1L Exam Prep and Motivation Thread Forum

[ph14]

As far as Iqbal/Twombly;

On a practical level, Twombly and Iqbal establish a clear practice and procedure for evaluating a complaint. First, district judges must pore through the complaint for any allegations that appear “conclusory”—allegations that are “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” In other words, judges should keep an eye out for allegations containing little more than elements of the legal claim at issue. Then, judges should weigh the remaining facts against the prevailing legal standard and determine if the claim crosses over the still-somewhat-muddy threshold of “plausibility.”

--LinkRemoved--

I remember looking that up when we first read the cases. Shows that it's actually not that complicated (unless you are dealing with a real life case that is; on exams we just need to apply the doctrine in a non-laughable way):

Step 1; ignore the conclusory allegations.
Step 2; do the remaining allegations plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?



Just wanted to point out that I still think it's kinda bullshit.

wouldn't it be:

Step 1: ignore the conclusory allegations
Step 2: does the evidence plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or is it something like Step 2: does the evidence + plausible (?) inferences suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or none of the above?

[ilovesf]

Good Lord, forget what I said about not being stressed. I just looked at my exam prep calendar, which has the little days marked off, as many of you also do. Holy baby Jesus in Heaven, eight days of studying left until the first exam. I now understand what everyone here has been freaking over. I mean, this is still substantial amounts of time. I just can't believe we're already here.

ilovesf, kudos to you for being even closer in the exam timeline than we are and not flipping your s.

oh no, my first exam is december 1st.. i have longer than you i go through stages of flipping out and being totally confident about the exam.. i don't tend to flip out online though... i cry in bed, watch scary movies and eat ice cream.

Oh no, I don't kick off until December 6th. I just made a study schedule where I set aside whole days for each topic. I understand this will likely fall by the wayside as the crazy sets in; however, I can dream. I understand the cry in bed. I usually like to alleviate my pain by pretending to online shop. Pretending because I don't have the money/need said money for purchase of xmas gifts to spend on the pretend lovely outfits.

ohhh. dec 6, lucky you! my second exam is already on dec 7.. i'm lucky though because my three exams are all six days apart, so i have 5 days in between to dedicate to that subject. and online shopping is also tcr. i have shopping bags set up on almost every website i frequent

[ph14]

Good Lord, forget what I said about not being stressed. I just looked at my exam prep calendar, which has the little days marked off, as many of you also do. Holy baby Jesus in Heaven, eight days of studying left until the first exam. I now understand what everyone here has been freaking over. I mean, this is still substantial amounts of time. I just can't believe we're already here.

ilovesf, kudos to you for being even closer in the exam timeline than we are and not flipping your s.

oh no, my first exam is december 1st.. i have longer than you i go through stages of flipping out and being totally confident about the exam.. i don't tend to flip out online though... i cry in bed, watch scary movies and eat ice cream.

Oh no, I don't kick off until December 6th. I just made a study schedule where I set aside whole days for each topic. I understand this will likely fall by the wayside as the crazy sets in; however, I can dream. I understand the cry in bed. I usually like to alleviate my pain by pretending to online shop. Pretending because I don't have the money/need said money for purchase of xmas gifts to spend on the pretend lovely outfits.

ohhh. dec 6, lucky you! my second exam is already on dec 7.. i'm lucky though because my three exams are all six days apart, so i have 5 days in between to dedicate to that subject. and online shopping is also tcr. i have shopping bags set up on almost every website i frequent

I think I have 4 exams in one week . that's going to be an intense week.

[ilovesf]

I think I have 4 exams in one week . that's going to be an intense week.

omg. that sucks. on the bright side, at least you get it all over with quickly.

[ph14]

I think I have 4 exams in one week . that's going to be an intense week.

omg. that sucks. on the bright side, at least you get it all over with quickly.

Like pulling off a bandaid, right? Some of those are take homes though so I will be in exams for like...1 full day out of 5.

[ilovesf]

I think I have 4 exams in one week . that's going to be an intense week.

omg. that sucks. on the bright side, at least you get it all over with quickly.

Like pulling off a bandaid, right?

exactly

[dabomb75]

Yay! Congrats. But how do you hate civpro? It's beautiful!

I don't understand how anyone could consider Civil Procedure an enjoyable class. It's like enjoying baseball not for the game, but for the commissioners ability to set coordinate a season.

On that note though, just got back from 8 hours with Richard Freer w/ BarBri doing CivPro review... Holy fuck! That pretty much took most all of my fears away and I feel totally capable of tackling anything my prof could throw at me. Seriously, if anyone gets a chance to do so, go to one of his lectures (He was in Philly today, will be on NYC tomorrow; so any NY folks, go check it out.)

Well, now that my CivPro outline is out of the way, as is my Torts. I just have to worry about Contracts which we've been doing hypos almost everyday since the beginning of the semester, so feeling decent enough about it.

That said, I'm still panicking a bit. This is for real and I really worry about my performance....

we go to the same school! Didn't think anyone else from our school was posting in this thread. I skipped his lecture because I've watched the relevant parts online and it's not too helpful with the way our professor teaches. Also, I actually really enjoy civ pro. Probably my 2nd favorite class this semester

As far as Iqbal/Twombly;

On a practical level, Twombly and Iqbal establish a clear practice and procedure for evaluating a complaint. First, district judges must pore through the complaint for any allegations that appear “conclusory”—allegations that are “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” In other words, judges should keep an eye out for allegations containing little more than elements of the legal claim at issue. Then, judges should weigh the remaining facts against the prevailing legal standard and determine if the claim crosses over the still-somewhat-muddy threshold of “plausibility.”

--LinkRemoved--

I remember looking that up when we first read the cases. Shows that it's actually not that complicated (unless you are dealing with a real life case that is; on exams we just need to apply the doctrine in a non-laughable way):

Step 1; ignore the conclusory allegations.
Step 2; do the remaining allegations plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?



Just wanted to point out that I still think it's kinda bullshit.

wouldn't it be:

Step 1: ignore the conclusory allegations
Step 2: does the evidence plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or is it something like Step 2: does the evidence + plausible (?) inferences suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or none of the above?

Our professor made sure to make it clear to us that you don't ignore conclusory allegations. They just aren't entitled to the presumption of truth that ordinarily applies at the pleading stage.

The plaintiff must allege specific facts that if true, establish a context within which the core allegation may plausibly be inferred.

So basically, separate out the conclusory stuff, and then look at all the facts (which are given the assumption of truth), plus interpret the conclusory stuff together with the facts and see if it's plausible.

Not 100% sure on how the conclusory allegations are determined, I think as someone earlier said, they're based on a judge's intuition basically

[TheFutureLawyer]

As far as Iqbal/Twombly;

On a practical level, Twombly and Iqbal establish a clear practice and procedure for evaluating a complaint. First, district judges must pore through the complaint for any allegations that appear “conclusory”—allegations that are “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” In other words, judges should keep an eye out for allegations containing little more than elements of the legal claim at issue. Then, judges should weigh the remaining facts against the prevailing legal standard and determine if the claim crosses over the still-somewhat-muddy threshold of “plausibility.”

--LinkRemoved--

I remember looking that up when we first read the cases. Shows that it's actually not that complicated (unless you are dealing with a real life case that is; on exams we just need to apply the doctrine in a non-laughable way):

Step 1; ignore the conclusory allegations.
Step 2; do the remaining allegations plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?



Just wanted to point out that I still think it's kinda bullshit.

wouldn't it be:

Step 1: ignore the conclusory allegations
Step 2: does the evidence plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or is it something like Step 2: does the evidence + plausible (?) inferences suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or none of the above?

Our professor made sure to make it clear to us that you don't ignore conclusory allegations. They just aren't entitled to the presumption of truth that ordinarily applies at the pleading stage.

The plaintiff must allege specific facts that if true, establish a context within which the core allegation may plausibly be inferred.

So basically, separate out the conclusory stuff, and then look at all the facts (which are given the assumption of truth), plus interpret the conclusory stuff together with the facts and see if it's plausible.

Not 100% sure on how the conclusory allegations are determined, I think as someone earlier said, they're based on a judge's intuition basically

To underlined; funny you should say that. That was something I specifically asked about after class because I wasn't sure, and our prof said that the conclusory allegations were supposed to essentially be deleted from the complaint and then re-read by the judge to determine if the remaining facts plausibly suggest...

Anyone want to figure out this mystery? I'm working on Ks right now in the library.

[TheFutureLawyer]

I think I have 4 exams in one week . that's going to be an intense week.

omg. that sucks. on the bright side, at least you get it all over with quickly.

Like pulling off a bandaid, right?

exactly

mine (4) are all in 8 days (starting on the 7th). definitely feeling the pressure right now. wish I started preparing a few weeks back. Definitely gonna plan out my prep for finals better next semester.

[dabomb75]

As far as Iqbal/Twombly;

On a practical level, Twombly and Iqbal establish a clear practice and procedure for evaluating a complaint. First, district judges must pore through the complaint for any allegations that appear “conclusory”—allegations that are “threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” In other words, judges should keep an eye out for allegations containing little more than elements of the legal claim at issue. Then, judges should weigh the remaining facts against the prevailing legal standard and determine if the claim crosses over the still-somewhat-muddy threshold of “plausibility.”

--LinkRemoved--

I remember looking that up when we first read the cases. Shows that it's actually not that complicated (unless you are dealing with a real life case that is; on exams we just need to apply the doctrine in a non-laughable way):

Step 1; ignore the conclusory allegations.
Step 2; do the remaining allegations plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?



Just wanted to point out that I still think it's kinda bullshit.

wouldn't it be:

Step 1: ignore the conclusory allegations
Step 2: does the evidence plausibly suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or is it something like Step 2: does the evidence + plausible (?) inferences suggest a claim for which relief can be granted?

Or none of the above?

Our professor made sure to make it clear to us that you don't ignore conclusory allegations. They just aren't entitled to the presumption of truth that ordinarily applies at the pleading stage.

The plaintiff must allege specific facts that if true, establish a context within which the core allegation may plausibly be inferred.

So basically, separate out the conclusory stuff, and then look at all the facts (which are given the assumption of truth), plus interpret the conclusory stuff together with the facts and see if it's plausible.

Not 100% sure on how the conclusory allegations are determined, I think as someone earlier said, they're based on a judge's intuition basically

To underlined; funny you should say that. That was something I specifically asked about after class because I wasn't sure, and our prof said that the conclusory allegations were supposed to essentially be deleted from the complaint and then re-read by the judge to determine if the remaining facts plausibly suggest...

Anyone want to figure out this mystery? I'm working on Ks right now in the library.

haha I think this may be one of those things where there's no clear standard yet since Iqbal+Twombly are fairly recent, and the courts are still trying to figure it out, so you just go with whatever interpretation your professor gave you

[theavrock]

The Iqbal 2 Step (oh law professor humor)

1. Conclusionary statements (generic legal regurgitations not supported by any facts in case) are not entitled to the presumption of truth. To be entitled to the presumption of truth, statements must be non-conclusory (supported by facts)

2. once the conclusory statements are removed is there enough in complaint to allow lawsuit to proceed (facts enough on which a claim for relief would be entitled)?
I. what is left must lead to something that is plausible, not merely possible
II. P now has burden of casting doubt on D's " innocent explanations" - must rule out normal explanations

In Iqbal for instance all the P did was restate the elements of the legal claim he was trying to assert and insert the P's name in the appropriate places. Once these statements were removed the only things that were left were things that could have supported his claim, but also could have been supported by many other innocent explanations.

The trade off's involved are that we are basically throwing out some potentially meritorious claims that may simply need discovery to uncover the facts they are alleging for the benefit of disposing of frivolous claims where P is on a fishing expedition.

I think people get up in arms about it because it such a huge departure from the Conley standard and the heightened pleasing standard does bar many P's that may otherwise have meritorious claims but simply need discovery to uncover them.

[northwood]

relieved that i dont have that the iqbal test until next semester.... now i can sleep wellish tojnight

[theavrock]

relieved that i dont have that the iqbal test until next semester.... now i can sleep wellish tojnight

Well we haven't touched Erie or joinder yet, so I am not looking forward to that in Civ Pro 2. Yeesh.

[crossarmant]

relieved that i dont have that the iqbal test until next semester.... now i can sleep wellish tojnight

Well we haven't touched Erie or joinder yet, so I am not looking forward to that in Civ Pro 2. Yeesh.

Eeeekkk Two semesters of CivPro? That's enough to [/self]

[ph14]

relieved that i dont have that the iqbal test until next semester.... now i can sleep wellish tojnight

Well we haven't touched Erie or joinder yet, so I am not looking forward to that in Civ Pro 2. Yeesh.

Eeeekkk Two semesters of CivPro? That's enough to [/self]

I wouldn't mind 2 semester of Civ Pro. Cramming it all into 1 semester means we go pretty quickly.

[dabomb75]

hooray for not having to learn joinder at all.

BTW speaking of Erie, anyone want to explain Gasperini to me? I just don't understand it at all, and we're not going over it in class for a while, but I want to finish the Erie part of my outline today

[northwood]

if you arent certain of a topic, dont put it in your outline. you dont want to learn somethign wrong, only to have to unlearn what you learned and learn the correct part....

[dabomb75]

if you arent certain of a topic, dont put it in your outline. you dont want to learn somethign wrong, only to have to unlearn what you learned and learn the correct part....

meh, I have an old outline from my professor's class, so I know I'm not learning the wrong interpretation for any of the Erie cases, I'm just having a hard time understanding one of the cases

[FeelTheHeat]

if you arent certain of a topic, dont put it in your outline. you dont want to learn somethign wrong, only to have to unlearn what you learned and learn the correct part....

*Proceeds to remove entire damages sections from contracts*

[ilovesf]

hooray for not having to learn joinder at all.

BTW speaking of Erie, anyone want to explain Gasperini to me? I just don't understand it at all, and we're not going over it in class for a while, but I want to finish the Erie part of my outline today

i'm sooo jealous. i hate joinders.

[ph14]

hooray for not having to learn joinder at all.

BTW speaking of Erie, anyone want to explain Gasperini to me? I just don't understand it at all, and we're not going over it in class for a while, but I want to finish the Erie part of my outline today

i'm sooo jealous. i hate joinders.

Joinder is okay, some of the less common ones are confusing (Rules 19 and 24 in particular). What keeps killing me is supplemental jurisdiction. I need to review that.

[TheFutureLawyer]

hooray for not having to learn joinder at all.

BTW speaking of Erie, anyone want to explain Gasperini to me? I just don't understand it at all, and we're not going over it in class for a while, but I want to finish the Erie part of my outline today

i'm sooo jealous. i hate joinders.

After any and all doctrines of Contracts, I hate joinder the next most. But seriously, I knew Ks was my weakest subject, but it is taking way longer to understand the basics of than any other subject. If Property is supposed to be as bad as Contracts, I am really going to hate life next semester (we have Ks year round, along with Civ Pro).

[ph14]

hooray for not having to learn joinder at all.

BTW speaking of Erie, anyone want to explain Gasperini to me? I just don't understand it at all, and we're not going over it in class for a while, but I want to finish the Erie part of my outline today

i'm sooo jealous. i hate joinders.

After any and all doctrines of Contracts, I hate joinder the next most. But seriously, I knew Ks was my weakest subject, but it is taking way longer to understand the basics of than any other subject. If Property is supposed to be as bad as Contracts, I am really going to hate life next semester (we have Ks year round, along with Civ Pro).

Haven't taken Ks yet, but don't have high hopes for property.

[crossarmant]

After any and all doctrines of Contracts, I hate joinder the next most. But seriously, I knew Ks was my weakest subject, but it is taking way longer to understand the basics of than any other subject. If Property is supposed to be as bad as Contracts, I am really going to hate life next semester (we have Ks year round, along with Civ Pro).

Haven't taken Ks yet, but don't have high hopes for property.

Don't know why all the Contracts hate. Maybe it's just my professor, but I think it's a pretty enjoyable class. Granted, our prof doesn't even touch on the whole "Is this UCC or Common Law, does CISG apply, etc". He's solely focused on the principles and the application, we've been taught all year almost solely with hypos.

That said, yeah, I've no high hopes for Property next semester.

[ilovesf]

After any and all doctrines of Contracts, I hate joinder the next most. But seriously, I knew Ks was my weakest subject, but it is taking way longer to understand the basics of than any other subject. If Property is supposed to be as bad as Contracts, I am really going to hate life next semester (we have Ks year round, along with Civ Pro).

Haven't taken Ks yet, but don't have high hopes for property.

Don't know why all the Contracts hate. Maybe it's just my professor, but I think it's a pretty enjoyable class. Granted, our prof doesn't even touch on the whole "Is this UCC or Common Law, does CISG apply, etc". He's solely focused on the principles and the application, we've been taught all year almost solely with hypos.

That said, yeah, I've no high hopes for Property next semester.

I took property, torts and civpro this semester and property was actually my favorite class. There are really boring areas (future estates, blerg), but in general, I really liked it... this is probably because my professor is a hot 35-40 year old belgian guy. I take contracts, crim law, conn law and one statutory class of my choice (immigration) next semester... I am not looking forward to Ks at all.