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

[20130312]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Yeah that's pretty much what I did.

A v B
Paragraph on intentional tort
Paragraph on negligence
Alternative negligence theory X
Alternative negligence theory Y

A v C
...
etc.

And have counter arguments within those paragraphs as well.

[MrSparkle]

So a couple of people are telling me Twiqbal didn't come up on the exam, whereas I was positive it did and made it a fairly big part of one of my answers.

Now, I'm terrified I fucked up an entire question, uh.

Share the hypo and we can figure it out. What do you remember?

It was a pleading question- for fraud. So rule 9 heightened pleading standards. I argued Twiqbal still applied whereas some other people didn't think so and didn't talk about it.

Edit: Pleading against a 12(b)(6) motion.

I'm going to go against the grain here and say it's not a twiqbal issue when it's about rule 9. The particularity standard has always been in the FRCP since the Field Code days, because without it you'd get the floodgates problem, and fraud attached to every action, to get past dismissal. This would lead to excessive discovery on its own. You don't need Twiqbal when the rule says it the way it is -- "particularity."

[shredderrrrrr]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Yeah that's pretty much what I did.

A v B
Paragraph on intentional tort
Paragraph on negligence
Alternative negligence theory X
Alternative negligence theory Y

A v C
...
etc.

And have counter arguments within those paragraphs as well.

Awesome, thanks! Another quick question - Discussion-wise, do Premises Liability, Vicarious Liability, Joint Tortfeasors, and Wrongful Death/Survival all go under negligence?

[LetsGoLAW]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Yeah that's pretty much what I did.

A v B
Paragraph on intentional tort
Paragraph on negligence
Alternative negligence theory X
Alternative negligence theory Y

A v C
...
etc.

And have counter arguments within those paragraphs as well.

Awesome, thanks! Another quick question - Discussion-wise, do Premises Liability, Vicarious Liability, Joint Tortfeasors, and Wrongful Death/Survival all go under negligence?

I talk about premises liability under duty. For vicarious liability, I prove the employee's or child's negligence first, then hold the employer or parent liable. I discuss joint tortfeasors after I talk about negligence.

[20130312]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Yeah that's pretty much what I did.

A v B
Paragraph on intentional tort
Paragraph on negligence
Alternative negligence theory X
Alternative negligence theory Y

A v C
...
etc.

And have counter arguments within those paragraphs as well.

Awesome, thanks! Another quick question - Discussion-wise, do Premises Liability, Vicarious Liability, Joint Tortfeasors, and Wrongful Death/Survival all go under negligence?

Yeah that's what I use the "alternative theories" for.

[dietcoke0]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Each CoA, then each element, arguing each element in dispute. Start with biggest elements to get them out of the way, then start moving to the smallest ones until you run out of time, or your keys catch on fire...

[Jsa725]

.

[20130312]

D.O.N.E DONE w/ exams
got my final memo back from my writing class...now the waiting game begins for the rest.

CSWS everyone

NOYCE. This will be me on Tuesday.

[noleknight16]

I'm done boys and girls. Slammed property out of the park. May have just saved my semester. I'm a bit skeptical though as I don't feel like I should be this confident but we shall see!

Heading home!!! now I get to obsess over waiting for grades

[SportsFan]

2nd final on Friday. Definitely feeling burnt out on studying for this one since its torts, and my professor is heavily policy based, so taking practice tests is annoying because its harder than usual to tell how well you did (since you can argue policies for anything, really). At least I know the BLL pretty well, unlike many other people in my section it seems...

[splittermcsplit88]

Ahh, professor came to check on me and I had my email open with the heading "transfer question." Would he frown upon this?

[seahawk32]

Ahh, professor came to check on me and I had my email open with the heading "transfer question." Would he frown upon this?

Did he even see it

[005618502]

D.O.N.E DONE w/ exams
got my final memo back from my writing class...now the waiting game begins for the rest.

CSWS everyone

Nice bro how did you do?

[splittermcsplit88]

Ahh, professor came to check on me and I had my email open with the heading "transfer question." Would he frown upon this?

Did he even see it

Well, he stood beside me and I'm not sure if he saw it, but knowing how sharp law profs are...not sure.

[Jsa725]

.

[Raiden]

D.O.N.E DONE w/ exams
got my final memo back from my writing class...now the waiting game begins for the rest.

CSWS everyone

Nice bro how did you do?

highest grade (tied w/ another classmate numerically)

Wooot!! That'a boy

[JamMasterJ]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Yeah that's pretty much what I did.

A v B
Paragraph on intentional tort
Paragraph on negligence
Alternative negligence theory X
Alternative negligence theory Y

A v C
...
etc.

And have counter arguments within those paragraphs as well.

I usually do this. But our exam was weird so I talked about each D's possible liability at once this time instead.

2nd final on Friday. Definitely feeling burnt out on studying for this one since its torts, and my professor is heavily policy based, so taking practice tests is annoying because its harder than usual to tell how well you did (since you can argue policies for anything, really). At least I know the BLL pretty well, unlike many other people in my section it seems...

repeat after me:
Corrective Justice.
Administrability.
Institutional Role
Deterrence/Incentivizing
Autonomy
Wash, rinse, repeat

[SportsFan]

How do you organize an issue spotter Torts exam?

I our class, we covered Intentional Torts and Immunities, Negligence (duty, breach, cause in fact, proximate cause, damages/injury) and Defenses, and Strict Liability and Products Liability.

Im assuming you break it down by party by grouping the A v. B issues together, B v. A, A v. C, C v. A, B v. C, C v. B, etc...

Assuming that is how you big-picture organize it, do you then just go issue by issue stating which Intentional Tort/Negligence/Strict Liability it is and then accompanying that discussion with the relevant Privilege/Defense? I.e. "The first A v. B issue is assault and battery. B could argue self-defense."

Yeah that's pretty much what I did.

A v B
Paragraph on intentional tort
Paragraph on negligence
Alternative negligence theory X
Alternative negligence theory Y

A v C
...
etc.

And have counter arguments within those paragraphs as well.

I usually do this. But our exam was weird so I talked about each D's possible liability at once this time instead.

2nd final on Friday. Definitely feeling burnt out on studying for this one since its torts, and my professor is heavily policy based, so taking practice tests is annoying because its harder than usual to tell how well you did (since you can argue policies for anything, really). At least I know the BLL pretty well, unlike many other people in my section it seems...

repeat after me:
Corrective Justice.
Administrability.
Institutional Role
Deterrence/Incentivizing
Autonomy
Wash, rinse, repeat

LOL yeah, my professor has given us some policy categories she likes, and I've basically been reading all the old sample exam answers to see what policies she favors (which isn't hard to see... she's very pro plaintiff). Of course, she also seems to really want us to have a good basis in BLL (that is, structure our policy arguments around the forks in the BLL). As long as I remember the BLL and can spot the issues/forks, I think I'll be ok...

[005618502]

D.O.N.E DONE w/ exams
got my final memo back from my writing class...now the waiting game begins for the rest.

CSWS everyone

Nice bro how did you do?

highest grade (tied w/ another classmate numerically)

Dude!!! HELL YES! I hope one of my tests can live up to that standard (the one tomorrow surely will not)

[005618502]

For K do you guys suggest an approach like torts where you use headings for each claim. or more like an essay route. I am having a hard time separating it in contracts, in torts it was so easy

[SportsFan]

For K do you guys suggest an approach like torts where you use headings for each claim. or more like an essay route. I am having a hard time separating it in contracts, in torts it was so easy

I did, yeah. My exam was 1 long hypo and my professor pretty much told us exactly how to divide up our answers (Offer/Acceptance, What were the terms, performance and breach, damages; I also added a contract modification section if that was relevant).

[minnbills]

So I guess some people were just having sex in one of the study rooms. Why can't these things happen to me? I guess I'll just sit here and read conlaw. FML

[stillwater]

just had my first exam. closed book civ pro. blacked out pretty much during it. was awesome. felt like faulkner on crystal meth ringing up words per minute to make it to the next level...

[SEngland]

So I guess some people were just having sex in one of the study rooms. Why can't these things happen to me? I guess I'll just sit here and read conlaw. FML

You are doing 1L year VERY wrong, brah.

[shumpshump]

So I guess some people were just having sex in one of the study rooms. Why can't these things happen to me? I guess I'll just sit here and read conlaw. FML