. Forum

[releasethehounds]

That's my big beef with some of the MBE nitpicking questions--I feel like it makes me lose the forest for the trees. I get so wrapped up in the bizarre minutia that I don't know at all that I start obsessing over the details instead of letting it go and using my time a bit more wisely to learn broad topics of subjects I don't know well.

[Agoraphobia]

Yep. Like that stupid Larceny by Use of an Innocent Child exception or whatever that was someone mentioned a couple pages back. I'm skeptical we'll see many questions like that on the Bar.

[Reinhardt]

Finally got around to doing...well, half of the simulated MBE.

Doctor tells runner she should avoid running because it may cause a heart attack. Runner gets fat and decides the risk of harm is outweighed by the benefits of running. Runner runs and has a heart attack, with her legs sticking out in the road. Driver crushes them because he has negligently maintained his brakes. Jurisdiction follows contributory negligence.

I managed to convince myself that runner was not negligent because of the Hand Rule as adopted in the 3rd Restatement.

Themis's explanation: Runner was negligent, therefore contributory negligence bars her claim.

[random86]

Hi, I was googling around and just found this - cool..
I'm completing themis, but not a US grad/law student and don't know anyone else prepping so quite solo.

I just started trying to memorise all of the NY law, maybe a bit late cos i didn't bother too much with it before aside from the lectueres and practice essays, but it seems OK. The only thing is I just discovered this random equity thing in the book, although it's only 17 pages so it's OK. I completed all of the lectures except for fed. civil procedure and NY CPLR (i was working full time tl last week and it looked most boring), but the section in the outline on them is huuuuuge. But it looks horrible like it just requires memorising random procedure basically, as opposed to technical doctrines etc. I plan to ditch the lectures and just read it, but i don't want it to eat too much time. How important are these sections and how well are people trying to know it? I guess it appears as a side question in the essays, and I'm going over as many as possible and noting the law, so i guess if there is a similar problem in the exam from one of the practice essays i might get it, but otherwise no idea..

Also professional responsibility.... i found the lecturer very difficult to follow and the handout unhelpful, so i guess i have to work a little on that, but again doesn't seem so majorly important, like something that might be guessable on common-sense.

Any advice would be appreciated 'cos I'm aware I might be completely wrong in this approach.

Thanks !

[random86]

Oh also I wondered if the NY MCQs help with learning the law too. I haven't tried any yet...

[locusdelicti]

I would like to enter a submission for dumbest mnemonic: BAD In In In Im C. Grounds for at fault divorce in PA: Bigamy, Adultery, Desertion, Infidelity, Indignity, Institutionalization, Imprisonment, and Cruelty. As you can tell, I suck at this.

I just did ABCD III. It doesn't spell anything, but it's easy to remember.

Edited to add: I don't think Infidelity is one. Adultery is already on there. Only 3 I's.

[TheBeard]

I would like to enter a submission for dumbest mnemonic: BAD In In In Im C. Grounds for at fault divorce in PA: Bigamy, Adultery, Desertion, Infidelity, Indignity, Institutionalization, Imprisonment, and Cruelty. As you can tell, I suck at this.

I just did ABCD III. It doesn't spell anything, but it's easy to remember.

Edited to add: I don't think Infidelity is one. Adultery is already on there. Only 3 I's.

Yup, you're absolutely right. Infidelity does not belong there.

[yeff]

Hi, I was googling around and just found this - cool..
I'm completing themis, but not a US grad/law student and don't know anyone else prepping so quite solo.

I just started trying to memorise all of the NY law, maybe a bit late cos i didn't bother too much with it before aside from the lectueres and practice essays, but it seems OK. The only thing is I just discovered this random equity thing in the book, although it's only 17 pages so it's OK. I completed all of the lectures except for fed. civil procedure and NY CPLR (i was working full time tl last week and it looked most boring), but the section in the outline on them is huuuuuge. But it looks horrible like it just requires memorising random procedure basically, as opposed to technical doctrines etc. I plan to ditch the lectures and just read it, but i don't want it to eat too much time. How important are these sections and how well are people trying to know it? I guess it appears as a side question in the essays, and I'm going over as many as possible and noting the law, so i guess if there is a similar problem in the exam from one of the practice essays i might get it, but otherwise no idea..

Also professional responsibility.... i found the lecturer very difficult to follow and the handout unhelpful, so i guess i have to work a little on that, but again doesn't seem so majorly important, like something that might be guessable on common-sense.

Any advice would be appreciated 'cos I'm aware I might be completely wrong in this approach.

Thanks !

I believe NY CPLR is one of the most frequently tested subjects, and is in every (or nearly every) exam. THe lectures are interminable but do a decent job of pointing out key areas to focus on, like motion to dismiss / motion for summary judgment standard, statutes of limitations, preliminary injunction, etc.

[GertrudePerkins]

Do other people have a full practice essay exam this week? (I imagine it might depend on your jurisdiction.) If so, does anyone know if our responses to those are essays will be individually graded, or will we just be given Model Answers? I actually hope it's just Model Answers, but wondered if anyone knew for sure.

[Agoraphobia]

WTF Mixed MBE Set 10.

[thebull]

Do other people have a full practice essay exam this week? (I imagine it might depend on your jurisdiction.) If so, does anyone know if our responses to those are essays will be individually graded, or will we just be given Model Answers? I actually hope it's just Model Answers, but wondered if anyone knew for sure.

Model answers.

[Dr. Review]

Spent a long time yesterday making flash cards for one subject, and a long time condensing an outline for a part of another subject I was weak on the day before. Looks like the work paid off, crushed both subjects on MBE 4

[Jas]

Does anyone know whether the NCBE practice exams give you an estimated scaled score in the score analysis? Or any other info about what the score analysis looks like on those?

[GertrudePerkins]

***Spoiler of MBE Criminal Procedure Question 310***
Question 310:
On May 1, 1987, a car driven by the defendant struck a pedestrian. On July 1, 1987, with regard to this incident, the defendant pleaded guilty to reckless driving (a misdemeanor) and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. She served the sentence and paid the fine. On April 1, 1988, the pedestrian died as a result of the injuries she suffered in the accident. On March 1, 1991, a grand jury indicted the defendant on a charge of manslaughter of the pedestrian. On May 15, 1991, trial had not begun and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground of double jeopardy in that her conviction of reckless driving arose out of the same incident, and on the ground that the three-year statute of limitations for manslaughter had run. The defendant's motion should be:
A. granted only on double jeopardy grounds.
B. granted only on statute of limitation grounds.
C. granted on either double jeopardy grounds or statute of limitations grounds.
D. denied on both grounds.
Rationale:
Answer choice D is correct. For the purposes of double jeopardy, two different crimes committed in one criminal transaction are deemed to be the same offense unless one offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. Manslaughter clearly requires proof of at least one element (death) that reckless driving does not, so there are no grounds for dismissal based on double jeopardy. [Remainder of explanation omitted.]

C'mon Themis! Really? That's just flatly not the Blockburger test. Each crime must contain an element that the other does not. (For the record, I accept that reckless driving and manslaughter satisfy the real Blockburger test, but this explanation is bogus.)

[locusdelicti]

The exception to Pennsylvania's anti-lapse statute confuses me. Does it only apply if there's a residuary clause leaving the residue to the testator's surviving spouse or issue? Or does it always apply?

I just asked Themis.

[BarbellDreams]

10 lectures didn't even give me 1%... Ugh.

[Kretzy]

Hit 60% today. Still far behind a lot of other people, but we didn't graduate until June 15, and I randomly had to have my appendix out on June 10 so I couldn't much start beforehand. Might actually hit the magical 75%.

[Which I fear I'll need, since I can't seem to put together a damn CA-specific essay, apart from Wills.]

[Man vs Bar]

Oh also I wondered if the NY MCQs help with learning the law too. I haven't tried any yet...

If nothing else, they'll be humbling. Sour grapes aside, I think the NY-specific questions help just like the MBE PQ's do.

[as stars burn]

Finally sat down to do the Fed Civ Pro graded essay and was literately pulling rules out of thin air, especially for the last issue. I could not for the life of me remember what appropriate sanctions were for failing to appear at a pre-trial conference. I might as well get comfortable doing that because I know it's going to happen during the actual exam. I hope I get points for trying.....

WTF Mixed MBE Set 10.

Well, damn. I'm about start Mixed MBE 4 haha. I'm wayyyyy behind you.

[memaha]

Oh also I wondered if the NY MCQs help with learning the law too. I haven't tried any yet...

If nothing else, they'll be humbling. Sour grapes aside, I think the NY-specific questions help just like the MBE PQ's do.

very humbling. just did my first set, it was not pretty.

[Bikeflip]

Damn computer shitted out 75 questions into the MBE morning session.

And I just remembered the book, so I could have avoided this

[releasethehounds]

To help myself when I'm making flashcards because apparently I believe in the power of osmosis or something, I sometimes put the lectures on in the background and sort of listen to them, keying in at topics I don't know well.

I can't do it for Wills or Trusts. Tiersma literally makes me so uncomfortable I can't even listen to his voice.

[releasethehounds]

WTF Mixed MBE Set 10.

Well, damn. I'm about start Mixed MBE 4 haha. I'm wayyyyy behind you.

Meh, it's all relative. I think I'm on MBE mixed set 11 but I honestly think the only reason for it is that there was a week where they were having me do 2 question sets a day and significantly fewer essays

[BarbellDreams]

Pro: My grader complemented me on finding a valid issue in a graded essay that even the model answer missed.

Con: I obviously don't know how to TRAC contracts questions cause my essay got absolutely destroyed for structure. If there are multiple contracts in the essay do I really have to write out "In order for a valid contract there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity to enter into a contract" for both contracts and explain what each is? That seems pretty redundant to me if I just discussed it a paragraph ago for another contract. I also don't understand why I am analyzing how both parties had capacity to enter into a contract and satisfied the statute of frauds when the facts clearly didn't indicate that it would be an issue. Thats like discussing how parole evidence works and explaining why it doesn't apply in this case cause there is no evidence presented outside the contract.

[releasethehounds]

Pro: My grader complemented me on finding a valid issue in a graded essay that even the model answer missed.

Con: I obviously don't know how to TRAC contracts questions cause my essay got absolutely destroyed for structure. If there are multiple contracts in the essay do I really have to write out "In order for a valid contract there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity to enter into a contract" for both contracts and explain what each is? That seems pretty redundant to me if I just discussed it a paragraph ago for another contract. I also don't understand why I am analyzing how both parties had capacity to enter into a contract and satisfied the statute of frauds when the facts clearly didn't indicate that it would be an issue. Thats like discussing how parole evidence works and explaining why it doesn't apply in this case cause there is no evidence presented outside the contract.

Yeah that really seems like a waste of time and space, and I agree that it really doesn't make any sense. But that may be idiosyncratic to your grader, because mine has never ever had a problem with me skipping issues that aren't actually in the question's fact pattern. Because if you're going to have to go down the road of all the things that aren't present, it'd be like reteaching the class and who has the time.