CivPro Exam Forum

[brickman]

So I'm fine with learning all the complex ass rules, it's just the nuance that the professor throws at me that I can't even begin to comprehend. I feel like I can understand when nuance is coming my way in torts and crim law, but I dunno what the fuck to do with it here.


As an example, here is a 2010 exam w/ answers:

--LinkRemoved--

comments appreciated.

[Extension_Cord]

So I'm fine with learning all the complex ass rules, it's just the nuance that the professor throws at me that I can't even begin to comprehend. I feel like I can understand when nuance is coming my way in torts and crim law, but I dunno what the fuck to do with it here.


As an example, here is a 2010 exam w/ answers:

--LinkRemoved--

comments appreciated.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu E, makes getting lucky that much more difficult.

[hurldes]

I'm in the same boat as you... but thanks for the practice final with answers! I'll definitely use this to prepare.

[skw]

Ditto.

[094320]

..

[brickman]

So I'm fine with learning all the complex ass rules, it's just the nuance that the professor throws at me that I can't even begin to comprehend. I feel like I can understand when nuance is coming my way in torts and crim law, but I dunno what the fuck to do with it here.


As an example, here is a 2010 exam w/ answers:

--LinkRemoved--

comments appreciated.

What sorts of comments are you looking for?

Extrapolation and variation of concepts in torts and crim is easy. but for this course, I just don't see all the areas where things can get interesting.

I don't see how the hell you can even conceptualize this type of stuff. I just work to make sure i have a super good understanding of how everything works together and then he throws random shit at me and i'm all like "wut"

[brickman]

Ditto.

here are several of his:

http://msgre2.people.wm.edu/Old%20Final ... cedure.htm

got any to share?

[094320]

..

[brickman]

So I'm fine with learning all the complex ass rules, it's just the nuance that the professor throws at me that I can't even begin to comprehend. I feel like I can understand when nuance is coming my way in torts and crim law, but I dunno what the fuck to do with it here.


As an example, here is a 2010 exam w/ answers:

--LinkRemoved--

comments appreciated.

What sorts of comments are you looking for?

Extrapolation and variation of concepts in torts and crim is easy. but for this course, I just don't see all the areas where things can get interesting.

I don't see how the hell you can even conceptualize this type of stuff. I just work to make sure i have a super good understanding of how everything works together and then he throws random shit at me and i'm all like "wut"

There's not a lot of extrapolation going on in Civ Pro. It's basically a series of a lot of rules and you have to know when they apply and how to apply it and in what order. Civ Pro is like one very large logic game. Just go step by step.

If you look at the essays for this professor and you still believe that, then i'll feel much better.

[094320]

..

[bdubs]

Your professor seems like kind of a jerk in his answer key. This does look like a pretty standard civ pro exam though. The thing about PJ and Erie questions are that the standard is not entirely clear, hence all of the divided opinions from the Supreme Court. Just know the cases well and analogize the heck out of the facts. It's a subject where you need to be a little more creative than the typical BLL of torts or property.

[brickman]

For some reason CivPro has just seemed alien to me the entire semester. I've been keeping up on doing the E&Es and everything, but I just don't have any comfort level with it.

and I'm still struggling to figure out how to get comfortable with talking about difficult factual situations with just about every element of CivPro.

STRESS

[shock259]

Cool - thanks for the practice tests! ^_^

[ph14]

Cool - thanks for the practice tests! ^_^

+1. Thanks a lot man.

[bdubs]

For some reason CivPro has just seemed alien to me the entire semester. I've been keeping up on doing the E&Es and everything, but I just don't have any comfort level with it.

and I'm still struggling to figure out how to get comfortable with talking about difficult factual situations with just about every element of CivPro.

STRESS

Try making a flowchart/decision tree.

PJ looks something like this:

Fair play and substantial justice -> Minimum contacts or Personal Service or [creative argument, i.e. International Defendant, etc...]
Minimum contacts -> Purposeful direction, or Purposeful availment, or Stream of Commerce, or Effects (these can overlap quite a bit, but they can be distinguished too)
Underlying forms of contact -> Intentional torts, or Negligence/unintentional torts, or non-commercial actor, etc.....

You could probably go a few levels deeper, but you get the basic idea. Graphical form sometimes help in applying complex standards.

[brickman]

so the E&E is pretty shitty on the PJ section, any good suggestions for practice?

[094320]

..

[ph14]

so the E&E is pretty shitty on the PJ section, any good suggestions for practice?

My prof has hypos he made up. I'll PM you them.

Pm to me as well please!

[merc280]

..

[merc280]

so the E&E is pretty shitty on the PJ section, any good suggestions for practice?

My prof has hypos he made up. I'll PM you them.

Pm to me as well please!

me too please. thank you

[Breezin]

PM me too please!

[dabomb75]

can I get these magical hypos as well?


Also, I've heard the acing civil procedure book has decent practice Qs in it general. Not sure how it is specifically for PJ but you might want to take a look at the book

[PinkCow]

Add me to the magic hypo list?

Also, OP your prof does sound a little...tense...Is he a jerk in class?

[johansantana21]

Could I get these hypos too? Thanks!

[brickman]

Add me to the magic hypo list?

Also, OP your prof does sound a little...tense...Is he a jerk in class?

haha, no he is an excellent professor, brilliant guy. but he is certainly enthusiastic.

he uses this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-bise ... oefficient

to determine when to drop out a multiple choice question. Yaleies...go figure.