California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[EZ as AsDf]

there was a small chance something might occur in an accident. Does that amount to substantial certainty? for Products liability... battery... intent.

[yips]

Wills/Trusts. How likely?

I'm banking on it.

[chicoalto0649]

there was a small chance something might occur in an accident. Does that amount to substantial certainty? for Products liability... battery... intent.

I think they needed to know with substantial certainty the motorcycle would explode. They only knew of small chance, so no battery?

[bravos89]

False imprisonment fits- you can constructively confine someone to a bounded area. I remember this torts essay where this guy held a lady at gunpoint and barbri model answer argued false imprisonment. You just need to restrict their movement….completely shitty application of the law but i def felt the other answers were blatantly more wrong.

You're right. No point in arguing now and if it was an essay then for sure an issue. Just didn't think that the kid couldn't just walk out of the bar voluntarily. Didn't think that escaping confined area was limited to leaving in his car.

It made this huge point about how "circumstances were such that" the kid couldn't leave.

Yeah, I think that's a dumb interpretation of False Imprisonment but I also remember seeing it on a practice BARBRI questions where it was talking about how you could have false impriosonment for keeping someone's luggage (it was something to do with someone's property?) as it would effectively confine them to where you're keeping their luggage or some BS like that. I still don't think that's right in terms of common sense interpretation of what having no reasonable means of escape actually should mean.

[EZ as AsDf]

False imprisonment fits- you can constructively confine someone to a bounded area. I remember this torts essay where this guy held a lady at gunpoint and barbri model answer argued false imprisonment. You just need to restrict their movement….completely shitty application of the law but i def felt the other answers were blatantly more wrong.

You're right. No point in arguing now and if it was an essay then for sure an issue. Just didn't think that the kid couldn't just walk out of the bar voluntarily. Didn't think that escaping confined area was limited to leaving in his car.

It made this huge point about how "circumstances were such that" the kid couldn't leave.

Yeah, I think that's a dumb interpretation of False Imprisonment but I also remember seeing it on a practice BARBRI questions where it was talking about how you could have false impriosonment for keeping someone's luggage (it was something to do with someone's property?) as it would effectively confine them to where you're keeping their luggage or some BS like that. I still don't think that's right in terms of common sense interpretation of what having no reasonable means of escape actually should mean.

I don't remember if the kid even had a car to convert. just keys. but I... I thought conversion.

[greg737]

I don't remember if the kid even had a car to convert. just keys. but I... I thought conversion.

[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Looking at this description of the interference required for conversion ... may have actually been conversion. See the "detention" part of it.

3. Interference

The defendant interferes with the plaintiff’s chattel by exercising dominion or control over it. Examples of acts of conversion include wrongful acquisition, transfer, or detention; substantially changing; severely damaging or destroying; or misusing the chattel.

Note that if the original acquisition of the chattel was not wrongful, then the plaintiff must demand the return of the chattel before she sues for conversion.

[Jay Heizenburg]

Anyone else feel they need a "Hail Mary" tomorrow?

Just wondering ...

[EZ as AsDf]

They wouldn't test Community Property right? Given that they've tested it with Remedies and Professional Responsibility...

[duskfall]

So 100% no corps tomorrow since it was in that oddball hybrid?

I think everyone would be pretty shocked if they allocated more time/space to corps after yesterday. Of course, everyone also says it is too unpredictable now...

I predict that day 3 will have difficult essays. That's predictable

[Mr. Pink]

I feel pretty confident there will be a Wills/Trusts essay, and most likely Com Prop crossover with it. I have no clue about the other two, but I am hoping for Crim and Tort.... but doubt it.

[Byejulyhifeb]

I don't remember if the kid even had a car to convert. just keys. but I... I thought conversion.

[/quote][/quote]

Looking at this description of the interference required for conversion ... may have actually been conversion. See the "detention" part of it.

3. Interference

The defendant interferes with the plaintiff’s chattel by exercising dominion or control over it. Examples of acts of conversion include wrongful acquisition, transfer, or detention; substantially changing; severely damaging or destroying; or misusing the chattel.

Note that if the original acquisition of the chattel was not wrongful, then the plaintiff must demand the return of the chattel before she sues for conversion.[/quote]

Via google:


Save for the statutory conversion created by s2(2) of the 1977 Act there can only be a conversion if there is intentional conduct resulting in an interference with the goods of the claimant.

If the defendant intends that dealing with the goods which, in fact, interferes with the control of the claimant, that act will be conversion: "though the doer may not know of or intend to challenge the property or possession of the true owner."

Mistake and good faith are irrelevant: "the liability ... is founded upon what has been regarded as a salutary rule for the protection of property, namely that persons deal with the property in chattels or exercise acts of ownership over them at their peril" (per Cleasby B, Fowler v Hollins (1872) LR 7 QB 616, 639; aff'd (1875) LR 7 HL 757.




Kind of plays in with the bartender's "good faith" attempt to get the kid to refrain from drinking at a different bar...



My last wishful thinking predictions: negligence/SL in products, public forum/prior restraint and maybe some obscenity?, and how about a good ol fashioned multiple D theft/murder shit show

[Headshot]

They wouldn't test Community Property right? Given that they've tested it with Remedies and Professional Responsibility...

I'm sorry, but could someone promptly identify whether this individual is trolling? I have no recollection of anything regarding Community Property on 1-3. I just want to make sure this individual is just trolling and not serious. Please confirm. I just registered for this purpose but plan to be more active. Please confirm the merits of what this guy/girl/troll said, Thank you.

*EDIT* P.S.: Its freaking me out and I need to go to bed. I have no idea how Community Property could have played into that remedies question or that PR/CORP question. Makes NO Sense. Is this guy trolling?!?!

[gyarados]

They wouldn't test Community Property right? Given that they've tested it with Remedies and Professional Responsibility...

I'm sorry, but could someone promptly identify whether this individual is trolling? I have no recollection of anything regarding Community Property on 1-3. I just want to make sure this individual is just trolling and not serious. Please confirm. I just registered for this purpose but plan to be more active. Please confirm the merits of what this guy/girl/troll said, Thank you.

He means on past bar exams that's how it has appeared.

[Headshot]

They wouldn't test Community Property right? Given that they've tested it with Remedies and Professional Responsibility...

I'm sorry, but could someone promptly identify whether this individual is trolling? I have no recollection of anything regarding Community Property on 1-3. I just want to make sure this individual is just trolling and not serious. Please confirm. I just registered for this purpose but plan to be more active. Please confirm the merits of what this guy/girl/troll said, Thank you.

He means on past bar exams that's how it has appeared.

Thank you. Good night.

[chicoalto0649]

Is ACP waived when you expressly invoke advice of attorney as affirmative defense?

[jarofsoup]

Good luck today folks. Finish strong and no matter what keep moving

[a male human]

Might I suggest lying down and resting for the final PT? You did get a half-day extension on your room, right? You have nothing more to learn after the essays. You might as well take a quick moment to restore your MP. Lie down and imagine yourself at 5 PM. You're done soon!

You will be tired and may want to take a nap or kill yourself in the middle of the last PT. Keep going. Don't stop. Just do it. You've come too far to stop. There are just a couple hours left.

[adonai]

Crim pro expected, torts was a possibility...

Dat trusts with comm prop crossover doe.

Did anyone do a full blown negligence analysis for the torts question? I didn't really understand what they meant by theory or theories of liability under negligence. The only one i could think of was vicarious liability...maybe joint and several liability

[lmr]

Seriously wanted to cry when I saw that trusts question. It took so much mental energy to stop panicking and just bullshit w the rules I knew.

[pkt63]

Can someone tell me the right answers for the latter half of Crim Pro? On the motion to prevent the D from testifying and the court ruling on representing himself? All I had on the first was like, he has a constitutional right to testify, then I did some PR stuff for the love of god, and talked about how to handle him possible testifying falsely but that was no excuse to block his Constitutional right (I don't even remember what amendment this arises under - 6th?). But it was all flimsy as hell.

On the representing himself, all I could remember was the judge had to find that he was competent (by what standard, I couldn't remember) and I thought there was one to two other elements to that that I couldn't remember and then just babbled on.

It wasn't the worst ever. Felt like I did well on the rest of that and the other essays, but was mad at myself for not knowing more about those two things...

[bravos89]

Man so Civ Pro was a giant waste of time. Pretty much pointless to ask about questions now that it's over.

[a male human]

Was the trusts one that hard? I thought it was typical that a CP question would cross over with wills/trusts.

CP strikes again. The Committed of Bar Examiners likes to test the same subject multiple times in a row. Like real property (few years back), remedies, and now CP...

[adonai]

Can someone tell me the right answers for the latter half of Crim Pro? On the motion to prevent the D from testifying and the court ruling on representing himself? All I had on the first was like, he has a constitutional right to testify, then I did some PR stuff for the love of god, and talked about how to handle him possible testifying falsely but that was no excuse to block his Constitutional right (I don't even remember what amendment this arises under - 6th?). But it was all flimsy as hell.

On the representing himself, all I could remember was the judge had to find that he was competent (by what standard, I couldn't remember) and I thought there was one to two other elements to that that I couldn't remember and then just babbled on.

It wasn't the worst ever. Felt like I did well on the rest of that and the other essays, but was mad at myself for not knowing more about those two things...

For what its worth, you didthe same exact analysis I did for that q. Down to the T. So don't feel bad

[lmr]

Crim pro expected, torts was a possibility...

Dat trusts with comm prop crossover doe.

Did anyone do a full blown negligence analysis for the torts question? I didn't really understand what they meant by theory or theories of liability under negligence. The only one i could think of was vicarious liability...maybe joint and several liability

Neg per Se
Vicarious liability w independent contractor non deleg.
I threw in premise liability just bc.

[pkt63]

Crim pro expected, torts was a possibility...

Dat trusts with comm prop crossover doe.

Did anyone do a full blown negligence analysis for the torts question? I didn't really understand what they meant by theory or theories of liability under negligence. The only one i could think of was vicarious liability...maybe joint and several liability

Neg per Se
Vicarious liability w independent contractor non deleg.
I threw in premise liability just bc.

Negligent hiring of C by O as well as his vicarious liability for both of them