Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[BarPreppin'12]

Anyone see/have any predictions for the MEE? They should start popping up online within the next few weeks.

What do you mean they will be popping up online?

A lot of commercial bar prep websites will post their predictions online. BarExamSecrets.com posted theirs recently for the Cali bar, they got all but one right for the Feb bar.

omg I didn't know this was a thing

Does anyone know if there is a Florida version of this?

[ndp1234]

Anyone see/have any predictions for the MEE? They should start popping up online within the next few weeks.

I saw one on Reddit, but didn't look too credible. That person predicted Civ Pro, Real Property, Contracts, Crim Pro, Corporations, Trusts. The wildcard subjects were Family Law and Torts.

Is there a general expectation as to how many non-MBE topics we will get? Like are there usually 2-3 out of the six that are gonna be family law, trusts, and other shit lke that?

For the most part I think the MEE only subjects are limited (like less than half), but I did see an exam where people were shocked that there were 4 MEE only subjects tested (might have been NY pre-UBE) so I'm not sure. I do, however, think that Civ Pro will be a question for sure because it's a 100% rate for the past 43 exams.

Then again, I'm just a first-time bar taker. Since I've never actually taken the bar, I have no idea what it's like. All my info comes from other people's posts I read when I'm having my nightly midnight panic attack.

Edit: The stats I cited come from SmartBarPrep found at http://www.smartbarprep.com/SmartBarPre ... alysis.pdf

[ChocolateTruffle]

Would it be worth it to not bother learning Secured Transactions at all and instead try to master the other MEE subjects? So even if I fail one and do a bit better than average on the other MEE, should I be fine? I really, really, really hate secured transactions.

[Easy-E]

Property PQs Session 5:

[+] Spoiler

Fifteen years ago, a farmer purchased a large undeveloped tract of land. The land was located next to a state-run automobile salvage yard that had already been located there for more than a decade. Neither the salvage yard nor the farmer ever surveyed their properties to clearly identify or mark the boundary between their tracts. Over the last fifteen years, the salvage yard has started to spread onto the adjacent edge of the farmer’s land, regularly occupying a ten-yard-wide strip of the property. Neither the farmer nor the salvage yard ever knew that the scrap heaps were regularly encroaching on the farmer’s property. When the farmer died last year, his son inherited the land and planned to develop the property as a farm. When he surveyed the property, the trespass was discovered. The time for acquiring title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is ten years. The son has demanded that the salvage yard cease placing scrap heaps on the son’s land. When the salvage yard refused his demand, the son brought an action to enjoin any such use in the future.

Of the following, what is the salvage yard’s best argument to defeat this action?
A The salvage yard has acquired title to the ten-yard-wide strip of the son’s property through adverse possession.
B The state can properly exercise the power of eminent domain to take the ten-yard-wide strip of property.
C The farmer impliedly consented to the salvage yard’s use of the land by failing to object to the scrap heaps on his property.
D The balance of the equities weighs in favor of the state-run salvage yard.

So, I got it wrong because I didn't think adverse possession applied, as I didn't think it satisfied "open and notorious". I guess it does. So my best guess was the eminent domain defense, which I didn't have much confidence in. That said, here is the explanation for why it's wrong:

Answer choice B is incorrect. Even if this unintentional trespass by a state-run salvage yard reflected a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify a government taking of this strip of land, the son would be able to recover damages for the taking. Therefore, this is not as strong a defense as adverse possession, which would not result in monetary damages for the son.

But the question was about injunctive relief? So who gives a shit about whether it's defense regarding monetary damages?

[Easy-E]

Would it be worth it to not bother learning Secured Transactions at all and instead try to master the other MEE subjects? So even if I fail one and do a bit better than average on the other MEE, should I be fine? I really, really, really hate secured transactions.

I would at least read Tanicus's guide

[bobbypin]

I'm using Adaptibar as well as Themis and have run into a question that I don't understand the answer even with the explanation. Maybe you all can help:

[+] Spoiler

QUESTION:

A politician, from State B, filed a lawsuit against a stockbroker, from State A, in state court in State A, seeking $75,000 as compensation for damages incurred in a car accident. The jury found, pursuant to a special verdict, that the stockbroker had not been negligent, and awarded no damages to the politician. Six months later, an assistant, who also had been involved in the car accident, filed a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the stockbroker in federal court in State A.

Which of the following is true?
A. The assistant will be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent.
B. The assistant will not be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent.
C. The assistant's lawsuit will be dismissed on grounds of issue preclusion.
D. The assistant's lawsuit will be dismissed on grounds of claim preclusion.

EXPLANATION:

A is incorrect. The assistant will not be precluded from litigating the stockbroker's negligence because the assistant was not a party in the prior lawsuit; non-mutuality collateral estoppel cannot be asserted against someone who was not a party in the first lawsuit – doing so would violate due process.

B is correct. Here, the assistant will not be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent because the assistant was not a party in the prior law suit.

C is incorrect. As explained above, issue preclusion is not applicable to these facts and, furthermore, issue preclusion is not a sufficient reason on its own for a lawsuit to be dismissed.

D is incorrect. Claim preclusion (res judicata) only applies to a party (or its privies) in the first lawsuit, and the assistant was neither a party in the first case nor was he in privity with the stockbroker.

Why can't the stockbroker say he was found not negligent in case #1 in case #2? Seems like a perfect reason to use issue preclusion. Hey everyone, I've already been found not liable for this thing, don't continue to drag me into court and make me reprove it, right?

[unidentifiable]

I ended up buying the Strategies & Tactics book. Its pretty good, if you want some more guidance for the MBE. It uses true, past MBE questions.

I've noticed, though, that the property questions in this book are wayyyy harder than Themis' property questions.

[Easy-E]

I ended up buying the Strategies & Tactics book. Its pretty good, if you want some more guidance for the MBE. It uses true, past MBE questions.

I've noticed, though, that the property questions in this book are wayyyy harder than Themis' property questions.

Are they written in sanskirt or something

[PotLuck]

Anyone have any advice or tips on how to get caught up? I am only at 46% right now due to unfortunate external factors.

I was thinking about just crushing through all of the lectures and avoiding PQs and Essays until they are all finished. Is this a crazy idea?

[1down1togo]

I'm using Adaptibar as well as Themis and have run into a question that I don't understand the answer even with the explanation. Maybe you all can help:

[+] Spoiler

QUESTION:

A politician, from State B, filed a lawsuit against a stockbroker, from State A, in state court in State A, seeking $75,000 as compensation for damages incurred in a car accident. The jury found, pursuant to a special verdict, that the stockbroker had not been negligent, and awarded no damages to the politician. Six months later, an assistant, who also had been involved in the car accident, filed a jurisdictionally valid lawsuit against the stockbroker in federal court in State A.

Which of the following is true?
A. The assistant will be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent.
B. The assistant will not be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent.
C. The assistant's lawsuit will be dismissed on grounds of issue preclusion.
D. The assistant's lawsuit will be dismissed on grounds of claim preclusion.

EXPLANATION:

A is incorrect. The assistant will not be precluded from litigating the stockbroker's negligence because the assistant was not a party in the prior lawsuit; non-mutuality collateral estoppel cannot be asserted against someone who was not a party in the first lawsuit – doing so would violate due process.

B is correct. Here, the assistant will not be precluded from arguing that the stockbroker was negligent because the assistant was not a party in the prior law suit.

C is incorrect. As explained above, issue preclusion is not applicable to these facts and, furthermore, issue preclusion is not a sufficient reason on its own for a lawsuit to be dismissed.

D is incorrect. Claim preclusion (res judicata) only applies to a party (or its privies) in the first lawsuit, and the assistant was neither a party in the first case nor was he in privity with the stockbroker.

Why can't the stockbroker say he was found not negligent in case #1 in case #2? Seems like a perfect reason to use issue preclusion. Hey everyone, I've already been found not liable for this thing, don't continue to drag me into court and make me reprove it, right?

According to the mbe civ pro lecture hand out (which I know you looked at before posting): issue preclusion has 3 requirements, one of which is: the party to be precluded must have been a party to the first suit.

Think of it this way- with issue preclusion, the person being precluded- the person who can't argue an issue o- has to have already had their day in court.

If we allowed issue preclusion against the assistant, then he never gets his day in court, and he automatically loses his case based on what some other plaintiff did? That's not even remotely fair.

[ndp1234]

Anyone have any advice or tips on how to get caught up? I am only at 46% right now due to unfortunate external factors.

I was thinking about just crushing through all of the lectures and avoiding PQs and Essays until they are all finished. Is this a crazy idea?

I found most of the MEE lectures completely useless. I found myself learning more by just reading through the outlines in the book. The outlines are shorter than the MBE outlines, so they're much more manageable. Did about 3-4 subjects per day when I just focused on running through them and outlining.

[ChocolateTruffle]

I ended up buying the Strategies & Tactics book. Its pretty good, if you want some more guidance for the MBE. It uses true, past MBE questions.

I've noticed, though, that the property questions in this book are wayyyy harder than Themis' property questions.

Oh God. As someone who sucked at property with Themis' questions, that is not good news for me I bought the book too. Arrived yesterday, so going to start it today!

[NaeDeen]

As someone who has some of the most comical luck in the world, I'll study all topics equally. I love predictions BUT if they don't come from the board themselves, I can't rely on it. I'll mess around, not study a topic, and it will end up being the first essay of the day--that's the kind of luck I have.

[PhillyLawGirl2015]

I ended up buying the Strategies & Tactics book. Its pretty good, if you want some more guidance for the MBE. It uses true, past MBE questions.

I've noticed, though, that the property questions in this book are wayyyy harder than Themis' property questions.

What year was it published?

[unidentifiable]

I ended up buying the Strategies & Tactics book. Its pretty good, if you want some more guidance for the MBE. It uses true, past MBE questions.

I've noticed, though, that the property questions in this book are wayyyy harder than Themis' property questions.

What year was it published?

2016

[Easy-E]

Jesus the conflict of law lecture is garbage. In the 7th lecture he spends 2 minutes talking about some rule (and the example) which just aren't in the handout.

[bsktbll28082]

I'm starting to laugh at weird things: (Fed Income lecture) "If you lose your arm in a tragic accident, you do not pay tax." Maybe it was funny because I have him speaking at 2x? When I try to explain to my non-bar prepping friends, they don't understand.

[unidentifiable]

focus is nonexistent today

[mu13ski]

Commercial Paper is brutal. 42 page outline. 17 lectures.

[Chardee_MacDennis]

Commercial Paper is brutal. 42 page outline. 17 lectures.

The lecturer isn't bad and the lectures are short, but yeah, 17 of them.

[Easy-E]

Commercial Paper is brutal. 42 page outline. 17 lectures.

I may just read the guide to bullshitting it. I don't see how that much time is justified for an MEE only topic.

e: I guess if they are short. All the other MEE topics have been 15-20 minute lectures every time

e2: wait I don't have commercial paper whoops

[Easy-E]

Anyone who did the family law essay (just family)..

[+] Spoiler

did you talk about estoppel for the husband trying to eliminate child support? The sample answer doesn't talk about it, it just says:

" Traditionally, courts have been loath to modify an established parent-child relationship, citing the child’s best interest as reason to deny admission of evidence of non-paternity or to deny a motion to disestablish paternity. "

And then addresses that some courts have given greater emphasis to the interests of non-biological father husbands. Does estoppel not apply for some reason?

[ndp1234]

focus is nonexistent today

Same here. I think it's because it's the first day I have no lecture or any multiple choice. Themis thinks it's time for me to practice essay questions and nothing else.

[Msnegativity]

Fellow CA bar takers, what did you think of the graded con law essay (guy denied spot on cheerleading squad)? Was getting 65s and even a 75 on the other graded ones but got a 50 on that. Halfway through writing it, I realized I was focusing on all the wrong issues and deleted everything and started over with about 15 mins left. Although, after reading the sample I would have been better off leaving what I wrote.

Anyway, in the post essay lecture the guy said it was "atypical" and there hasn't been one like it since 2002. Really hope another one like that doesn't appear. Not feeling great about con law.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. It was OUT THERE. I talked about substantive due process (liberty interest) and equal protection (gender), but my analysis was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the model answer. I argued that his right to cheerlead was freedom of expression (liberty interest), and thus, subject to due process. Still managed to get a decent score. Don't forget that the exam is curved, so if you're thrown by a question, everyone probably is. Just make something up and sound lawyerly. Also, I feel like it's best to trust your gut when it comes to weird Q's like that.

[mu13ski]

Commercial Paper is brutal. 42 page outline. 17 lectures.

I may just read the guide to bullshitting it. I don't see how that much time is justified for an MEE only topic.

e: I guess if they are short. All the other MEE topics have been 15-20 minute lectures every time

e2: wait I don't have commercial paper whoops

Where is this guide to bullshitting Commercial Paper?