OFFICIAL 1L Exam Prep & Motivation Thread (CSWS) Forum

[SportsFan]

So glad my property class didn't even get to easements.

Since its an elective now at Penn, it only met 2 days a week instead of 3, so we covered a lot less material than most property classes. But we did go pretty in depth with the things we did cover, tbf.

[Nelson]

So glad my property class didn't even get to easements.

It was a pretty atypical property class. In addition to easements, we didn't do gifts, joint tenancy, nemo dat, title records, or much at all with RaP. It was really heavy on policy though.

[mephistopheles]

So glad my property class didn't even get to easements.

It was a pretty atypical property class. In addition to easements, we didn't do gifts, joint tenancy, nemo dat, title records, or much at all with RaP. It was really heavy on policy though.

so at least it was fun. policy in property is great.

[rustyyoda]

Does anyone have a good attack plan for dormant commerce clause questions? Struggling real hard right now. Our prof laid it out as a 3 category system (facially discriminatory laws, facially neutral laws with even effects, and facially netural laws with uneven effects). I'm just not sure where to go with it from there, or what to talk about before getting to that point.

[SportsFan]

So glad my property class didn't even get to easements.

It was a pretty atypical property class. In addition to easements, we didn't do gifts, joint tenancy, nemo dat, title records, or much at all with RaP. It was really heavy on policy though.

so at least it was fun. policy in property is great.

Eh, not the way the professor taught it. It was mostly just confusing.

[laxbrah420]

I'm still baffled by a conlaw question and can't find the answer anywhere. Basically, question says congress, in response to a gay Native American getting beaten up by some firefighters, passes a hate crimes legislation that makes it criminal to beat up protected groups; they have some data about it being a problem, and they have justify it with the 13th and 14th amendments (so limit discussion to those). We did zero 13th amendment shit, but I had read stuff about badges of slavery and said they'd probably need to be clearer about why this relates to reconstruction/slavery concerns than just saying "13th amendment snuckas"...then I just said 14th is weak here because this really seems like a private issue and not state action...then did city of boerne/Garrett/lane shit anyways. The hate legislation aimed to protect both blacks and gays...so I said the scrutiny only goes as high as the least protected group...which I pulled out my ass and still don't know...and for 13th amendment, I'm trying to find a case where they applied the section 5 abrogation tests to 13(2) but I can't find that either...
Any thoughts?

[hyakku]

Had Civ Pro, typed like 5700 words in three hours and still didn't get to complete as much as I felt I should. Unsure how to feel, thought I had good analysis but everyone coming out talking about how "fair" or "not too bad" it was made me feel better, because I know for a fucking fact that was not an easy test (might actually turn out to be one of the hardest I have both semesters, we'll see after these next two). Only thing that concerns me is someone mentioned something about someone's state citizenship and how one of my friends said he missed it, but I'm pretty sure they either misspoke or I missed it too lol. Fortunately I did a diversity analysis anyway so I'm hoping I'm good there, but I'm 99% certain I got at least one or two true falses wrong so we'll see what happens. Just glad to be done with that, I've known I'm going transactional since before entering so Civ Pro was just the worst for me.


Ks is my only open notebook exam and I'm thinking about potentially prewriting for it. Any thoughts on this? I've got a flowchart going (a one pager from the guy who made the UCC that's actually awesome) and another flowchart along with another checklist, but I'm wondering if anyone has any checklists they found particularly helpful or any advice about prewriting for this? Definitely wanna crush this class and I think I've got my teacher's policy rationale down pat.

God, looking at Con Law questions though just makes me feel bad again, glad I'm done with that, and I kind of enjoyed that class.

[HellOnHeels]

thanks to those who tried to help me with vertical privity questions. sorry if my question was confusing, i was so confused about it that i didn't even know how to ask what i wanted (and i was dead tired when i posted that).

doesn't matter now. bombed property exam. ohhhs well

[RaleighStClair]

Hey all, longtime lurker here.

Does anyone happen to have any good long-form property issue spotters (with or without model answers) with both real and personal property issues?

Final is coming up on Monday, and our prof won't give us any sample exams, and this is his first time teaching it here so I can't find any anywhere else. He's incredibly rule-based, so basically a 2.5 hour racehorse exam with some multiple choice as well. Blagh.

[Jsa725]

.

[laxbrah420]

I found a folder of property exams on TLS and then added some more to it.
--LinkRemoved-- I haven't looked at all of them but there's some decent ones.
I thought that this bros exams were actually real solid though:
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gvetter/c ... ng2009.htm

[laxbrah420]

Does anyone have a good attack plan for dormant commerce clause questions? Struggling real hard right now. Our prof laid it out as a 3 category system (facially discriminatory laws, facially neutral laws with even effects, and facially netural laws with uneven effects). I'm just not sure where to go with it from there, or what to talk about before getting to that point.

That's literally it bro.

Stage 1. Discriminatory State Purpose Inquiry: Does the measure have an underlying purpose (whether facial or hidden) to discriminate economically against out-of-staters?
a. if Yes, measure is absolutely per se invalid and struck down –inquiry is ended.
b. If No, go to Stage 2 Balancing.
Stage 2. Balancing
a. Inquiry: Is measure discriminatory on its face?
i. If Yes, measure is heavily presume invalid (Test: for measure to survive, state has heavy burden of proving the measure is almost certain to achieve its legitimate purpose, and that the purpose cannot be served as well by available less-discrimnatory means (similar to “strict scrutiny”)).
ii. If NO, go to b.
b. Inquiry: Is the measure discriminatory in effect?
i. If YES, measure is presume invalid. (Test: for measure to survive, state has burden of proving that the measure is likely to achieve its legitimate purpose; challenger then has the burden of either rebutting the state’s justification or showing that the purpose can be served as well by available less-discriminatory alternatives (similar to a cross between “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny”)).
ii. If NO, go to c.
c. Inquiry: Is the measure evenhanded in effect?
i. If YES, measure is presumed valid. (Test: challenger has burden of proving that the measure’s burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to state benefits (similar to “rational basis”)).
d. Inquiry: Is the state a market participant?
i. if YES, measure is valid, despite DCC analysis above.
ii. If NO, measure is valid/invalid determined by DCC analysis above.

[rustyyoda]

Does anyone have a good attack plan for dormant commerce clause questions? Struggling real hard right now. Our prof laid it out as a 3 category system (facially discriminatory laws, facially neutral laws with even effects, and facially netural laws with uneven effects). I'm just not sure where to go with it from there, or what to talk about before getting to that point.

That's literally it bro.

Stage 1. Discriminatory State Purpose Inquiry: Does the measure have an underlying purpose (whether facial or hidden) to discriminate economically against out-of-staters?
a. if Yes, measure is absolutely per se invalid and struck down –inquiry is ended.
b. If No, go to Stage 2 Balancing.
Stage 2. Balancing
a. Inquiry: Is measure discriminatory on its face?
i. If Yes, measure is heavily presume invalid (Test: for measure to survive, state has heavy burden of proving the measure is almost certain to achieve its legitimate purpose, and that the purpose cannot be served as well by available less-discrimnatory means (similar to “strict scrutiny”)).
ii. If NO, go to b.
b. Inquiry: Is the measure discriminatory in effect?
i. If YES, measure is presume invalid. (Test: for measure to survive, state has burden of proving that the measure is likely to achieve its legitimate purpose; challenger then has the burden of either rebutting the state’s justification or showing that the purpose can be served as well by available less-discriminatory alternatives (similar to a cross between “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny”)).
ii. If NO, go to c.
c. Inquiry: Is the measure evenhanded in effect?
i. If YES, measure is presumed valid. (Test: challenger has burden of proving that the measure’s burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to state benefits (similar to “rational basis”)).
d. Inquiry: Is the state a market participant?
i. if YES, measure is valid, despite DCC analysis above.
ii. If NO, measure is valid/invalid determined by DCC analysis above.

I'm a girl, but thanks I guess I just feel like there should somehow be more to it. It seems simple compared to every other darn con law doctrine. So it probably won't be on the exam.

[stillwater]

Does anyone have a good attack plan for dormant commerce clause questions? Struggling real hard right now. Our prof laid it out as a 3 category system (facially discriminatory laws, facially neutral laws with even effects, and facially netural laws with uneven effects). I'm just not sure where to go with it from there, or what to talk about before getting to that point.

That's literally it bro.

Stage 1. Discriminatory State Purpose Inquiry: Does the measure have an underlying purpose (whether facial or hidden) to discriminate economically against out-of-staters?
a. if Yes, measure is absolutely per se invalid and struck down –inquiry is ended.
b. If No, go to Stage 2 Balancing.
Stage 2. Balancing
a. Inquiry: Is measure discriminatory on its face?
i. If Yes, measure is heavily presume invalid (Test: for measure to survive, state has heavy burden of proving the measure is almost certain to achieve its legitimate purpose, and that the purpose cannot be served as well by available less-discrimnatory means (similar to “strict scrutiny”)).
ii. If NO, go to b.
b. Inquiry: Is the measure discriminatory in effect?
i. If YES, measure is presume invalid. (Test: for measure to survive, state has burden of proving that the measure is likely to achieve its legitimate purpose; challenger then has the burden of either rebutting the state’s justification or showing that the purpose can be served as well by available less-discriminatory alternatives (similar to a cross between “strict scrutiny” and “intermediate scrutiny”)).
ii. If NO, go to c.
c. Inquiry: Is the measure evenhanded in effect?
i. If YES, measure is presumed valid. (Test: challenger has burden of proving that the measure’s burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to state benefits (similar to “rational basis”)).
d. Inquiry: Is the state a market participant?
i. if YES, measure is valid, despite DCC analysis above.
ii. If NO, measure is valid/invalid determined by DCC analysis above.

I'm a girl, but thanks I guess I just feel like there should somehow be more to it. It seems simple compared to every other darn con law doctrine. So it probably won't be on the exam.

what is a rusty yoda?

[Jsa725]

.

[rustyyoda]

I'm a girl, but thanks I guess I just feel like there should somehow be more to it. It seems simple compared to every other darn con law doctrine. So it probably won't be on the exam.

what is a rusty yoda?

this. otherwise, i'll associate it to a rusty trombone

The names of my cats! Rusty and Yoda.

[stillwater]

I'm a girl, but thanks I guess I just feel like there should somehow be more to it. It seems simple compared to every other darn con law doctrine. So it probably won't be on the exam.

what is a rusty yoda?

this. otherwise, i'll associate it to a rusty trombone

The names of my cats! Rusty and Yoda.

disappointingly pedestrian

[gregfootball2001]

Civ pro is doooooone. Whew. Con law friday! Okay CSWS crew, let's get it done - this week will affect the rest of our lives.

[laxbrah420]

ladies is pimps too

[Doorkeeper]

Random DCC question now that the topic has been brought up: Is Dean Milk an example of (a) facially neutral + protectionist purpose, or (b) balancing?

[dannynoonan87]

Just typed up my notes on the OBAMAcare case (sebelius)

Who want what? PM me your e-mail (you don't need to if you did so already)

Can't stop won't stop roc-a-fella records

[laxbrah420]

Doorkeeper, that's a weird/tough question considering it discriminated equally against people on the edge of Wisconsin equally to out of staters, but preferenced distributers that were close to Madison. It was 19 years before balancing became an actual thing in Pike, and took an analysis more close to the "A" situation (aka 1. did it serve a legit purpose AND 2 is it narrowly tailored), but i don't know if your question can really be answered

[laxbrah420]

Anyone have an IP outline that has Myriad/Mayo in it?

[Nova]

I found a folder of property exams on TLS and then added some more to it.
--LinkRemoved-- I haven't looked at all of them but there's some decent ones.
I thought that this bros exams were actually real solid though:
http://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/gvetter/c ... ng2009.htm

Thanks for these, Lax.

[SportsFan]

No motivation to keep studying for my last final (crim tomorrow). Can't wait until its over.