as its constitutional and doesn't defy 1367(b).

[hijodehombre]

Okay, I was confused at first because it seems like after the Exxon case, you need to have complete diversity between the parties because Exxon didn't want to overrule Strawbridge, and since the two plaintiffs are joining together, it destroys complete diversity and allowing that would override Strawbridge?

That was a horribly formulated question, but you get the idea.

My outline says this for Exxon: "When P1 meets the amount and P2 does not, P2 CAN bootstrap to P1 under supplemental jurisdiction (Exxon Mobil Corp.)"

Exxon Mobile v Allapattah Services (US 2005) enactment of §1367 overruled Zahn.
a. When the complaint includes at least one that satisfies the amount in controversy requirement, and there are no other relevant jurisdictional defects, the DC has original jurisdiction over that claim and the court can then turn to whether it has a constitutional and statutory basis for exercising supplemental jurisdiction
b. When the named representative satisfied the amount-in-controversy req, a fed court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Ps whose claims do not meet the req, provided their claims are part of the same case/controversy as those who do

Exxon allows for supplemental jurisdiction, despite the fact that it would destroy diversity by failing the amount in controversy requirement. I think it's that Strawbridge doesn't apply to the SJ portion of your question for a P brought in under Rule 20, as its constitutional and doesn't defy 1367(b).

That's basically what Glannon says in the E&E, p.98, but only as long as there is only one D.

[JenDarby]

That's basically what Glannon says in the E&E, p.98, but only as long as there is only one D.

I haven't read the E&E yet, but plan on doing it this week. This is extremely comforting, so thank you for that.

[bk1]

So burnt out.

[Flips88]

So burnt out.

5 days!