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

[noleknight16]

I am FREAKING OUT over this Civil Procedure final tomorrow.

[gaud]

I am FREAKING OUT over this Civil Procedure final tomorrow.

You got this bro

[dietcoke0]

I am FREAKING OUT over this Civil Procedure final tomorrow.

Freer Barbri. You said it's closed book right? Then it's going to be pretty soft on material. Don't need to go too deep. Remember to fucking do 1331-1332-(if it meets one, but not the other, with the one it does not meet first)-1367(a)-1367(b)

Then joinder, look for transaction and occurrence, and look for permissive or compulsory

Erie is Outcome determinative, then Balance the Interest, then Twin Aims

P Jx is Shoes, with purposeful availment, stream of commerce, O'Connor, Brennan, Ginsberg are golden

Then just basic stuff, like Venue, notice, pleading, transfer, removal.

Issue preclusion and claim preclusion just know the basics, when and how you can use it (my worse part)

I didn't do discovery, so can't help you there.

And just relax, it's not like torts, which is a race. Just think it through

[dietcoke0]

And mine was closed book today, 3 hour, I only needed 2, and got 3.5k words easily, and had plenty of time to sit and look at everything. It pops in your head quickly.

[noleknight16]

I am FREAKING OUT over this Civil Procedure final tomorrow.

Freer Barbri. You said it's closed book right? Then it's going to be pretty soft on material. Don't need to go too deep. Remember to fucking do 1331-1332-(if it meets one, but not the other, with the one it does not meet first)-1367(a)-1367(b)

Then joinder, look for transaction and occurrence, and look for permissive or compulsory

Erie is Outcome determinative, then Balance the Interest, then Twin Aims

P Jx is Shoes, with purposeful availment, stream of commerce, O'Connor, Brennan, Ginsberg are golden

Then just basic stuff, like Venue, notice, pleading, transfer, removal.

Issue preclusion and claim preclusion just know the basics, when and how you can use it (my worse part)

I didn't do discovery, so can't help you there.

And just relax, it's not like torts, which is a race. Just think it through

I've got a 3 hour open book exam. I watched Freer and it was a great lecture. She just does her tests weird. HUGE fact pattern with a full written complaint and then makes you the defense attorney. Then she asks strategy based questions (what should you do in the pleading phase, what's your strategy for your interview with so and so, X receives a document request, how should you respond)

SOOO naturally I try to figure out strategies to use as a defendant, here's my list:

Rule 12 motions/answers

Rule 8(c)(1) affirmative defenses (which interjects a new fact)

Address every claim in the complaint (deny, admit, do not know) via Rule 8(b)

Discovery tools

Motion For Summary Judgment via Rule 56

Counterclaims/crossclaims/impleader(indemnity or contribution)

Timings - (make sure you respond within the proper time after service of process)

Removal (fed ct would benefit D)/Transfer of Venue/Forum non-conveniens(typically moved to foreign ct, less potential losses for D)

Rule 11 + sanctions

[dietcoke0]

I am FREAKING OUT over this Civil Procedure final tomorrow.

Freer Barbri. You said it's closed book right? Then it's going to be pretty soft on material. Don't need to go too deep. Remember to fucking do 1331-1332-(if it meets one, but not the other, with the one it does not meet first)-1367(a)-1367(b)

Then joinder, look for transaction and occurrence, and look for permissive or compulsory

Erie is Outcome determinative, then Balance the Interest, then Twin Aims

P Jx is Shoes, with purposeful availment, stream of commerce, O'Connor, Brennan, Ginsberg are golden

Then just basic stuff, like Venue, notice, pleading, transfer, removal.

Issue preclusion and claim preclusion just know the basics, when and how you can use it (my worse part)

I didn't do discovery, so can't help you there.

And just relax, it's not like torts, which is a race. Just think it through

I've got a 3 hour open book exam. I watched Freer and it was a great lecture. She just does her tests weird. HUGE fact pattern with a full written complaint and then makes you the defense attorney. Then she asks strategy based questions (what should you do in the pleading phase, what's your strategy for your interview with so and so, X receives a document request, how should you respond)

SOOO naturally I try to figure out strategies to use as a defendant, here's my list:

Rule 12 motions/answers

Rule 8(c)(1) affirmative defenses (which interjects a new fact)

Address every claim in the complaint (deny, admit, do not know) via Rule 8(b)

Discovery tools

Motion For Summary Judgment via Rule 56

Counterclaims/crossclaims/impleader(indemnity or contribution)

Timings - (make sure you respond within the proper time after service of process)

Removal (fed ct would benefit D)/Transfer of Venue/Forum non-conveniens(typically moved to foreign ct, less potential losses for D)

Rule 11 + sanctions

Oh hell, that sounds so much more fun than my bullshit.

Twombly/Iqbal that shit. Defenitly try to move the venue. I read that it goes from P winning 57 to P winning 37 after a venue moving.

Crossclaims, especially compulsory (bring up claim preclusion) and permissive for judicial efficiency.

12(b)2-5 are golden. Don't forget notice and service of process

Don't forget SMJ too, but guessing you are going to be in State Court since she will probably want you to remove that shit.

Also, Personal Jurisdiction is so rich with little folds. That was the only thing I really went on and on about. So go with that too whenever you have a chance. (A from Texas, B from Oklahoma, A commits a tort in Kansas, B sues A in Oklahoma) So many ways to get that.

[Raiden]

K policy Question final tomorrow with a short word limit

Not even entirely sure how to tackle it, since making it jive with the professor's style seems to be just as important as the analysis (though it seems to be better to write a short essay)

Any tips on this?

[swimmer11]

Can someone explain to me what "should have known" means for Restatements 201(2)

A ordered chitterlings and hog maws from B. Chitterlings are pig intestines and hog maws are pig brains. B is unfamiliar with soul food and thinks that chitterlings are pig brains and hog maws are pig intestines. There is nothing to suggest that B knew what was correct and nothing to suggest A knew that B attached the different meaning.

What outcome?

[bamasplitter]

Anybody know a good resource for Civ Pro multiple choice practice questions? I feel pretty good about the essays, but the MC questions can be pretty tricky. Would like to have more practice under my belt.

[laxbrah420]

Anybody know a good resource for Civ Pro multiple choice practice questions? I feel pretty good about the essays, but the MC questions can be pretty tricky. Would like to have more practice under my belt.

The Q&A book is money.

[Bronck]

Holy shit, first final tomorrow (Torts). Stressing out, but took a good chunk of the day off too.

On all the practice tests, I only took around half-time (the professor said it should take us around 2.5hrs of the 4 hrs to complete). Any last minute tips for how to flesh out stuff? His fact patterns are pretty light (think: 1 page).

Edit: his model "answers" are pretty sparse. He doesn't have as many issues as other classes.

[SportsFan]

Holy shit, first final tomorrow (Torts). Stressing out, but took a good chunk of the day off too.

On all the practice tests, I only took around half-time (the professor said it should take us around 2.5hrs of the 4 hrs to complete). Any last minute tips for how to flesh out stuff? His fact patterns are pretty light (think: 1 page).

Remember: For every argument there is a counterargument! I put that on a sticky note on my desk like 2 weeks ago, and its helped me. Unless there's absolutely no dispute about an issue, think of how and why it could go the other way.

[Raiden]

Holy shit, first final tomorrow (Torts). Stressing out, but took a good chunk of the day off too.

On all the practice tests, I only took around half-time (the professor said it should take us around 2.5hrs of the 4 hrs to complete). Any last minute tips for how to flesh out stuff? His fact patterns are pretty light (think: 1 page).

Edit: his model "answers" are pretty sparse. He doesn't have as many issues as other classes.

It seems like getting all the issues shouldn't be as big of a deal (so you should be able to finish the entire exam). Focus on the issues that have the most controversies.

So the money will be in the analysis. Create a story and go back and forth, interplaying the same wording of the rule you set out with the facts. Be sure to give your judgement call as to whether you think a particular side's argument is effective or not. Interplay some policy arguments after you decide who has a better case to complicate things.

As always, see how your professor likes it.

[Pleasye]

Can someone explain to me what "should have known" means for Restatements 201(2)

A ordered chitterlings and hog maws from B. Chitterlings are pig intestines and hog maws are pig brains. B is unfamiliar with soul food and thinks that chitterlings are pig brains and hog maws are pig intestines. There is nothing to suggest that B knew what was correct and nothing to suggest A knew that B attached the different meaning.

What outcome?

The Restatement actually says "had reason to know". Here it looks like neither party had reason to know what the other party's meaning of "chitterlings" was so we would have to attach one of their meanings under (2). IMO you would attach B's meaning because of usage of trade. We should use the meaning of chitterlings because that is the meaning of the word in the soul food business.

Hope that helps and isn't confusing and if you'd like me to expand on it I can try.

[theaether]

intervening/superseding cause has to after the alleged negligence? A poisons beer. B gives it to C negligently. C drives reasonably and dies due to the poison, hitting someone. A is not a superseding cause? wtfff

[LetsGoLAW]

intervening/superseding cause has to after the alleged negligence? A poisons beer. B gives it to C negligently. C drives reasonably and dies due to the poison, hitting someone. A is not a superseding cause? wtfff

Bro, under what circumstances was B negligent? Did B know that it was poisonous?

[theaether]

intervening/superseding cause has to after the alleged negligence? A poisons beer. B gives it to C negligently. C drives reasonably and dies due to the poison, hitting someone. A is not a superseding cause? wtfff

Bro, under what circumstances was B negligent? Did B know that it was poisonous?

brobrobro m bad that shit was prolly confusing as hell. B is a bartender and sees that C is drunk already.

[LetsGoLAW]

intervening/superseding cause has to after the alleged negligence? A poisons beer. B gives it to C negligently. C drives reasonably and dies due to the poison, hitting someone. A is not a superseding cause? wtfff

Bro, under what circumstances was B negligent? Did B know that it was poisonous?

brobrobro m bad that shit was prolly confusing as hell. B is a bartender and sees that C is drunk already.

A few things. Torts is not my strong suit, but I'll give it a shot. Someone tell me if I'm off.

First, it depends if B saw A pour he poison in the drink. It seems unbelievable that B would pour a drink, leave it sitting for A to poison, then hand it to C. Also, it depends if A is an employee, owner, or guest. If B did not see it, it presents a different issue.

Duty: A landowner owes an invitee a duty to reasonably inspect, warn, and keep the premises safe. This duty includes protecting invitees from extreme intoxication.

Breach: Person hit: B did not reasonably inspect the premises to notice A pour in the poison. B: Every single person cannot be monitored at every given moment, especially in a bar with a lot of people. Bar tenders are constantly helping people. Person hit: B breached his duty when he gave a visibly drunk C another drink.

Cause: Multiple actual causes. "But for" A poisoning the beer, C would not have crashed. "But for" B giving C another beer, the poison might not have accelerated C's death and the person would not have been hit. "But for" C drinking too much, he would not have crashed. "But for" the person hit driving late at night, he or she would not have been hit. A few of these causes could independently and sufficiently cause the harm. A substantial factor test could be used. Therefore, B was a substantial factor because he materially contributed to the person being hit by giving a visibly drunk C another beer. The beer could have accelerated C's death.

Proximate cause: Drivers, bicyclists are foreseeable plaintiffs because they are within the scope of risk. It is foreseeable that serving a person too much to drink could lead to a car crash. Drunk patrons are not in the best position to make rational choices, so they might not take a taxi. Instead, they may drive home. (Under the Andrews test, foreseeability exists because the risk is not too far removed from the natural sequence of events.)

On the other hand, B could argue the manner of harm was not foreseeable. Here, C suddenly died of poisoning and crashed into the person hit. By could argue by handing someone another beer, it is not foreseeable they will die of poisoning behind a wheel. Although a possibility exists drunk drivers could die of alcohol poisoning behind a wheel, C was driving reasonably. Alternatively, the person hit could argue the same type of harm resulted. Although the manner of harm was unforeseeable, the harm was foreseeable because C could have hit someone as a result of drunk driving or poisoning.

(This is where I am confused. If B did not see it, then B is not the proximate cause. Although B negligently let C drink more and drive drunk, A's act was intentional and C died of the poison. He did not die of alcoholism. An argument could be made for acceleration, but the facts just are not clear about this. Now, if B did see it then he breached his duty to protect his business invitees. There, you have a better argument for proximate causation. That's what this argument turns on, I feel. I would continue with a longer proximate cause argument, but the last point makes me curious.)

Any constructive criticism would be great as I am trying hard to work on my torts. My weakest subject. Thanks.

[mr.hands]

I am FREAKING OUT over this Civil Procedure final tomorrow.

Also, Personal Jurisdiction is so rich with little folds. That was the only thing I really went on and on about. So go with that too whenever you have a chance. (A from Texas, B from Oklahoma, A commits a tort in Kansas, B sues A in Oklahoma) So many ways to get that.

How much is there really to write about that PJ-wise? General jurisdiction, Pennoyer-style. No need for long arm.

(i'm honestly asking because i've got my final coming up. i don't see a ton here so i need to know whether i should be freaking out or not)

[dietcoke0]

Go back and forth with details

P will say because the D sold widgets to store X in the forum state, that there should be p Jx.

P will say that there were minimum contacts based on International shoe. P will say the contacts have been systematic and continuous because D sells to X, and has for many years. Furthermore, since D sells to X, it will say that X purposely availed itself to the state.

D will counter, and say X was the one that solicited sales from them, and that they never availed themselves to the forum state.

D will bring up the O'Connor theory, stating just putting items in the stream of commerce is not enough, and that it needs to avail itself to the forum.

D will show that it never advertises or reaches out to that state, and just takes order in its own state

P will counter, and state the Brennan theory should be applied. P will state that it was foreseeable that since D sells to X in the forum state, a lawsuit may be brought up...


And so on. That was 178 words I wrote in about 4 minutes, just going back and forth over the facts with only "D sold to X in forum state, and P got hurt"

Pick out facts in actual test, and really take it for a ride.

[mr.hands]

Go back and forth with details

P will say because the D sold widgets to store X in the forum state, that there should be p Jx.

P will say that there were minimum contacts based on International shoe. P will say the contacts have been systematic and continuous because D sells to X, and has for many years. Furthermore, since D sells to X, it will say that X purposely availed itself to the state.

D will counter, and say X was the one that solicited sales from them, and that they never availed themselves to the forum state.

D will bring up the O'Connor theory, stating just putting items in the stream of commerce is not enough, and that it needs to avail itself to the forum.

D will show that it never advertises or reaches out to that state, and just takes order in its own state

P will counter, and state the Brennan theory should be applied. P will state that it was foreseeable that since D sells to X in the forum state, a lawsuit may be brought up...


And so on. That was 178 words I wrote in about 4 minutes, just going back and forth over the facts with only "D sold to X in forum state, and P got hurt"

Pick out facts in actual test, and really take it for a ride.

But the problem is that there's no stream of commerce argument and therefore no brennan/ginsberg/oconnor analysis. The lawsuit is over a tort, not a manufacturer putting a product into the stream of commerce.

Since there's general jurisdiction, there's no need to go into minimum contacts at all. There's no need for the long-arm either because the defendant is domiciled in the state where the lawsuit is being brought.

I guess you could go into the fairness factors, but i think that's unnecessary. There's no way in hell a defendant is going to convince a court that its too burdensome to defend himself in his own backyard

[dietcoke0]

General jurisdiction? That blows. Maybe work over domicile, if they really are part of that domicile, if the cause of action arose in the the forum state, availing self to that state, transient jurisdiction stuff, dunno what to tell you.

[gaud]

Odds I can snag the Siegels K's Q/A book at Barnes and Noble?

[Jsa725]

.

[gobuffs10]

Hey team. Hope everyone is well-rested.

Typing out my outlines today. Taking a few shorter practice tests. Feeling pretty good. Not scared in the slightest of these neurotic zombies illegally munching on addies all day long.

Hey now. Some of us are legally munching addies.

Still gotta sleep, though. No zombie mode. First final Tuesday, really straightforward crim. I'm not sure how to prep other than doing his packet of old exams, but there are no model answers. Plus, my school is weird and teaches the state statutes, not MPC or common law. Exam is closed book, we get the test and a packet of statutes. Any idea how to prep for this?