. Forum

[locusdelicti]

Ok, I'm starting to lag BIG TIME. For the past three days, I've become very tired or exhausted in the middle of studying. I didn't want to rely heavily on energy drinks, but it seems like there's no choice.

Black tea instead?

Maybe take breaks but set timers so you come back.

[Holly Golightly]

I need lots of caffeine if I want any shot of being able to focus.

But right now, it's beer and Stanley Cup time.

[Bikeflip]

Damn Bruins.

Also, I reallllly suck at the fee system. Flashcards and condensed outlines are not working. Anyone have any input? The first time I saw the fee system was 2 weeks ago. Landlord-tenant, adverse possession, easements, and mortgages I get.

Fee simplies, RAP, and the like confuse me.

[Reinhardt]

Energy drink protip: SodaStream energy drink syrup sold at many major retailers. Taste and caffeine content is very similar to Red Bull, and it's $7 for 12 liters' worth. Compare with Red Bull @ $2 a can. And they make a diet version too.

--LinkRemoved--

[locusdelicti]

Damn Bruins.

Also, I reallllly suck at the fee system. Flashcards and condensed outlines are not working. Anyone have any input? The first time I saw the fee system was 2 weeks ago. Landlord-tenant, adverse possession, easements, and mortgages I get.

Fee simplies, RAP, and the like confuse me.

Make a little cheat sheet with examples on it.

So Fee Simple:

O --> A
O --> A and his heirs

Fee Simple Determinable

O --> A until he goes away to college

A has FSD
O has a possibility of reverter (automatic)

Fee Simple Subject to Condition Subsequent

O --> A, provided that A graduates by 2015

A has FSSCS
O has right of reentry (O must take action to regain possession)

Fee Simple Subject to Executory Interest

O --> A, but if A doesn't graduate by 2015, to B

A has FSSEI
B has executory interest (which is subject to RAP, but passes)

And so on.

So just make a chart or a one-pager with these kinds of examples on it, like the ones Moby has in his worksheet, with notes about when the different future interest apply.... is that helpful?

RAP sucks. It's fucking stupid.
But figure out who the life in being is (there may be more than one), and if the interest subject to RAP will not vest within 21 years after that person dies, it fails RAP.
If there's more than one life in being, it just has to vest within 21 years after the death of one of them.
RAP only applies to certain interests, so figure out what all the interests are before worrying about RAP.

Ugh, property is gross.

[Bustang]

Supposed to do two practice essays today, but I can't will myself to do it. Tomorrow is going to suck.

[Holly Golightly]

Has anyone else noticed that there doesn't seem to be a set time for Themis to decide that it's the next day? I'm usually doing work pretty late at night, and it messes with my directed schedule. One time I noticed that it didn't change over to the next day until 2 or 3am, but yesterday it decided it was June 12 before midnight.

[CaliBum]

I've noticed. I go into weekly view, see what I need to do next, and then get it done in flex mode. It seems Themis wasn't ready for us late owls.

[Holly Golightly]

I've noticed. I go into weekly view, see what I need to do next, and then get it done in flex mode. It seems Themis wasn't ready for us late owls.

Yeah, that's what I've been doing, too, and it's only a minor annoyance, but still an annoyance. haha

And on nights like tonight when the Blackhawks and Bruins decided to basically play 2 games, I'm going to be up even later than usual!

[Holly Golightly]

IL Evidence dude would otherwise be fine, but he talks S O F U C K I N G S L O W. It's driving me crazy. Even watching on double speed I'm bored.

[mrloblaw]

So I'm going through this stuff hella-slow, making sure I get everything right on my first trip through the outline. I'm at 8% complete after one full week of study, but I'm consistently getting 85%+ on my MBEs (Torts and Con Law so far).

Am I screwed, or will I be able to make up the slow pace come review time?

[JD_done]

Another property question. I saw this in the handout and I'm trying to practice my RAP skills:

"O conveys Blackacre 'to A and her heirs, but if liquor is served on the premises, then to C and her heirs."

This violates RAP, correct? A could die and liquor could be served 100 years afterwards.

Would it NOT violate RAP if it said:

"To A and her heirs, but if liquor is served on the premises during A's lifetime, then to C and he heirs."

This question totally threw me so I went back and reviewed my notes. I think your second example does not violate RAP because A is the validating life. The condition can only happen during A's life. In your first example, the condition could happen during A's life or during any of A's heirs' lives and that violates RAP. (I think this is correct but I'm just working on understanding this all)

[Citizen Genet]

Texas Bar People:

So I want to make digital flashcards for my smartphone. I am interested in collaborating on making them. Are you guys interested? If so, do you have a specific recommendation for an app? (I found one app that does it easily (GFlash+) where all I have to do is upload a Google Spreadsheet - but I am open to suggestion.) And if you want to do it, how should we split it up?

Feel free to PM me if you're interested.

[kalvano]

Texas Bar People:

So I want to make digital flashcards for my smartphone. I am interested in collaborating on making them. Are you guys interested? If so, do you have a specific recommendation for an app? (I found one app that does it easily (GFlash+) where all I have to do is upload a Google Spreadsheet - but I am open to suggestion.) And if you want to do it, how should we split it up?

Feel free to PM me if you're interested.

Kaplan makes a free MBE flash card app for iOS.

[BarbellDreams]

Graded essay response says "Good analysis, but the dormant commerce clause is not really at issue here. Check the model answer."

*Checks Model Answer*

Dude spent 2 paragraphs analyzing the dormant commerce clause.

Awesome...

[locusdelicti]

Graded essay response says "Good analysis, but the dormant commerce clause is not really at issue here. Check the model answer."

*Checks Model Answer*

Dude spent 2 paragraphs analyzing the dormant commerce clause.

Awesome...

"Oh, you meant THAT dormant commerce clause."

Probably should ask Themis about it.

[BarbellDreams]

Graded essay response says "Good analysis, but the dormant commerce clause is not really at issue here. Check the model answer."

*Checks Model Answer*

Dude spent 2 paragraphs analyzing the dormant commerce clause.

Awesome...

"Oh, you meant THAT dormant commerce clause."

Probably should ask Themis about it.

Either I am completely insane or something is off here.

He said dormant commerce clause only comes into play when a state discriminates against out of state versus in state activity/citizens. I understood the dormant commerce clause to preempt ANY state law that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce and/or its instrumentalities.

So if NY passed a law saying "There shall be no trucks driven in the state of NY" I think that law is preempted by dormant commerce clause cause it substantially affects interstate commerce, but that law doesn't discriminate in state vs. out of state, just says NO ONE will drive those trucks.

I read and re-read my graders answer and I flat out don't agree. I don't think the dormant commerce clause ONLY comes into play when out of state vs. in state discrimination occurs, I think it comes into play when a state passes a law that substantially burdens interstate commerce.

Am I insane?

[forza]

New York peeps: do we only learn NY Criminal Law/Procedure and not MBE Criminal Law/Procedure? I see no handouts/lectures for general MBE Crim stuff, but there is a section in the Multistate book for each.

[locusdelicti]

Graded essay response says "Good analysis, but the dormant commerce clause is not really at issue here. Check the model answer."

*Checks Model Answer*

Dude spent 2 paragraphs analyzing the dormant commerce clause.

Awesome...

"Oh, you meant THAT dormant commerce clause."

Probably should ask Themis about it.

Either I am completely insane or something is off here.

He said dormant commerce clause only comes into play when a state discriminates against out of state versus in state activity/citizens. I understood the dormant commerce clause to preempt ANY state law that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce and/or its instrumentalities.

So if NY passed a law saying "There shall be no trucks driven in the state of NY" I think that law is preempted by dormant commerce clause cause it substantially affects interstate commerce, but that law doesn't discriminate in state vs. out of state, just says NO ONE will drive those trucks.

I read and re-read my graders answer and I flat out don't agree. I don't think the dormant commerce clause ONLY comes into play when out of state vs. in state discrimination occurs, I think it comes into play when a state passes a law that substantially burdens interstate commerce.

Am I insane?

The hell.

Yeah, he's talking about discrimination against out of state interests, but that's not the ONLY inquiry you have to make with the dormant commerce clause. If trucks couldn't pass through New York, they'd have to drive through Ohio, Michigan and finally Canada to get from PA to MA. That's unduly fucking burdensome. What a joker.

[thebull]

New York peeps: do we only learn NY Criminal Law/Procedure and not MBE Criminal Law/Procedure? I see no handouts/lectures for general MBE Crim stuff, but there is a section in the Multistate book for each.

The handouts and lectures cover both the MBE stuff and NY Distinctions.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Graded essay response says "Good analysis, but the dormant commerce clause is not really at issue here. Check the model answer."

*Checks Model Answer*

Dude spent 2 paragraphs analyzing the dormant commerce clause.

Awesome...

"Oh, you meant THAT dormant commerce clause."

Probably should ask Themis about it.

Either I am completely insane or something is off here.

He said dormant commerce clause only comes into play when a state discriminates against out of state versus in state activity/citizens. I understood the dormant commerce clause to preempt ANY state law that has a substantial affect on interstate commerce and/or its instrumentalities.

So if NY passed a law saying "There shall be no trucks driven in the state of NY" I think that law is preempted by dormant commerce clause cause it substantially affects interstate commerce, but that law doesn't discriminate in state vs. out of state, just says NO ONE will drive those trucks.

I read and re-read my graders answer and I flat out don't agree. I don't think the dormant commerce clause ONLY comes into play when out of state vs. in state discrimination occurs, I think it comes into play when a state passes a law that substantially burdens interstate commerce.

Am I insane?

The hell.

Yeah, he's talking about discrimination against out of state interests, but that's not the ONLY inquiry you have to make with the dormant commerce clause. If trucks couldn't pass through New York, they'd have to drive through Ohio, Michigan and finally Canada to get from PA to MA. That's unduly fucking burdensome. What a joker.

I'd keep in mind that the lawyers who grade these essays are not necessarily the sharpest legal minds on the planet. Seems like you gotta overlook a few mistakes on their part. I think I've heard that about Barbri, Themis, whoever.

[BarbellDreams]

I'm more concerned with whether I have it right or whether I have gone so insane that I dont remember the basics o dormant commerce clause. I told a friend of mine who is also studying that you can literally wikipedia dormant commerce clause and in the first couple of sentences it will address preemption of laws that substantially burden interstate commerce.

[locusdelicti]

I'm more concerned with whether I have it right or whether I have gone so insane that I dont remember the basics o dormant commerce clause. I told a friend of mine who is also studying that you can literally wikipedia dormant commerce clause and in the first couple of sentences it will address preemption of laws that substantially burden interstate commerce.

Yeah, there's some difficult standard for unduly burdensome... Jeffries said it's hard to meet. My handout says a non-discriminatory law will be struck down only if it's "so outrageously costly relative to the benefits of the regulation". But it's still an issue.

It makes me wonder what your grader's grading guidelines said, and if they didn't say dormant commerce clause... that's kind of weird. Does your model answer have grading guidelines on it?

[kalvano]

Is Property Moby's sound weird to anyone else, like he was talking through water?

[mjj]

Graded essay feedback: "exceptional analysis, maybe try to learn the law, though."

nailed it.