Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2014 Exam Forum

[Prime]

Beating the hell out of real property and dropping the ball on torts.

Welcome to bizarro world.

[mizunoami]

simple question, but a stumper for me:

the standard to use for a doctor is a reasonable doctor, correct... do not have to go to any higher standard ( i.e. surgeons get compared to surgeons, generalist to a generalist) on the national level ( or is it based on best practices in the community?)

I think originally it was at the community level, but now it's considered to be at the national level.

I think.

You're right. Though some jurisdictions hold generalists to a local level and specialists to a national level.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

another 100 practice MBE questions today... 87% on Evidence, 43% on Property. Once again, the second I study one subject, another one goes out the door! Oh brother.

[klbisho4]

FL grades essay on a 0/100 scale. My average for 6 essays is 45 which is generally considered passing. Would love to sure up a lot of minor things I'm missing and get those extra points though, because they will definitely help. I was also worried about the practice MBE because I scored a 60% but glad to see most people are around that area. Fatigue was the real killer, along with Contracts. That area destroyed me.

[j1987]

Does anyone else think that this Evidence question is really subjective?? These questions annoy the hell out of me - I hate that ridiculous scenarios like this are between me and being admitted to practice! Or maybe I'm missing something, is this based on a prior case by any chance?

2. (Question ID#4327)
While walking down the street, an intoxicated, homeless woman addressed a jogger and said, “I know you killed your husband.” The jogger stared at the woman for a second, as did a group of onlookers, but said nothing and kept jogging. As the jogger turned a corner, she began to panic; she really had just killed her husband, but had no idea how the homeless woman could have known that. When she reached the end of the block, she turned around, jogged back, and yelled to the woman “No, I didn’t!”
Did the jogger adopt the homeless woman’s statement when she remained silent?
A. Yes, because she did not respond to the woman right away.
B. Yes, because she had just killed her husband.
C. No, because she eventually responded to the woman’s comment.
D. No, because a reasonable person would not have denied the statement.

Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. An adoptive admission is a statement of another person that a party expressly or impliedly adopts as his own. Silence in response to a statement is considered an adoptive admission if: (i) The person was present and heard and understood the statement; (ii) the person had the ability and opportunity to deny the statement; and (iii) a reasonable person similarly situated would have denied the statement. Here, the jogger was present and had the opportunity to deny the statement; a similarly situated reasonable person, however, would not have felt compelled to answer the woman. Answer choice A is incorrect because a reasonable person would not have felt the need to respond to an intoxicated, homeless woman on the street. Answer choice B is incorrect because whether the statement was true or not is irrelevant to whether it was adopted. The statement would still not be an adoptive admission if a reasonable person would not have felt compelled to respond. Answer choice C is incorrect because the jogger’s later denial did not affect whether she had made an adoptive admission at the time the statement was made.

Yeah, I wondered about it, then realized you don't usually have a duty to respond to homeless people or any weird people who shout strange things on the street. Like, if you get catcalled and someone insinuates something and you don't respond, it's not an adoptive admission that you want to have sex with them. And there's another MBE question where two criminals are together in the police station, one friend is dumb and blurts out a confession that they were both guilty right after the Miranda rights, but just because your friend is stupid and you're remaining silent doesn't mean there's an adoptive admission. So idk, I think it's a high standard for something to be a statement you HAVE to respond to.

I got this question correct, but I automatically thought that most people wouldn't deny something that a homeless person says randomly to them on the street.

Maybe I'm harsh.

Or 3 years in Newark at school/work was too much.

[kapital98]

another 100 practice MBE questions today... 87% on Evidence, 43% on Property. Once again, the second I study one subject, another one goes out the door! Oh brother.

87% on any subject is unreal. WTG! Property will come.

[champ33]

Anyone else thinking about skipping the NY and NJ simulated essay exams tomorrow/Wednesday? I feel like my time would be better spent starting to make mini outlines of rules and NY distinctions.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Does anyone else think that this Evidence question is really subjective?? These questions annoy the hell out of me - I hate that ridiculous scenarios like this are between me and being admitted to practice! Or maybe I'm missing something, is this based on a prior case by any chance?

2. (Question ID#4327)
While walking down the street, an intoxicated, homeless woman addressed a jogger and said, “I know you killed your husband.” The jogger stared at the woman for a second, as did a group of onlookers, but said nothing and kept jogging. As the jogger turned a corner, she began to panic; she really had just killed her husband, but had no idea how the homeless woman could have known that. When she reached the end of the block, she turned around, jogged back, and yelled to the woman “No, I didn’t!”
Did the jogger adopt the homeless woman’s statement when she remained silent?
A. Yes, because she did not respond to the woman right away.
B. Yes, because she had just killed her husband.
C. No, because she eventually responded to the woman’s comment.
D. No, because a reasonable person would not have denied the statement.

Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. An adoptive admission is a statement of another person that a party expressly or impliedly adopts as his own. Silence in response to a statement is considered an adoptive admission if: (i) The person was present and heard and understood the statement; (ii) the person had the ability and opportunity to deny the statement; and (iii) a reasonable person similarly situated would have denied the statement. Here, the jogger was present and had the opportunity to deny the statement; a similarly situated reasonable person, however, would not have felt compelled to answer the woman. Answer choice A is incorrect because a reasonable person would not have felt the need to respond to an intoxicated, homeless woman on the street. Answer choice B is incorrect because whether the statement was true or not is irrelevant to whether it was adopted. The statement would still not be an adoptive admission if a reasonable person would not have felt compelled to respond. Answer choice C is incorrect because the jogger’s later denial did not affect whether she had made an adoptive admission at the time the statement was made.

Yeah, I wondered about it, then realized you don't usually have a duty to respond to homeless people or any weird people who shout strange things on the street. Like, if you get catcalled and someone insinuates something and you don't respond, it's not an adoptive admission that you want to have sex with them. And there's another MBE question where two criminals are together in the police station, one friend is dumb and blurts out a confession that they were both guilty right after the Miranda rights, but just because your friend is stupid and you're remaining silent doesn't mean there's an adoptive admission. So idk, I think it's a high standard for something to be a statement you HAVE to respond to.

I got this question correct, but I automatically thought that most people wouldn't deny something that a homeless person says randomly to them on the street.

Maybe I'm harsh.

Or 3 years in Newark at school/work was too much.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

another 100 practice MBE questions today... 87% on Evidence, 43% on Property. Once again, the second I study one subject, another one goes out the door! Oh brother.

87% on any subject is unreal. WTG! Property will come.

Thanks! You just made me feel much better!! I've had a rough study day Hoping tomorrow will be more positive.

[lsutiger1987]

Anyone have a study diagram for commercial paper? Looking at outlines isn't helping me.

[inkincorporate]

Anyone else thinking about skipping the NY and NJ simulated essay exams tomorrow/Wednesday? I feel like my time would be better spent starting to make mini outlines of rules and NY distinctions.

I'm definitely skipping it tomorrow, but I'll prob get around to it by the weekend. Need a few more days for an in depth review of NY subjects... no point in taking it if I know I'm not ready. At this point I'm at 80% and I think I can prob do my own thing.

[bport hopeful]

Why isnt the PT book numbered?

[Tanicius]

Why isnt the PT book numbered?

Holy crap, isn't that annoying? "Turn to In Re Hammond."

"Uh, what page is that?"

"Your time has begun. Hurry up and turn to In Re Hammond."

"I know my time has started! So tell me what page it is so I don't have to flip manually through a 600 page book!"

"You have only 88 minutes remaining..."

[Kiwi917]

Why isnt the PT book numbered?

Holy crap, isn't that annoying? "Turn to In Re Hammond."

"Uh, what page is that?"

"Your time has begun. Hurry up and turn to In Re Hammond."

"I know my time has started! So tell me what page it is so I don't have to flip manually through a 600 page book!"

"You have only 88 minutes remaining..."

Can you label the rest of them with post-its ahead of time, or are there too many? The CA PT book has fewer tests, so it was easy to just flag the first page of each one.

[whirledpeas86]

Um, is Advanced Sales the exact same as Contracts? As far as I can tell, the lecture/handout is exactly the same. Is there something I'm missing here?

[bport hopeful]

Um, is Advanced Sales the exact same as Contracts? As far as I can tell, the lecture/handout is exactly the same. Is there something I'm missing here?

Its pretty much just the UCC parts of contracts. I actually thought it was good even though it was all review. Clearly differentiated sale of good from everything else.

[datastrm]

Does anyone else have this irrational fear that they are getting all of the THEMIS practice questions correct while getting all of the NCBE questions wrong? I really wish there was a way to see my percentage on past NCBE questions only.

[whirledpeas86]

Um, is Advanced Sales the exact same as Contracts? As far as I can tell, the lecture/handout is exactly the same. Is there something I'm missing here?

Its pretty much just the UCC parts of contracts. I actually thought it was good even though it was all review. Clearly differentiated sale of good from everything else.

Yeah, I was considering just skipping it, but it's actually pretty good contracts review. It's crazy how much more sense everything makes now than when I first listened to these lectures.

[blue920]

Does anyone else think that this Evidence question is really subjective?? These questions annoy the hell out of me - I hate that ridiculous scenarios like this are between me and being admitted to practice! Or maybe I'm missing something, is this based on a prior case by any chance?

2. (Question ID#4327)
While walking down the street, an intoxicated, homeless woman addressed a jogger and said, “I know you killed your husband.” The jogger stared at the woman for a second, as did a group of onlookers, but said nothing and kept jogging. As the jogger turned a corner, she began to panic; she really had just killed her husband, but had no idea how the homeless woman could have known that. When she reached the end of the block, she turned around, jogged back, and yelled to the woman “No, I didn’t!”
Did the jogger adopt the homeless woman’s statement when she remained silent?
A. Yes, because she did not respond to the woman right away.
B. Yes, because she had just killed her husband.
C. No, because she eventually responded to the woman’s comment.
D. No, because a reasonable person would not have denied the statement.

Incorrect: Answer choice D is correct. An adoptive admission is a statement of another person that a party expressly or impliedly adopts as his own. Silence in response to a statement is considered an adoptive admission if: (i) The person was present and heard and understood the statement; (ii) the person had the ability and opportunity to deny the statement; and (iii) a reasonable person similarly situated would have denied the statement. Here, the jogger was present and had the opportunity to deny the statement; a similarly situated reasonable person, however, would not have felt compelled to answer the woman. Answer choice A is incorrect because a reasonable person would not have felt the need to respond to an intoxicated, homeless woman on the street. Answer choice B is incorrect because whether the statement was true or not is irrelevant to whether it was adopted. The statement would still not be an adoptive admission if a reasonable person would not have felt compelled to respond. Answer choice C is incorrect because the jogger’s later denial did not affect whether she had made an adoptive admission at the time the statement was made.

Not related to the actual question answer, but my first thought upon reading this question was, "This woman is a police officer dressed up as a homeless woman. Run away!"

[numbertwo88]

I'm literally going to break into tears if secured transactions, commercial paper, or constitutional law arise as any of the essays.

[iLoveFruits&Veggies]

Civ Pro is probably my worst subject (I can't stand it!), and I'll likely fail if a CA Civ Pro essay pops up (would be the first time ever for CA!), but I've gotta say, it won't be Professor Jeffries' fault. Just watched the last two lectures that I had put off until today, and I must say - he knows his stuff! So clear and to the point. Might be my favorite part of the entire Themis experience. I bought his CD lectures ages ago too... he's awesome

[mizunoami]

I'm taking the bar in MD, and I'm slightly perturbed that Article 4 is listed as a possible essay topic (albeit not showing up on the frequency chart at all) and Themis decided it's not worth learning. What if it comes up?

[bedefan]

I don't care if it's Themis or NCBE -- this question is totally asinine. Why does the bar penalize you for knowing stuff about the real world?

Assume for the purposes of this question that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state. The committee wants you to draft legislation to make all restrictions on land use imposed by deeds (now or hereafter recorded) unenforceable in the future so that public land-use planning through zoning will have exclusive control in matters of land use.

Which of the following is LEAST likely to be a consideration in the drafting of such legislation?
A. Compensation for property rights taken by public authority.
B. Impairment of contract.
C. Sovereign immunity.
D. Police power.

Answer choice C is correct. . . . Sovereign immunity would not be relevant to enacting a statute such as the one posed in this question (apparently because there's no possible chance that a state would waive its sovereign immunity as to controversial new legislation to encourage people to litigate it in state instead of federal court -- despite the fact that this happens all the time.), which makes it the least likely to be a consideration. . . . Answer choice D is incorrect because if the government is using its police power to regulate land use without compensation, the regulation must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest (which is such a hard standard to meet that I'm sure the legislature would be sweating bullets).

[champ33]

Confused about whether experts can testify to an ultimate issue. I am reading the NY evidence distinctions outline, which states that federal rules allow such testimony, but I distinctly remember a MBE question explanation that said a psychiatrist could not testify that a defendant lacked the state of mind to commit a crime because that would be testimony as to an ultimate issue....

[puttycake]

Confused about whether experts can testify to an ultimate issue. I am reading the NY evidence distinctions outline, which states that federal rules allow such testimony, but I distinctly remember a MBE question explanation that said a psychiatrist could not testify that a defendant lacked the state of mind to commit a crime because that would be testimony as to an ultimate issue....

They can testify to an ultimate issue EXCEPT whether a defendant had the necessary state of mind.