July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

RufioRufio · Post by **RufioRufio** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:11 am

captainplanet wrote:
RufioRufio wrote:
captainplanet wrote:
RufioRufio wrote:This post is for the truly inept.

So I had a proctor who said there was no spell check feature when I didn't see it, and I just kind of took it at face value. So now I'm upset about that. Anybody think this sort of things is a big deal? Obviously a few typos isn't bad, but do most people use the feature?

Also, the other question I asked the proctor was whether I could make the screen wider (usually the cursor can expand the screen moderately, at least it did on the Mock Exam). Nonetheless, I used what couldn't have been much larger than a 3inch by 4inch tiny word prompt for the duration of the essays. Anyone have any tips, aside from enlarging the font, for making the typing area take more than 1/4 of the screen?

Thanks for anyone that helps!!!!
On the mock exam, you could hide the various other windows, like the side bar and the window at the top saying "Question 1." Try that.
Got it, I see it now. Thanks! I can't believe I missed that. I was so preoccupied with just trying to finish on time. My eyes are killing me now.

Is there a spell check?
Yes, it looks like the Word spell check symbol but tinier (ABC with a check mark under it). It's where the other formatting type buttons are.

Crap. Thanks. Feel as though everyone knew this except me. FML.

IceManKazanski · Post by **IceManKazanski** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:12 am

BrokenMouse wrote:What is this talk of hearsay? I thought the question specifically limited the scope...

It did, I just had to write something quickly and it was the first thing that came to mind.

It was really wrong. But I figured it would at least give me a chance at some pity-half-credit points.

robinhoodOO · Post by **robinhoodOO** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:13 am

tkicker182 wrote:I didn't mention AP because it had only been 2 years, but it's not like bringing it up and dismissing it hurts anything.

Adverse possession? Do you mean ouster?

brotherdarkness · Post by **brotherdarkness** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:14 am

No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...

Underoath · Post by **Underoath** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:15 am

I need to get off this damn forum because reading all this stuff I jacked up Essay #2...oh well....did fine on everything else. I think.

Underoath · Post by **Underoath** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:15 am

brotherdarkness wrote:No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...

I'm studying for PR tonight....

robinhoodOO · Post by **robinhoodOO** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:17 am

brotherdarkness wrote:No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...

2 beers and enough sushi to give me mercury poison, but I plan to review some mbe's

Tiago Splitter · Post by **Tiago Splitter** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:17 am

brotherdarkness wrote:No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...

Definitely not. Will probably re-read my PR lecture outline real quick tomorrow night.

smokeylarue · Post by **smokeylarue** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:18 am

For Essay 1, could we assume defendant 1 dropped out of the equation ....for diversity purpose.... am I being vague enough

Underoath · Post by **Underoath** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:19 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
tkicker182 wrote:I didn't mention AP because it had only been 2 years, but it's not like bringing it up and dismissing it hurts anything.
That, and adverse possession as to who? The tenant? The co-tenant? That requires an ouster. AP wasn't an issue...Maybe whether he was ousted, but that wasn't there either

Shit, I knew I should have said ouster too...UGH...I put AP...is that super bad?

BrokenMouse · Post by **BrokenMouse** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:19 am

BrokenMouse · Post by **BrokenMouse** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:20 am

robinhoodOO · Post by **robinhoodOO** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:20 am

Underoath wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
tkicker182 wrote:I didn't mention AP because it had only been 2 years, but it's not like bringing it up and dismissing it hurts anything.
That, and adverse possession as to who? The tenant? The co-tenant? That requires an ouster. AP wasn't an issue...Maybe whether he was ousted, but that wasn't there either
Shit, I knew I should have said ouster too...UGH...I put AP...is that super bad?

No, because neither was an issue. You could have briefly mentioned ouster, but ouster requires much more than anything remotely present in that essay and you don't lose points for adding stuff

redblueyellow · Post by **redblueyellow** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:21 am

brotherdarkness wrote:No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...

Uhh, it's PR night, dude.

brotherdarkness · Post by **brotherdarkness** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:21 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...
Definitely not. Will probably re-read my PR lecture outline real quick tomorrow night.

Same. LOL @ me for listening to the entire PR lecture last night.

brotherdarkness · Post by **brotherdarkness** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:21 am

redblueyellow wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:No one is studying tonight right? I've been sitting here drinking whisky and trying not to think about that PT...
Uhh, it's PR night, dude.

No, that's tomorrow night broski.

Tiago Splitter · Post by **Tiago Splitter** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:22 am

smokeylarue wrote:For Essay 1, could we assume defendant 1 dropped out of the equation ....for diversity purpose.... am I being vague enough

haha yeah. You didn't even have to assume it cuz we were analyzing whether the court did right and they listed things in order

brotherdarkness · Post by **brotherdarkness** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:23 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:For Essay 1, could we assume defendant 1 dropped out of the equation ....for diversity purpose.... am I being vague enough
haha yeah. You didn't even have to assume it cuz we were analyzing whether the court did right and they listed things in order

But isn't the issue of removal whether the case could have been filed in federal court originally? And the original complaint included a non-diverse party...

BrokenMouse · Post by **BrokenMouse** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:24 am

BrokenMouse · Post by **BrokenMouse** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:25 am

Underoath · Post by **Underoath** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:26 am

BrokenMouse wrote:
Underoath wrote:I need to get off this damn forum because reading all this stuff I jacked up Essay #2...oh well....did fine on everything else. I think.
What exactly did you jack up? I think even if you got the conclusion wrong if you spotted the issue that's like 3/6 credits for that issue alone.

Well, I knew there was something weird with that reverter crap. "restraint on alienation"..didn't mention it like a big DUMMY and I knew it...when in doubt LIST IT...I didn't put that, but I list AP?! Like how dumb can I get? haha

Underoath · Post by **Underoath** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:26 am

robinhoodOO wrote:
Underoath wrote:
robinhoodOO wrote:
tkicker182 wrote:I didn't mention AP because it had only been 2 years, but it's not like bringing it up and dismissing it hurts anything.
That, and adverse possession as to who? The tenant? The co-tenant? That requires an ouster. AP wasn't an issue...Maybe whether he was ousted, but that wasn't there either
Shit, I knew I should have said ouster too...UGH...I put AP...is that super bad?
No, because neither was an issue. You could have briefly mentioned ouster, but ouster requires much more than anything remotely present in that essay and you don't lose points for adding stuff

ok, cool.

brotherdarkness · Post by **brotherdarkness** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:26 am

BrokenMouse wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:For Essay 1, could we assume defendant 1 dropped out of the equation ....for diversity purpose.... am I being vague enough
haha yeah. You didn't even have to assume it cuz we were analyzing whether the court did right and they listed things in order
But isn't the issue of removal whether the case could have been filed in federal court originally? And the original complaint included a non-diverse party...
Hmm I recall the facts quite the opposite. One of us is fked.

Meh. It was one part of the question. I think I'm the one who fucked it up, but I talked about the rules for removal/remand, so I probably got a few points. And I definitely nailed the personal jurisdiction stuff, so I'm just gonna go ahead and assume I got a 65+ notwithstanding the error.

Reds622 · Post by **Reds622** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:29 am

brotherdarkness wrote:
BrokenMouse wrote:
brotherdarkness wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:For Essay 1, could we assume defendant 1 dropped out of the equation ....for diversity purpose.... am I being vague enough
haha yeah. You didn't even have to assume it cuz we were analyzing whether the court did right and they listed things in order
But isn't the issue of removal whether the case could have been filed in federal court originally? And the original complaint included a non-diverse party...
Hmm I recall the facts quite the opposite. One of us is fked.
Meh. It was one part of the question. I think I'm the one who fucked it up, but I talked about the rules for removal/remand, so I probably got a few points. And I definitely nailed the personal jurisdiction stuff, so I'm just gonna go ahead and assume I got a 65+ notwithstanding the error.

Shoot, now that I think about it.. Were P and DO domiciled in the same State? They may have been... Not sure how that affects the analysis though since Removal happened after that party was no longer in the case. I might be wrong on the parties being from the same state..but i don't think so actually. Damn.

robinhoodOO · Post by **robinhoodOO** » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:30 am

brotherdarkness wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:For Essay 1, could we assume defendant 1 dropped out of the equation ....for diversity purpose.... am I being vague enough
haha yeah. You didn't even have to assume it cuz we were analyzing whether the court did right and they listed things in order
But isn't the issue of removal whether the case could have been filed in federal court originally? And the original complaint included a non-diverse party...

Yes, I believe you needed to consider all three parties

July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Register for access!

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Register now!

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Re: July 2015 California Bar Exam

Seriously? What are you waiting for?