Florida Essays Forum

[timmmmmm]

Don't you think it was an intermediate scrutiny issue since it involved Gender?

Yes, intermediate scrutiny applied, which I applied, as I stated above. I-S refers to when the government's actions must be substantially related to an important gov. interest. However, the regular “substantially related” test under I-S is different from when gender is at issue.

Specifically, when dealing with gender, "substantially related" means that the gov. must show an exceedingly persuasive justification based on real differences & not prejudice or stereotype. In other words, the court will balance the harm that would result if the law was gender-neutral versus the harm that would result by the discrimination in the law if it remained based on gender (i.e. not gender neutral). No matter if you applied this distinction or not, if you applied I-S and concluded that Congress would have an uphill battle in satisfying I-S, you probably got the points.

But then again, all of this is just my opinion! LOL. I could be totally wrong.

Anybody else have any thoughts on this issue?

[passx3]

Specifically, when dealing with gender, "substantially related" means that the gov. must show an exceedingly persuasive justification based on real differences & not prejudice or stereotype. In other words, the court will balance the harm that would result if the law was gender-neutral versus the harm that would result by the discrimination in the law if it remained based on gender (i.e. not gender neutral). No matter if you applied this distinction or not, if you applied I-S and concluded that Congress would have an uphill battle in satisfying I-S, you probably got the points.

Yeah, I said I-S and IRAC'd it but I didn't remember the exceeding persuasive distinction. Seems like maybe a quarter of the people I've talked to remembered exceeding persuasive.

I did throw in something from Kaplan's fed con law lecture in there... I cited the VMI case, I didn't remember the exact name but just ran through the facts and how the court said that gender based differences could be upheld when it came to separate-sex educational institutions but that the state crosses a line when it provides a unique opportunity only to men. IE a military school that provides unique training and there's one for men but not an equivalent available to women. I just threw that in there to try to scoop up some extra points.

[Sgttpc]

Sorry I didn't see the IS you wrote, I only saw the SS under Substantive DP. I did not get the exceedingly persuasive justification either. I only applied IS based on gender and went with that.
Best of Luck to everyone, Only a few weeks left. Hope everyone passed!

I felt very good bout florida, thought the issues were clear and I was able to write a lot for each topic. I thought the MC was not crazy difficult, thank God for no Business entitites. The Evidence was not too bad and the Civ pro was not awful.
I felt good about MBE as well. I think I was well prepared.

[wise4]

My take on the FL essays for the July 2016 bar exam. These are the main issues I remember addressing.

#1 - Contracts
Discussed Formation - i.e. whether there was a valid acceptance. Even though it wasn't a clear acceptance, performance for a year was a valid acceptance so a K was formed.
Statute of Frauds - 5 year employment K was not capable of being performed within 1 year so I discussed whether K was adequately signed by professor, i.e. party to be charged.
Non-compete clause violated public policy and thus, this clause was void and unenforceable.
Duty to mitigate by professor satisfied by finding another job.
Damages - expectation (minus salary from new job). Discussed how equitable remedies, such as specific performance, were not available because adequate legal remedies existed.

#2 - Fed ConLaw
State action - entanglement exception (actions of capitol police - there was significant state involvement, endorsement, or encouragement of the actions of police).
1st Amendment - Free Speech. Discussed the different forums, including public, designated public, limited public, and non-public. Then, i discussed the different tests for each but concluded the forum was either a designated or limited public forum because I considered it to be gov. property that the gov. affirmatively decided to open only to some speakers or some topics.
11th Amendment Governmental Immunity.
President - Sign bill into law, pocket veto permitted (but not permitted for governor of FL), line item veto unconstitutional, etc.
Substantive due process - law was arbirtary. Applied strict scrutiny and I concluded strict scrutiny would not be satisfied.
Florida's Arguments - The two big issues I discussed was whether FL had standing and the ripeness doctrine because the bill had not yet been enacted. Also, the 10th Amendment was heavily at issue in my opinion because Congress cannot commandeer the state to enact laws. However, Congress gave FL the option to enact it, so 10th Amendment was not violated. I did not feel that any arguments dealing with preemption were applicable so I did not address them.
Equal protection issue - applied intermediate scrutiny. Since we were dealing with gender, I applied the exceedingly persuasive justification test and concluded intermediate scrutiny would probably not be met.

#3 - Torts
Strict Products liability - mentioned the 5 ways to be held liable for products liability - (1) intent (argued it could maybe apply but would be an uphill battle), (2) strict PL (i.e. warning & design defect), (3) misrepresentation (did not apply), (4) Negligence (applied), and (5) warranties - express, implied warranty of merchantability, and implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose.
Neighbor could potentially sue owner for negligence. Nuisance was not applicable in my opinion and I did not address it because nuisance does not apply to situations like the one in the essay. Rather, nuisance requires an unreasonable, continuous, and substantial interference with another's property.
Pure comparative negligence - owner could seek indemnification from manufacturer for neighbor's claims.
Manufacturer would argue contributory negligence by owner hiring the guy to install it (I do not remember the facts very well haha).
Ethics
(1) Contingency fees.
(2) Lawyers prohibited from entering a transaction with clients where lawyer obtains a pecuniary, proprietary, or property interest.
(3) FL rules of professionalism.

This is the most that I can remember. If anyone can provide any feedback as to my responses to the essay questions I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Best of luck to everyone as the results are soon to come out.

Pretty on point.

For K's, I also talked about the contract formation and SOF between the prof and the guy. The fact that the prof cashed the checks after the back n forth counteroffer. Also talked about Due Process for prof. However, I missed the SOF employment contract like a moron. I hit on most though so not worried. I also talked about specific perf for the patent as it was a unique good IMO

For con law, glad you picked up on commandeer. A lot of peeps didn't. I honestly thoroughly enjoyed this essay as I extra studied con law. I agree with most of your issues. I though in some others as well such as whether supreme ct can hear state issues, etc

For torts, I agree with your issues. I saw no nuisance claim for the neighbor as well, however, I went ahead and threw in trespass to land lol who knows. I also talked about punitive damages just cause I felt like it's better on than not.

But for the most, I am completely on par with your essays. Makes me feel comfortable. I know people who barely wrote for the fed con law essay

[legal10101]

My take on the FL essays for the July 2016 bar exam. These are the main issues I remember addressing.

#1 - Contracts
Discussed Formation - i.e. whether there was a valid acceptance. Even though it wasn't a clear acceptance, performance for a year was a valid acceptance so a K was formed.
Statute of Frauds - 5 year employment K was not capable of being performed within 1 year so I discussed whether K was adequately signed by professor, i.e. party to be charged.
Non-compete clause violated public policy and thus, this clause was void and unenforceable.
Duty to mitigate by professor satisfied by finding another job.
Damages - expectation (minus salary from new job). Discussed how equitable remedies, such as specific performance, were not available because adequate legal remedies existed.

#2 - Fed ConLaw
State action - entanglement exception (actions of capitol police - there was significant state involvement, endorsement, or encouragement of the actions of police).
1st Amendment - Free Speech. Discussed the different forums, including public, designated public, limited public, and non-public. Then, i discussed the different tests for each but concluded the forum was either a designated or limited public forum because I considered it to be gov. property that the gov. affirmatively decided to open only to some speakers or some topics.
11th Amendment Governmental Immunity.
President - Sign bill into law, pocket veto permitted (but not permitted for governor of FL), line item veto unconstitutional, etc.
Substantive due process - law was arbirtary. Applied strict scrutiny and I concluded strict scrutiny would not be satisfied.
Florida's Arguments - The two big issues I discussed was whether FL had standing and the ripeness doctrine because the bill had not yet been enacted. Also, the 10th Amendment was heavily at issue in my opinion because Congress cannot commandeer the state to enact laws. However, Congress gave FL the option to enact it, so 10th Amendment was not violated. I did not feel that any arguments dealing with preemption were applicable so I did not address them.
Equal protection issue - applied intermediate scrutiny. Since we were dealing with gender, I applied the exceedingly persuasive justification test and concluded intermediate scrutiny would probably not be met.

#3 - Torts
Strict Products liability - mentioned the 5 ways to be held liable for products liability - (1) intent (argued it could maybe apply but would be an uphill battle), (2) strict PL (i.e. warning & design defect), (3) misrepresentation (did not apply), (4) Negligence (applied), and (5) warranties - express, implied warranty of merchantability, and implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose.
Neighbor could potentially sue owner for negligence. Nuisance was not applicable in my opinion and I did not address it because nuisance does not apply to situations like the one in the essay. Rather, nuisance requires an unreasonable, continuous, and substantial interference with another's property.
Pure comparative negligence - owner could seek indemnification from manufacturer for neighbor's claims.
Manufacturer would argue contributory negligence by owner hiring the guy to install it (I do not remember the facts very well haha).
Ethics
(1) Contingency fees.
(2) Lawyers prohibited from entering a transaction with clients where lawyer obtains a pecuniary, proprietary, or property interest.
(3) FL rules of professionalism.

This is the most that I can remember. If anyone can provide any feedback as to my responses to the essay questions I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Best of luck to everyone as the results are soon to come out.

Pretty on point.

For K's, I also talked about the contract formation and SOF between the prof and the guy. The fact that the prof cashed the checks after the back n forth counteroffer. Also talked about Due Process for prof. However, I missed the SOF employment contract like a moron. I hit on most though so not worried. I also talked about specific perf for the patent as it was a unique good IMO

For con law, glad you picked up on commandeer. A lot of peeps didn't. I honestly thoroughly enjoyed this essay as I extra studied con law. I agree with most of your issues. I though in some others as well such as whether supreme ct can hear state issues, etc

For torts, I agree with your issues. I saw no nuisance claim for the neighbor as well, however, I went ahead and threw in trespass to land lol who knows. I also talked about punitive damages just cause I felt like it's better on than not.

But for the most, I am completely on par with your essays. Makes me feel comfortable. I know people who barely wrote for the fed con law essay

I hit on pretty much the same stuff, but also tales about UCC v CL in K and Standing with Con Law. I added some terrible subrogration crap in the SL neighbor claim... Addressed Struct Liab and Negligence.