California Bar Exam (July 2014) thread Forum

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

And I don't think premises liability is relevant for the torts essay. The torts essay went to negligence regarding activities taking place on the land, not dangerous properties of the land itself. The only place I mentioned invitee was for the non-delegable duty of the owner to the IC, making the owner vicariously liable to the invitee. At least that was my understanding of torts lol.


I'm still sweating the MBE. I know I bombed it. But hoping bombing it still got me a 135.

Thanks for your explanation of the CP/Trusts question. I thought the MBEs were horrible too. I did really well on the NCBE released exams, but felt our MBEs were soooo much harder. No "padding" to make up for my weak essays. I had really hoped they would have been like the sample tests I took. They must be changing the structure or something... I don't know - but something just wasn't right. Too many things just didn't make sense.

[LSATNightmares]

As for the negligence essay, I also added battery. In my torts class 1L year, we talked about how you can have a battery for serving food to someone with an allergy. So I made an analogy to food poisoning. The real question is whether there was intent, either acting with the purpose or having the knowledge with substantial certainty that someone would get sick.

[CALawGirl]

As for the negligence essay, I also added battery. In my torts class 1L year, we talked about how you can have a battery for serving food to someone with an allergy. So I made an analogy to food poisoning. The real question is whether there was intent, either acting with the purpose or having the knowledge with substantial certainty that someone would get sick.

The call of question said "negligence claims" so battery (intentional tort) should not be discussed.

[LSATNightmares]

As for the negligence essay, I also added battery. In my torts class 1L year, we talked about how you can have a battery for serving food to someone with an allergy. So I made an analogy to food poisoning. The real question is whether there was intent, either acting with the purpose or having the knowledge with substantial certainty that someone would get sick.

The call of question said "negligence claims" so battery (intentional tort) should not be discussed.

Oh, it did? Whoops. Missed that.

[dtl]

Per the trust/husbands interest question:

The wages were gained in a state where it they were not considered community property, so would be QCP at death or divorce. Until death or divorce, the spouse who owns the SP is able to transfer it or sell it. The other spouse has a mere expectancy interest in the to-be QCP, so until it vests at death or divorce they can not object to its transfer.

So the question for me was whether or not the transfer counted as "transferring away" the property from the wife. I argued both ways, but decided that since the trust was irrevocable it was as if she purchased a perpetuity or some other income bearing security that canceled at death, which means the husbands interest in the property as quasi-communal did not vest prior to the transfer of the assets away from the wife.

I think the important part was that you argued whether or not the transfer was illusory, regardless of what you decided was the case.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Per the trust/husbands interest question:

Until death or divorce, the spouse who owns the SP is able to transfer it or sell it. The other spouse has a mere expectancy interest in the to-be QCP, so until it vests at death or divorce they can not object to its transfer.

Oooh, that's a good point!

[injun]

Anyone have an idea of how detailed your statement of facts must be for a performance test? I realized the other day my statements were very general (i.e., i didn't include any procedural history or dates) but gave a rough idea of the events that took place. I was also wondering if you need to cite where you got the facts from. Thanks!

[adonai]

Anyone have an idea of how detailed your statement of facts must be for a performance test? I realized the other day my statements were very general (i.e., i didn't include any procedural history or dates) but gave a rough idea of the events that took place. I was also wondering if you need to cite where you got the facts from. Thanks!

No citing for facts needed, although barbri said it was optional to cite from cases (I did this to keep track of cases cause I was bouncing around). IIRC, only facts relevant to the arguments were needed to be stated.

[CALawGirl]

Jason Tolerico of of One-Timer has issue spotted July 2014 Bar on his Facebook page.

What do you think? Please do not panic! You can miss issues & STILL pass.

Question 1 – Contract Remedies – This question asked about expectation damages and whether they are speculative or certain, restitution, consequential damages and foreseeability, reliance (maybe an issue) and of course specific performance which cannot be granted in a personal services contract.

Question 2 – Evidence – hearsay and the present sense impression exception, non-hearsay including notice and the effect on the listener, vicarious admission, impeachment by specific acts of dishonesty, authentication of a signature, best evidence rule, hearsay, business records, more specifically whether the record was trustworthy and reliable which it was not.

Question 3 – P.R. / Corporations / Partnerships – scope of representation in that client makes substantive decisions, lawyer tactical decisions, expediting litigation, fairness to the other party, conflicts of interest (financial and personal interest), Insider Trading under 10b-5 because the Lawyer was a constructive insider or even a misappropriator, liability of a limited liability partnership (A was fully liable because she committed the act; AB is liable but only up to the amount of each person’s investment; B has no personal liability)

Question 4 – Criminal Procedure (Issues: 4th Amendment, Terry Stop was the main issue, 5th Amendment Miranda, Impeachment was the main issue, 6th Amendment Right to a Fair Trial, Criminal Defendant’s constitutional right to testify and present a defense, 6th Amendment Right to Counsel of One’s Choice including the Right to Appear Pro Se, the main issue here was timing)

Question 5 – Trusts and Community Property (Issues: Creation of Trust, Irrevocable Trust, Duties of Trustee, Charitable Trust, Resulting Trust, Quasi Community Property - for management and control issues: quasi-community property is treated as separate property "during marriage" but is treated as community property at death and divorce, and Earnings During Marriage)

Question 6 – Torts (Issues: All negligence including Standard of Care, Negligence Per Se, Breach, Causation, Damages, Defenses, Reasonable Care, Vicarious Liability, Employee vs. Independent Contractor and Non-Delegable Duty, and Negligent Hiring)

PT B – Persuasive Memo with Strong Point Headings (Arbitration Clause)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/One-Time ... n=timeline

[Carryon]

Anyone have an idea of how detailed your statement of facts must be for a performance test? I realized the other day my statements were very general (i.e., i didn't include any procedural history or dates) but gave a rough idea of the events that took place. I was also wondering if you need to cite where you got the facts from. Thanks!

No citing for facts needed, although barbri said it was optional to cite from cases (I did this to keep track of cases cause I was bouncing around). IIRC, only facts relevant to the arguments were needed to be stated.

Not sure. I know that on the performance Test A for the Feb 2014 exam, i believe that the instructions stated that the statement of facts should be no more than six sentences.

[Carryon]

[quote="CALawGirl"]Jason Tolerico of of One-Timer has issue spotted July 2014 Bar on his Facebook page.

What do you think? Please do not panic! You can miss issues & STILL pass.

Question 1 – Contract Remedies – This question asked about expectation damages and whether they are speculative or certain, restitution, consequential damages and foreseeability, reliance (maybe an issue) and of course specific performance which cannot be granted in a personal services contract.

Question 2 – Evidence – hearsay and the present sense impression exception, non-hearsay including notice and the effect on the listener, vicarious admission, impeachment by specific acts of dishonesty, authentication of a signature, best evidence rule, hearsay, business records, more specifically whether the record was trustworthy and reliable which it was not.

Question 3 – P.R. / Corporations / Partnerships – scope of representation in that client makes substantive decisions, lawyer tactical decisions, expediting litigation, fairness to the other party, conflicts of interest (financial and personal interest), Insider Trading under 10b-5 because the Lawyer was a constructive insider or even a misappropriator, liability of a limited liability partnership (A was fully liable because she committed the act; AB is liable but only up to the amount of each person’s investment; B has no personal liability)

Question 4 – Criminal Procedure (Issues: 4th Amendment, Terry Stop was the main issue, 5th Amendment Miranda, Impeachment was the main issue, 6th Amendment Right to a Fair Trial, Criminal Defendant’s constitutional right to testify and present a defense, 6th Amendment Right to Counsel of One’s Choice including the Right to Appear Pro Se, the main issue here was timing)

Question 5 – Trusts and Community Property (Issues: Creation of Trust, Irrevocable Trust, Duties of Trustee, Charitable Trust, Resulting Trust, Quasi Community Property - for management and control issues: quasi-community property is treated as separate property "during marriage" but is treated as community property at death and divorce, and Earnings During Marriage)

Question 6 – Torts (Issues: All negligence including Standard of Care, Negligence Per Se, Breach, Causation, Damages, Defenses, Reasonable Care, Vicarious Liability, Employee vs. Independent Contractor and Non-Delegable Duty, and Negligent Hiring)

PT B – Persuasive Memo with Strong Point Headings (Arbitration Clause)

https://www.facebook.com/pages/One-Time ... n=timeline[/quote

How did he know the questions? Were they posted online somewhere?

[adonai]

Man, I dont even remember the issues I spotted anymore. But someone please tell me wtf is 5th amendment impeachment?

Edit: nvm. The fed govt can use illegally obtained confessions to impeach under 5th amendment. But I don't agree it was the main issue. I don't remember anything indicating it was a fed jurisdiction. And since call of question was along the lines of whether d would succeed on motion to suppress the confession, it seems to me more of a side analysis.

[jarofsoup]

Man, I dont even remember the issues I spotted anymore. But someone please tell me wtf is 5th amendment impeachment?

Edit: nvm. The fed govt can use illegally obtained confessions to impeach under 5th amendment. But I don't agree it was the main issue. I don't remember anything indicating it was a fed jurisdiction. And since call of question was along the lines of whether d would succeed on motion to suppress the confession, it seems to me more of a side analysis.

It was because the interrogatory asked how the evidence could be used. I am assuming you got this issue on game day and now do not remember. Which is OK because we should not be on here!

[CALawGirl]

Man, I dont even remember the issues I spotted anymore. But someone please tell me wtf is 5th amendment impeachment?

Edit: nvm. The fed govt can use illegally obtained confessions to impeach under 5th amendment. But I don't agree it was the main issue. I don't remember anything indicating it was a fed jurisdiction. And since call of question was along the lines of whether d would succeed on motion to suppress the confession, it seems to me more of a side analysis.

It was because the interrogatory asked how the evidence could be used. I am assuming you got this issue on game day and now do not remember. Which is OK because we should not be on here!

I don't believe it was "how evidence could be used." It was whether the confession can be admitted. The confession cannot be used due to Miranda violation but can be used for impeachment purposes.

Crim Pro call of question was:
1. Whether court should admit
a. Radio
b. Confession
c. Attorney not allowing client to testify
2. If D can rep himself (pro se)

[adonai]

Man, I dont even remember the issues I spotted anymore. But someone please tell me wtf is 5th amendment impeachment?

Edit: nvm. The fed govt can use illegally obtained confessions to impeach under 5th amendment. But I don't agree it was the main issue. I don't remember anything indicating it was a fed jurisdiction. And since call of question was along the lines of whether d would succeed on motion to suppress the confession, it seems to me more of a side analysis.

It was because the interrogatory asked how the evidence could be used. I am assuming you got this issue on game day and now do not remember. Which is OK because we should not be on here!

I don't believe it was "how evidence could be used." It was whether the confession can be admitted. The confession cannot be used due to Miranda violation but can be used for impeachment purposes.

Crim Pro call of question was:
1. Whether court should admit
a. Radio
b. Confession
c. Attorney not allowing client to testify
2. If D can rep himself (pro se)

This sounds right. Another issue missed. Screw me.

[Jay Heizenburg]

Under Evidence, I'm not understanding how Present Sense Impression applies.

In my mind, a Present Sense Impression is a statement, describing or explaining an event, made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.

But here, the question and answer came before the crash, which is the event, right? So, how the hell does that shit apply?

Smh, I have to get off these boards, they are messing me up ...

[adonai]

Under Evidence, I'm not understanding how Present Sense Impression applies.

In my mind, a Present Sense Impression is a statement, describing or explaining an event, made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.

But here, the question and answer came before the crash, which is the event, right? So, how the hell does that shit apply?

Smh, I have to get off these boards, they are messing me up ...

I don't understand that either.

Unless this guy took the bar exam himself, he is going off of hearsay from one of his students or other sources since the actual questions haven't been released.

[kerryconverse]

Under Evidence, I'm not understanding how Present Sense Impression applies.

In my mind, a Present Sense Impression is a statement, describing or explaining an event, made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.

But here, the question and answer came before the crash, which is the event, right? So, how the hell does that shit apply?

Smh, I have to get off these boards, they are messing me up ...

Present sense impression applies for part of the assistant's statement -- he observed the fuel levels low on the meter and was contemporaneously describing what he saw.

But could validly be argued none of it was hearsay. Present sense impression was a small issue.

Still can't sleep at night because of the mbe and the first PT

[jarofsoup]

Man, I dont even remember the issues I spotted anymore. But someone please tell me wtf is 5th amendment impeachment?

Edit: nvm. The fed govt can use illegally obtained confessions to impeach under 5th amendment. But I don't agree it was the main issue. I don't remember anything indicating it was a fed jurisdiction. And since call of question was along the lines of whether d would succeed on motion to suppress the confession, it seems to me more of a side analysis.

It was because the interrogatory asked how the evidence could be used. I am assuming you got this issue on game day and now do not remember. Which is OK because we should not be on here!

I don't believe it was "how evidence could be used." It was whether the confession can be admitted. The confession cannot be used due to Miranda violation but can be used for impeachment purposes.

Crim Pro call of question was:
1. Whether court should admit
a. Radio
b. Confession
c. Attorney not allowing client to testify
2. If D can rep himself (pro se)

This sounds right. Another issue missed. Screw me.

Yeah. I don't remember how it was presented just that it was.

[Jay Heizenburg]

Under Evidence, I'm not understanding how Present Sense Impression applies.

In my mind, a Present Sense Impression is a statement, describing or explaining an event, made while the declarant was perceiving the event or immediately thereafter.

But here, the question and answer came before the crash, which is the event, right? So, how the hell does that shit apply?

Smh, I have to get off these boards, they are messing me up ...

Present sense impression applies for part of the assistant's statement -- he observed the fuel levels low on the meter and was contemporaneously describing what he saw.

But could validly be argued none of it was hearsay. Present sense impression was a small issue.

Still can't sleep at night because of the mbe and the first PT

Ah man, that's a damn good point. During the actually exam that didn't jump off the page for me, plus I've been conditioned by MBE's where there's always a car accident or some crazy shit happening that screams, "event."

I'm sweating my MBE's too, that first session was like a deep fog, a true freakin' blur.

[duskfall]

Jesus Christ are you guys still talking bout the exam? ! Go out and have some fun! No sense labor in giver what issues you may have missed

[Jay Heizenburg]

Jesus Christ are you guys still talking bout the exam? ! Go out and have some fun! No sense labor in giver what issues you may have missed

Why the fuck do you care? Go out and have your fun and let us be.

And stop using the Lord's name in vain, it's not a good look.

[CALawGirl]

People deal with things/anxiety differently. Maybe forgetting about the Bar works for some and that's fine. But you don't know everyone's story and what passing or failing means to someone or if this is a 2nd, 3rd, 4th attempt at the Bar. So even if there's nothing we can do or we are crying over spilled milk, as long as we are not hurting YOU, don't worry about us. Besides, if you don't care, why are you logging in here and checking?

This is our way of dealing with it & maybe it's taking us longer than you, so what? It's our stress, our headache, our pain. So, if you don't have anything comforting or encouraging...

Let us be. Let us mourn, let us kick ourselves for missing stuff, or the shoulda, woulda, coulda. I will not apologize for dealing this the Bar MY way! You don't have to like or understand it but for the sake of humanity, respect it or at the very least ignore.

Thank you.

[duskfall]

Jesus Christ are you guys still talking bout the exam? ! Go out and have some fun! No sense labor in giver what issues you may have missed

Why the fuck do you care? Go out and have your fun and let us be.

And stop using the Lord's name in vain, it's not a good look.

Kinda a felt sorry for you when I heard u failed in feb. Not anymore. Enjoy your suffering.

[duskfall]

People deal with things/anxiety differently. Maybe forgetting about the Bar works for some and that's fine. But you don't know everyone's story and what passing or failing means to someone or if this is a 2nd, 3rd, 4th attempt at the Bar. So even if there's nothing we can do or we are crying over spilled milk, as long as we are not hurting YOU, don't worry about us. Besides, if you don't care, why are you logging in here and checking?

This is our way of dealing with it & maybe it's taking us longer than you, so what? It's our stress, our headache, our pain. So, if you don't have anything comforting or encouraging...

Let us be. Let us mourn, let us kick ourselves for missing stuff, or the shoulda, woulda, coulda. I will not apologize for dealing this the Bar MY way! You don't have to like or understand it but for the sake of humanity, respect it or at the very least ignore.

Thank you.

Talking about it here won't help you pass the bar