Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[PotLuck]

Finally got around to con law 5 PQ...41% and a goal of 60% I never even heard of some of these rules and I had studied my notes prior to the set. My confidence is shrinking by the question.

[minimumcontacts]

Finally got around to con law 5 PQ...41% and a goal of 60% I never even heard of some of these rules and I had studied my notes prior to the set. My confidence is shrinking by the question.

I wouldn't worry about the individual subject question sets as much. I got 44% on civ pro 6 and 32% on property 5 & 6 (after hitting mid 50s and even a 63), I'm hovering around 57% on the mixed sets for those two (by far my worst subjects). Plus if I understand it correctly, by question set 6 Themis is focusing on the sub-topics you're weak at (hence the 10 mortgage questions in my prop 6) so a drop isn't that surprising if you still don't understand the law.

I've started doing what a lot of others have suggested and writing out the rules for the problems I get wrong. I'm a little bit behind where I want to be, so maybe I'll never get a chance to look at them again, but I know I've at least seen the rule. If I get to look at them again, even better.

[blueapple]

Just got a call from the MI themis rep (i'm doing MI bar) said i'm on track to hit 75% (at 65% and haven't done MBE or Essay exam) and that i'm doing fine on the MBE and Essays.

Anyone in Michigan care to share how they're doing? I'm at average of 58% on MBE and most essay scores are between 50% and 70%, though some outliers very low. Seems like i'm not hitting my stride though.

Doing Adaptibar too and i'm at 63% average there.

Currently going through all michigan distinctions and typing up an outline based on Themis outline and lecture notes. making comments on Critical Pass cards for MBE subjects.

I'm at a total average of 61% on MBE (a bit better than that on the simulated MBE) and my essays started at 50% and have been between 60-80% since week 3. I didn't talk to the director yesterday but her voicemail said I was scoring above average on everything compared to other students, which is comforting I guess. I'm feeling fine about the MBE but worried about the essays because I really don't feel like I know the rules well enough at all. I'm fine at recognizing the rules and recalling them during the MBE but I'm not very good at memorizing generally.

[bsktbll28082]

Doing alright on MBE sets. Actually more worried about the essays at this point- there's just so much to pull from.

[Easy-E]

Doing alright on MBE sets. Actually more worried about the essays at this point- there's just so much to pull from.

Yeah I don't know enough cold for the essays at this point. I feel like I could pull an essay and just draw a blank,

[Vantwins]

I know it will probably be only one/maybe none/no more than two questions on the MBE, but the Rule Against Perpetuities can eat a fat one.

I'm not even bothering with it - 1 or 2 questions on MBE and not tested for MD essays. I always get confused with who is the measuring life. My best friend has practiced trusts and estates for 13 years now and she thinks it's fun. It takes all kinds.

Be careful. It could be tested in the Trusts essay if there is one. Trusts includes future interests and RAP as well.

MD doesn't test trusts/wills either.

[livinlaw]

Doing alright on MBE sets. Actually more worried about the essays at this point- there's just so much to pull from.

Yeah I don't know enough cold for the essays at this point. I feel like I could pull an essay and just draw a blank,

Me too. Especially when I read the sample answers and they're citing like every single factor that the court might consider and I'm just like - how in the world does someone remember this when there's 20 subjects total (I'm in FL).

[Easy-E]

Doing alright on MBE sets. Actually more worried about the essays at this point- there's just so much to pull from.

Yeah I don't know enough cold for the essays at this point. I feel like I could pull an essay and just draw a blank,

Me too. Especially when I read the sample answers and they're citing like every single factor that the court might consider and I'm just like - how in the world does someone remember this when there's 20 subjects total (I'm in FL).

Some of the sample answers are horseshit. They add in irrelevant law based on conditions that didn't occur.

I mean, all we need is 6/10. So that's basically failing.

[Easy-E]

Timeliness matters for intervention as of right, correct?

And what is the rule for jurisdiction over intervening parties? Just don't destroy diversity, or do they need independent AIC?

[ndp1234]

Doing alright on MBE sets. Actually more worried about the essays at this point- there's just so much to pull from.

Yeah I don't know enough cold for the essays at this point. I feel like I could pull an essay and just draw a blank,

Me too. Especially when I read the sample answers and they're citing like every single factor that the court might consider and I'm just like - how in the world does someone remember this when there's 20 subjects total (I'm in FL).

Some of the sample answers are horseshit. They add in irrelevant law based on conditions that didn't occur.

I mean, all we need is 6/10. So that's basically failing.

Do people feel like the Themis sample answers are not as good as they were in the beginning for these later subjects? I feel like there's issues/analysis that's either missing and/or issues that shouldn't even be in there...

Same thing for the MBE analyses. Some of them have become conclusory simply stating things like: C is incorrect because A is correct.

[xdeuceswild81xx]

Goal of 70% on the Mixed Set of 100 in the book is an A+ troll job, even by Themis' already lofty standards

+10000000

[hirkaismyname]

I wish my brain was SSD...my 80s brain's burn time is taking way too long

[Nebby]

Doing alright on MBE sets. Actually more worried about the essays at this point- there's just so much to pull from.

Yeah I don't know enough cold for the essays at this point. I feel like I could pull an essay and just draw a blank,

Me too. Especially when I read the sample answers and they're citing like every single factor that the court might consider and I'm just like - how in the world does someone remember this when there's 20 subjects total (I'm in FL).

Some of the sample answers are horseshit. They add in irrelevant law based on conditions that didn't occur.

I mean, all we need is 6/10. So that's basically failing.

Do people feel like the Themis sample answers are not as good as they were in the beginning for these later subjects? I feel like there's issues/analysis that's either missing and/or issues that shouldn't even be in there...

Same thing for the MBE analyses. Some of them have become conclusory simply stating things like: C is incorrect because A is correct.

For the essays? Yesssssss

[Easy-E]

Goal of 70% on the Mixed Set of 100 in the book is an A+ troll job, even by Themis' already lofty standards

+10000000

I'm hovering above 60% average right now (all within 60-65%). Tell me everything is okay Zuck.

[Rahviveh]

Timeliness matters for intervention as of right, correct?

And what is the rule for jurisdiction over intervening parties? Just don't destroy diversity, or do they need independent AIC?

No supplemental jurisdiction for intervenors

[BigZuck]

Goal of 70% on the Mixed Set of 100 in the book is an A+ troll job, even by Themis' already lofty standards

+10000000

I'm hovering above 60% average right now (all within 60-65%). Tell me everything is okay Zuck.

Yeah man, you're in good shape

I'm about 65% right now and I feel GREAT about that. We could all pass the bar today just based on our MBE prowess (TY based Themis) and our inherent ability to BS essays. And we still have two weeks to learn more stuff, which is straight up overkill. I actually kind of feel bad for the bar, it's not even fair how good we are at it. EZ game.

Keep grinding.

[bsktbll28082]

Yeah man, you're in good shape

I'm about 65% right now and I feel GREAT about that. We could all pass the bar today just based on our MBE prowess (TY based Themis) and our inherent ability to BS essays. And we still have two weeks to learn more stuff, which is straight up overkill. I actually kind of feel bad for the bar, it's not even fair how good we are at it. EZ game.

Keep grinding.

I enjoyed this. Keep posting like this.

[Easy-E]

Timeliness matters for intervention as of right, correct?

And what is the rule for jurisdiction over intervening parties? Just don't destroy diversity, or do they need independent AIC?

No supplemental jurisdiction for intervenors

What if the original case is federal question jx? Themis outline does a shit job of explaining this.

[Easy-E]

Goal of 70% on the Mixed Set of 100 in the book is an A+ troll job, even by Themis' already lofty standards

+10000000

I'm hovering above 60% average right now (all within 60-65%). Tell me everything is okay Zuck.

Yeah man, you're in good shape

I'm about 65% right now and I feel GREAT about that. We could all pass the bar today just based on our MBE prowess (TY based Themis) and our inherent ability to BS essays. And we still have two weeks to learn more stuff, which is straight up overkill. I actually kind of feel bad for the bar, it's not even fair how good we are at it. EZ game.

Keep grinding.

[youtube]qlIrWWp-fnc[/youtube]

I presume my grader will be named Drago

[Easy-E]

summary judgment question from civ pro set #6

[+] Spoiler

A customer properly filed an action in federal district court to compel the bank to recredit the customer’s account for $100,000, the amount of a check that the customer alleged contained a forged drawer’s signature. Fifteen days after discovery concluded in the case, the bank filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of this motion, the bank filed an affidavit by one of its tellers. The affidavit stated that due to the size of the check, the teller had personally verified by phone that the check in question had been signed by the customer when the check was presented for payment. In response, the customer submitted a statement from the transcript of her deposition, conducted by the bank, that she had not signed the check.

How should the court rule on the bank’s motion for summary judgment?
A Deny the motion, because the customer cannot introduce her own deposition transcript in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.
B Deny the motion, because there is a genuine dispute as to whether the drawer’s signature is authentic.
C Grant the motion, because it was timely filed.
D Grant the motion, because the bank met its burden of establishing that the signature was authentic.

Answer choice B is correct. With respect to a summary judgment motion, the movant must show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. While the bank has presented evidence that the signature is authentic, the customer has presented evidence that the signature is a forgery

I thought "mere assertion/denial" of fact does not create dispute? What evidence has the customer provided except her previous statement that she didn't sign it? Is the key that it was in a sworn deposition?

[ndp1234]

summary judgment question from civ pro set #6

[+] Spoiler

A customer properly filed an action in federal district court to compel the bank to recredit the customer’s account for $100,000, the amount of a check that the customer alleged contained a forged drawer’s signature. Fifteen days after discovery concluded in the case, the bank filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of this motion, the bank filed an affidavit by one of its tellers. The affidavit stated that due to the size of the check, the teller had personally verified by phone that the check in question had been signed by the customer when the check was presented for payment. In response, the customer submitted a statement from the transcript of her deposition, conducted by the bank, that she had not signed the check.

How should the court rule on the bank’s motion for summary judgment?
A Deny the motion, because the customer cannot introduce her own deposition transcript in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.
B Deny the motion, because there is a genuine dispute as to whether the drawer’s signature is authentic.
C Grant the motion, because it was timely filed.
D Grant the motion, because the bank met its burden of establishing that the signature was authentic.

Answer choice B is correct. With respect to a summary judgment motion, the movant must show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. While the bank has presented evidence that the signature is authentic, the customer has presented evidence that the signature is a forgery

I thought "mere assertion/denial" of fact does not create dispute? What evidence has the customer provided except her previous statement that she didn't sign it? Is the key that it was in a sworn deposition?

[+] Spoiler

Yep, it's because it was in the deposition. Sworn statements are usually enough to overcome a MSJ if it goes to a Genuine issue of material fact. What's usually not enough is just pointing to the pleadings or something that was said in motion itself with no accompanying proof.

[hirkaismyname]

Timeliness matters for intervention as of right, correct?

And what is the rule for jurisdiction over intervening parties? Just don't destroy diversity, or do they need independent AIC?

No supplemental jurisdiction for intervenors

What if the original case is federal question jx? Themis outline does a shit job of explaining this.

Then you're good to go. Rules is:

In diversity cases, interveners must establish ind SMJ
Supp JX will not cover div intervention.

If the guy establishes SMJ (FQJ or Div +75K+) then should be good to go.

[ndp1234]

Make sure you guys take a break today to enjoy 58¢ pancake stacks at IHOP.

[rambleon65]

Is Themis's outline blatantly wrong here?

Crim Pro:

Themis's Outline:

3. Compliance
a. Jury size and unanimity
A jury of less than six members is a denial of due process, and a unanimous verdict is constitutionally required if a jury is made up of only six members. For juries of seven or more, the vote need not be unanimous, but there is no strict rule as to how many votes are required for conviction.

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure R. 31(a):

Return. The jury must return its verdict to a judge in open court. The verdict must be unanimous.


haaaaalp

[Easy-E]

Make sure you guys take a break today to enjoy 58¢ pancake stacks at IHOP.

excuse me