July 2015 California Bar Exam Forum

[Underoath]

Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...

It literally said w/intent to remain

It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.

Nope; it said both. He went for that and then told friends he intended to remain. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha

Fromm!!! Good dude.

[robinhoodOO]

Fromm!!! Good dude.

Top Kaplan rep/lecturer for sure. Maybe one of the few reasons I'd recommend Kap is because of that guy (IMHO)

[Underoath]

Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...

It literally said w/intent to remain

It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.

Nope; it said both. He went for that and then told friends he intended to remain. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha

Fromm!!! Good dude.

Top Kaplan rep/lecturer for sure. Maybe one of the few reasons I'd recommend Kap is because of that guy (IMHO)

I've had him...I'm banking on nailing MBE because of him.

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[robinhoodOO]

Dont think he moved... just there for medical shit...

It literally said w/intent to remain

It said with intent to remain to receive treatment.

Nope; it said both. I pulled a Fromm and highlighted, circled, and underlined this shit when outlining haha

A party's citizenship at the time of the filing of the action is considered the citizenship of the party. If a defendant later moves to the same state as the plaintiff while the action is pending, the federal court will still have jurisdiction. However, if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is first filed, diversity does not exist. 28 U.S.C. §1441(b).

If plaintiff moves to destroy diversity because he wants case remanded back to the state court, this sounds awful like forum shopping/ bad faith move.

I'd agree with everything you said, except I specifically recall case filed after. And, I definitely know I blew some issues on other Q's, but I think this is one of the few I didn't blow

Either way, no sense beating a dead horse. Someone's wrong, and regardless of who, it's not detrimental

Day one is done! I'm confident nearly everyone in this forum has done well so far, and will continue to do well tomorrow.

Good luck guys/girls and good rest

[BuenAbogado]

Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

[acronyx]

Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

And make sure your wireless card is properly installed.

[robinhoodOO]

Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

And make sure your wireless card is properly installed.

I'm just making sure I have my single-use eye drops

[IceManKazanski]

Just realized I called it res judicata instead of collateral estoppel and even used it in the heading.

I think RJ technically encompasses CE, but a grader might dock me/not read the analysis.

[BrokenMouse]

lol

[Notorious RBG]

Yo don't forget to put away your PDA's during the exam.

Lol!

But remember you can keep your feminine hygiene products as long as they're up in the clear plastic baggy for your hot seat mate to stare at.

[Tiago Splitter]

On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...

I did the same. You could go 3 to address the other side point by point, but there was so much overlap I just rolled with two.

[Notorious RBG]

You guys are freaking way too much on the post mortums here. Uh not that I don't totally relate! But y'all have seen the released answers. Depending on the subject, the released answers can vary WILDLY, and they got top grades! It's impossible to answer these things perfectly, there is always something you don't know or something you forget due to the ridiculously stressful conditions. If you prepped well you have a good shot. You pass the bar in the months leading up to it. All you can do on the day of the test is not freak out too much and say a hail Mary that your weakest subjects aren't drilled too deep. Cuz we all have them. I'm look at you corporations.

With that zen thought I'm to bed... best of luck to all tomorrow!

[elijah54594]

Did anyone else just drive to three different stores because no one sells non-mechanical pencils anymore? Personally, I plan on tapping my pencil repetitively in between answers tomorrow just to prove a point that non-mech pencils can be "noisy" too. Fucking NCBE bastards....

[elijah54594]

If no adverse possession issue, how did you utilize the fact where L did not know that P took possession of the land?

that's exactly why I did AP

But, co-tenant can't adversely possess another co-tenant's interest. Gotta oust his ass

I forgot the rules for ouster lol =/

That was only there to make you doubt that the JTRS was severed. It didn't matter, because a JT can convey their interest without permission, knowledge, and in fact can keep it secret if they care to. It doesn't affect the extinguishing of the JTRS and initiation of a TIC between L and P..... nothing to do with adverse possession at all.

[auds1008]

Did anyone else just drive to three different stores because no one sells non-mechanical pencils anymore? Personally, I plan on tapping my pencil repetitively in between answers tomorrow just to prove a point that non-mech pencils can be "noisy" too. Fucking NCBE bastards....

then you'd get a chapter 6 violation. be careful.

[elijah54594]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

I saw the same thing that you did.. I think. I "may" have found PJ for "other" party though..

I'm not sure what DO means, but if it is what I think, they were the P, and thus the court holds PJ automatically because he filed the complaint.... just saying. As to RESIDENCY for the purpose of diversity, yes, the move and intent to stay indefinite changes dom.

[elijah54594]

Did anyone else just drive to three different stores because no one sells non-mechanical pencils anymore? Personally, I plan on tapping my pencil repetitively in between answers tomorrow just to prove a point that non-mech pencils can be "noisy" too. Fucking NCBE bastards....

then you'd get a chapter 6 violation. be careful.

haha, they can chapter 6 deeeezzzz nuuuuuhuuuutzzzzz

[elijah54594]

The doctor didn't move... I don't think?

Nah, P did

Srsly? Lol what the fuck was I reading today, because it clearly wasn't the facts.

The damn DO and P were on the same side of the column and the evil corp was from elsewhere.

I just text my buddy to make sure I wasn't losing my mind: P moved.

He moved, but his move required a pennoyer v neff domicile analysis.

I loled hard

Seriously bra, get that 1L ish outa here

[brotherdarkness]

Like you said bd we all did plenty of analysis. I thought I crushed that Q but even if it wasn't perfect you aren't failing this test with a 70 on one of those essays. Don't even sweat it.

Truth. I love civ pro and thought I nailed that question pretty much dead-on. Apparently I didn't read the facts close enough, so I'm going to venture a guess that the DO's move caused his residency to change and thus allow the court to have PJ (I said it didn't have PJ). But I talked about the rules and shit, so idk maybe I passed. Maybe I didn't. Won't know for a few months and gonna try not to sweat it now.

I saw the same thing that you did.. I think. I "may" have found PJ for "other" party though..

I'm not sure what DO means, but if it is what I think, they were the P, and thus the court holds PJ automatically because he filed the complaint.... just saying. As to RESIDENCY for the purpose of diversity, yes, the move and intent to stay indefinite changes dom.

Lel okay I thought we were talking about a defendant, not the patient. Looks like I didn't fuck it up too badly after all. WHEW

[brotherdarkness]

On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...

Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.

[BuenAbogado]

On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...

Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.

Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.

[IceManKazanski]

On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...

Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.

Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.

That's what I went with, figured it was safe bet anyway.

I also thought the exception in 2 didn't apply. The opponent tried to apply it, but it didn't seem like he satisfied the condition at all.

[Calicakes]

The doctor didn't move... I don't think?

No, he didnt. P moved for treatment "indefinitely".

[Zaizei]

On the PT, I only got 2 main prongs to my rules... to analyse 2 locations. Did I goof hard? I heard someone discuss (c) earlier... Wtf is this third issue...

Nah don't trip. I'm the one that had (c) and it's because:

(a) Cursory explanation of the weird SJ standard and P's burden re causation;

(b) Explained "the rule" and why I thought it applied, but noted that it had an exception and so we move to part (c);

(c) I broke this into two sub-parts, one for each location.

Weren't we supposed to answer to the defendant's answer? He had a. Causation for negligence to one, b. Causation to the other and c. Professionally negligent design as to both? It seemed that was the structure they wanted.

That's what I went with, figured it was safe bet anyway.

I also thought the exception in 2 didn't apply. The opponent tried to apply it, but it didn't seem like he satisfied the condition at all.

+1