Themis Bar Review Hangout - July 2016 Forum

[ndp1234]

Anyone here do corporations essay #3406? Involved the Model Business Corporation Act?

YES OMG. How could I forget that one. It had me spinning my wheels about the priority of amendments.

[Easy-E]

Anyone here do corporations essay #3406? Involved the Model Business Corporation Act?

YES OMG. How could I forget that one. It had me spinning my wheels about the priority of amendments.

Yeah I had nothing for that. Kind of annoyed at Themis for throwing some shit like that at us on the last essay, where all the other corporations one's were pretty straight-forward (veil-piercing, notice, etc)

[Virindi]

What exactly is the black letter rule that everyone uses for minimum contacts. Like, i understand what they are, but what is the literal language that you all use? Themis, for my state essays anyway, seems to use a different definition everytime.

Most of the time it states that minimum contacts requires:
(1) That d's contacts with the state be purposeful and substantial that the D could reasonably foresee being drawn into court there AND
(2) that litigating the case there would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Sometimes it only says (1) is needed. Even when it says (2) is needed, however, it never actually APPLIES IT- it just has the second part in the rule statement and then proceeds to only apply (1).

So, what exactly is the black letter law you all use for Minimum contacts?

I think you're using minimum contacts as the threshold (and combining subst fairness into it), when it's actually due process as the threshold. If you want to take another step back it's (I) traditional bases, or (II) long-arm statute that meets due process requirements.

In order to have JX you must meet due process requirements. This requires (a) minimum contacts, and (b) fairness and substantial justice.

minimum contacts = (1) purposeful availment of that state's laws and benefits, (2) the foreseeability that one could be sued in that state, and (3) the relatedness of the lawsuit's subject matter and the contacts

fairness and substantial justice = (1) interest of the forum state in adjudicating this matter, (2) burden on D in appearing, (3) interest in judicial efficiency, and (4) shared interest of state's policies

[ndp1234]

Anyone here do corporations essay #3406? Involved the Model Business Corporation Act?

YES OMG. How could I forget that one. It had me spinning my wheels about the priority of amendments.

Yeah I had nothing for that. Kind of annoyed at Themis for throwing some shit like that at us on the last essay, where all the other corporations one's were pretty straight-forward (veil-piercing, notice, etc)

This was actually a very recent Corps question (July 2014). I just described the shareholder duties and director duties and how amendments should be done and this answer was strikingly similar to a MN BLE good representative answer. Themis' nuanced point did not make it to the MN representative answer FWIW

[Easy-E]

Anyone here do corporations essay #3406? Involved the Model Business Corporation Act?

YES OMG. How could I forget that one. It had me spinning my wheels about the priority of amendments.

Yeah I had nothing for that. Kind of annoyed at Themis for throwing some shit like that at us on the last essay, where all the other corporations one's were pretty straight-forward (veil-piercing, notice, etc)

This was actually a very recent Corps question (July 2014). I just described the shareholder duties and director duties and how amendments should be done and this answer was strikingly similar to a MN BLE good representative answer. Themis' nuanced point did not make it to the MN representative answer FWIW

Good to know. I mean, yeah. Themis model answers are just copied & pasted straight from their outline, because we all know the minutia of the MEE shit COLD AS ICE.

[Rahviveh]

Is there going to be a clock in the room or is that up in the air?

[mu13ski]

Is there going to be a clock in the room or is that up in the air?

Check your jx's website. IL says there will be a clock.

[canijustsleep]

...Would it be the worst decision in the world to never do the full MEE?

NY UBE, 83.2% completion overall (but the MEE has been sitting at the top of my to-do queue for like a week now, so I don't have credit for a lot of review that I have done), 69% completion of the essays, averaging 78% correct on MBE mixed sets, scored above average on every graded essay, I've written like 30 real life motions so the MPT should be fine.

I'm just generally feeling so exhausted and dead inside that I would rather stare into space and never move from the couch than write for three hours straight today. (Or, you know, ever, but I get good test adrenaline)

I feel guilty not doing it, but I also feel like I need to relax, it's not going to make a big difference, and I should try to perk myself up for test day.

[Rahviveh]

Is there going to be a clock in the room or is that up in the air?

Check your jx's website. IL says there will be a clock.

Yeah I couldnt find anything for NY

[unidentifiable]

I wish Themis allowed us to see everyone's overall MBE average, just so I know how I'm doing. It probably wouldn't be very useful, since the questions are, for the most part, geared towards your weaknesses, but it would still be cool to see.

[Easy-E]

...Would it be the worst decision in the world to never do the full MEE?

NY UBE, 83.2% completion overall (but the MEE has been sitting at the top of my to-do queue for like a week now, so I don't have credit for a lot of review that I have done), 69% completion of the essays, averaging 78% correct on MBE mixed sets, scored above average on every graded essay, I've written like 30 real life motions so the MPT should be fine.

I'm just generally feeling so exhausted and dead inside that I would rather stare into space and never move from the couch than write for three hours straight today. (Or, you know, ever, but I get good test adrenaline)

I feel guilty not doing it, but I also feel like I need to relax, it's not going to make a big difference, and I should try to perk myself up for test day.

For what it's worth, I'm not. Not saying it's a good or bad idea, just saying.

[Fivedham]

Isn't there like an internal clock in SofTest? Debating whether or not to go to Target tomorrow to buy a cheap analog watch, since clearly my Pebble won't be allowed in.

[1down1togo]

Isn't there like an internal clock in SofTest? Debating whether or not to go to Target tomorrow to buy a cheap analog watch, since clearly my Pebble won't be allowed in.

Maybe there is a timer in SofTest- I'm pretty sure there is in fact. However, maybe it'll be disabled for this test?

However, I would highly recommend getting an analogue watch. I had one for the LSAT, and for the first bar I passed (not allowed in the jurisdiciton im taking ). Honestly, you don't want to worry about whether the the software has a timer. You also dont want to have to worry about how it works, and whether you can reset it. IMO, its better to buy a watch, and then be completely familiar with how to use it- then you can have it count down your total time, or you can adjust it at the start of each question- or do it however you like. IMO, its all about being in control of these things- instead of having another thing to worry about. Better to have your own watch that you know you can use and that you know how it works. My 2 cents, anyway.

[Easy-E]

Someone please agree with me that this patently ridiculous:

Answer choice D is incorrect as the defendant did not intend to inflict serious bodily harm to his boss when he punched him in the face. He could not have realized that there was a high probability of serious harm to his boss.

Am I thinking of a different "punching someone in the face"?

[gr8scOtt!]

Just popping in to say hello and that you guys have got this!

Used Themis last year. Was hitting about 65% on MBE before exam. Finished about 92% of the course. Passed MD on the first try (with a 150+ MBE).

My advice - Try to destress tonight/tomorrow. Keep it to a minimum of studying which should be mainly a review. If you don't know it now, you probably won't. The exam may or may not be what you are expecting but dig deep into the back of your brain and just keep writing something for the essays. Make sure you keep pace on the MBE. You'll probably get it narrowed down to two, don't over analyze it or you'll run out of time, go with your gut and pick one - trust me on this, I was one of the ones that had the infamous "every answer is a freaking D!!" exams last July. During lunch, decompress. Go somewhere quiet, away from everyone if you can. And enjoy the moment when you are FINALLY finished, because then the loooong wait for results begins

Good luck everyone!!!

[rambleon65]

Someone please agree with me that this patently ridiculous:

Answer choice D is incorrect as the defendant did not intend to inflict serious bodily harm to his boss when he punched him in the face. He could not have realized that there was a high probability of serious harm to his boss.

Am I thinking of a different "punching someone in the face"?

eh, i wouldn't say punching someone in the face would meet that depraved heart standard / malice standard (assuming that's what you're talking about). You're right, it is a fine line, but most of time, when you punch someone in the face, it's not likely to cause SERIOUS bodily harm.

Now, if you were wearing brass knuckles? Probably.

On the other hand, if the victim dies, I think involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) would be appropriate. The line between criminal (gross) negligence and depraved heart is definitely a judgment call.

[1down1togo]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

[rambleon65]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

I agree it can seem kind of conflicting. But it's basically this: you have no duty to DO anything; however, you cannot affirmatively do something to harm them (e.g. spring guns, etc.)

[Easy-E]

Someone please agree with me that this patently ridiculous:

Answer choice D is incorrect as the defendant did not intend to inflict serious bodily harm to his boss when he punched him in the face. He could not have realized that there was a high probability of serious harm to his boss.

Am I thinking of a different "punching someone in the face"?

eh, i wouldn't say punching someone in the face would meet that depraved heart standard / malice standard (assuming that's what you're talking about). You're right, it is a fine line, but most of time, when you punch someone in the face, it's not likely to cause SERIOUS bodily harm.

Now, if you were wearing brass knuckles? Probably.

On the other hand, if the victim dies, I think involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence) would be appropriate. The line between criminal (gross) negligence and depraved heart is definitely a judgment call.

No I was thinking intent to do serious bodily harm, not depraved heart. I don't see how punching someone in the face would demonstrate intent to do bodily harm. Maybe I've got the standard wrong, is it whether it's LIKELY to cause serious bodily harm or whether you INTENDED to cause it?

Your face is completely unprotected (he punched his boss, not some dude he was squaring off with). Does a broken nose or missing teeth not qualify for serious bodily harm (actually asking)?

I get that the dude isn't Tyson (or a more relevant reference) but I dunno. I guess I haven't suffered SERIOUS injury every time I've personally been punched in the face. It just seems like a borderline question not suited for MC so fuck you Themis.

[1down1togo]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

I agree it can seem kind of conflicting. But it's basically this: you have no duty to DO anything; however, you cannot affirmatively do something to harm them (e.g. spring guns, etc.)

So if you were to use a spring trap- would it be said that you'd violated your duty? It would it more be that you are guilty of some sort of intentional tort rather than negligence? I Mean, i know its stupid asking the reasoning behidn this when I know what the law is. But when the answer choices are X because 1, and X because 2... the stupid, technical, logical part matters.

[rambleon65]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

I agree it can seem kind of conflicting. But it's basically this: you have no duty to DO anything; however, you cannot affirmatively do something to harm them (e.g. spring guns, etc.)

So if you were to use a spring trap- would it be said that you'd violated your duty? It would it more be that you are guilty of some sort of intentional tort rather than negligence? I Mean, i know its stupid asking the reasoning behidn this when I know what the law is. But when the answer choices are X because 1, and X because 2... the stupid, technical, logical part matters.

I mean, that's tough to ask because you always have duty not to hurt someone. (you have a duty not to kill someone, etc.) But it wouldn't be a negligence action, i would think, since you're doing something intentional. FWIW, I don't think this will be what separates a correct answer from a wrong answer. If comes up on essay, I would say, "While there is no duty towards undiscovered trespassers, here, X will be liable because X did ABC, etc."

[Virindi]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

[ndp1234]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

The rule for discovered/known trespassers is to warn/remedy about artificial and hidden dangers I thought?

[AlanShore]

Just popping in to say hello and that you guys have got this!

Used Themis last year. Was hitting about 65% on MBE before exam. Finished about 92% of the course. Passed MD on the first try (with a 150+ MBE).

My advice - Try to destress tonight/tomorrow. Keep it to a minimum of studying which should be mainly a review. If you don't know it now, you probably won't. The exam may or may not be what you are expecting but dig deep into the back of your brain and just keep writing something for the essays. Make sure you keep pace on the MBE. You'll probably get it narrowed down to two, don't over analyze it or you'll run out of time, go with your gut and pick one - trust me on this, I was one of the ones that had the infamous "every answer is a freaking D!!" exams last July. During lunch, decompress. Go somewhere quiet, away from everyone if you can. And enjoy the moment when you are FINALLY finished, because then the loooong wait for results begins

Good luck everyone!!!

Thank you!!!!

[1down1togo]

Under the common law, are undiscovered/unanticipated trespassers owed a duty of care?

The outline says:

c) Undiscovered trespassers
Land possessors generally owe no duty to undiscovered trespassers, nor do they have a duty to inspect their property for evidence of trespassers.

The VERY SAME OUTLINE, a few paragraphs away, states:

"1) Traditional approach
A landowner is obligated to refrain from willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional misconduct toward trespassers."

Furthermore, some of the themis answers state no duty is owed, and some state a duty is owed. This is driving me nuts.

the outline sucks

the first rule you quoted is about undiscovered trespassers

the second rule is about discovered or known trespassers

Are you sure, because I messaged themis, and this was there response:

"Good question! The duty you cite [i had cited the duty about refraining from willful/wanton] is a duty that every person owes to every foreseeable plaintiff, and is the traditional rule for all trespassers. Beyond this, no additional duty is owed to undiscovered trespassers. I hope this helps!"

This was there "answer." I mean, under their answer- they said the duty I cited (the no willfull/wanton) is the rule for "ALL" trespassers- and no additioan lduty is owed. SO wouldn't that mean it applies to unanticipated trespassers??

This is why i hate this crap. I'm in the middle of a set, so I can't get it now, but I jsut came across a quesiton and the answers choices were like
1. NO- defendant not liable b/c plaintiff was trespasser and no duty owed and
2. NO- defendant not liable b/c plaintiff exceeded scope of invitation... blah blah.

I'll get it later. I jsut feel like thier refusal to answer whether there is a duty or not makes it so im guessing as to the answers on these sorts of questions.