2017 February California Bar Exam Forum

[RickSanchez]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

If you had a decent analysis you should get at least 65. I have seen some really bad ones get 60.

[ledv]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

55.

[cal_pushed]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

55.

Hahahah. So wrong.

[ledv]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

55.

Hahahah. So wrong.

Lol. Relax people, you guys just took the bar exam! Go outside or something! Enjoy the world around you!

[cal_pushed]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

55.

Hahahah. So wrong.

Lol. Relax people, you guys just took the bar exam! Go outside or something! Enjoy the world around you!

Can't because I'm worried about leaving my kids with a babysitter, and getting sued.

[ledv]

Also I didn't put headings on the first PTA, simply did it as "First" and "second" to divide.... am I screwed? Had a decent analysis ... 55?

55.

Hahahah. So wrong.

Lol. Relax people, you guys just took the bar exam! Go outside or something! Enjoy the world around you!

Can't because I'm worried about leaving my kids with a babysitter, and getting sued.

Baby sitters = independent contractors or employees? Liable or not liable? If babysitter had a swing on her property and kids climbed a 6 ft tall wired fence with angry dog on the side and bites someone, who's liable?

[unclepete]

I'm confused about the question. The entrapment was call 3 if I'm not mistaken. Call 1 was 4th, Call 2 was Miranda. Which analysis are you asking about?

For the Last call... I said there was no mutual asssent to the agreement for conspiracy and entrapment did apply

there was conspiracy . .. . .. i thought it was solicitation?

Solicitation merges into conspiracy?

........ missed that hahaha damn

I'm lost. Only talked about solicitation, and only to discuss the probably cause to arrest after I invalidated the warrant. Entrapment issue I just discussed the elements of entrapment....? The call specifically said "solicitation to commit murder" ...

Warrant was valid under the Good Faith Exception... officer relied on what he thought was a proper warrant


Damn! I thought the call only said what her chances were for the defense of entrapment....

I found that warrant was not valid and that the good faith exception did NOT apply, since Alan knew that Ivan was an unreliable source and lied on the warrant application by saying he got a tip from a "reliable source"

And then separately I said that despite there not being a warrant, there WAS probable cause for arrest arising from the interaction between Bob and Debbie (or whatever her name was) in the bar.

[clockguy]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...

Third case quoted another case about a tow yard storing cars, it said the contract was within the exceptions...

Yeah exactly, could've used the dissent argument to make a case for Blanchard... to be more "objective" coulda woulda hadda

I'm pretty concerned and confused now. Did anyone else see estoppel anywhere?

[unclepete]

Hypothetically, if I forgot the second element of the entrapment defense and missed the unreliability of the informant, what's the best I could have gotten? Assuming I stated all the other rules well and had ok-level analysis? Missing those 2 things, do you think 55 is still possible?

Yes. Hardly anybody had the entrapment elements down pat. I made them up off the top of my head based on the fact patterns. 85-90% of the points for that essay were in the 4th&5th Amendment analyses. Entrapment was their little "gotcha!" add-on.

[unclepete]

Oh, and did anyone else hit the "inevitible discovery" exception to the exclusion of the statement? A lab would have tested the coke (and I said still likely would) regardless of the statement. I had already discussed the fact that the statement was not incited by a custodial interview and that the officer's statement was more a colloquial exclamation than a statement likely to incite a response.

I actually did a voluntary statement exception to the exclusionary rule, and split the statements up. One was "Its cocaine" which was in direct response to Bob's question "what do we have here?" - even if the question was rhetorical, I analyzed that and found that she answered his question and thus it was not voluntary for the purposes of my argument. And then the second statement was "I`m in big trouble now" - which was voluntary because it wasn't a response to his question and thus wasn't part of the interrogation at all.

[unclepete]

Hypothetically, if I forgot the second element of the entrapment defense and missed the unreliability of the informant, what's the best I could have gotten? Assuming I stated all the other rules well and had ok-level analysis? Missing those 2 things, do you think 55 is still possible?

55 is definitely possible. If you did other searches + did a great job on Miranda, maybe even 60

"maybe even a 60." Bro, you're not a grader and this is way off. Stop adding fuel to people's anxiety. Missing one element of entrapment meant very little on this essay. You can do a good job on 4th and 5th and throw out some reasonable shit for entrapment and score a 70 on this essay.

[Lawless!]

Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?

[unclepete]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...

"Estoppel" was mentioned in the Hiram case in this context: "Because they didn't have the right to contract, opposing part cannot enforce contract through estoppel" or something like that... In other words, because the contract wasn't properly made, it can't be enforced regardless of the 3P's reliance and performance on it ... In other words, 3Ps can get hamboned by a city.

The estoppel shit was meant to trip us up. It literally was interchangeable with immunity. "Lack of use of estoppel" = Immunity.

[Snowboarder1588]

Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........

[unclepete]

Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?

For part 1, I did quick corporate formation and quickly concluded it was a de jure corp given the facts. Then did a piercing corporate veil analysis. Part 2 was shareholder derivative and then her ability to sue Art personally as a shareholder for duty breaches (both as a majority SH to a minority SH, and as a director/agent of the corp). Part 3 was the bankruptcy question. Upon further inspection of my outline at lunch there are specific rules about this. I didn't know them off the top of my head so I went with "since they pierced the corporate veil the court is likely to find that this was acting a general partnership" and then did a dissolution distribution analysis based on outside creditors --> inside creditors --> capital contribution. LOL. My Part 3 was utter crap.

[unclepete]

Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........

That's a good point. I think that is a legit answer.

[ledv]

How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center...

[Lawless!]

Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?

For part 1, I did quick corporate formation and quickly concluded it was a de jure corp given the facts. Then did a piercing corporate veil analysis. Part 2 was shareholder derivative and then her ability to sue Art personally as a shareholder for duty breaches (both as a majority SH to a minority SH, and as a director/agent of the corp). Part 3 was the bankruptcy question. Upon further inspection of my outline at lunch there are specific rules about this. I didn't know them off the top of my head so I went with "since they pierced the corporate veil the court is likely to find that this was acting a general partnership" and then did a dissolution distribution analysis based on outside creditors --> inside creditors --> capital contribution. LOL. My Part 3 was utter crap.

Did the facts state that A had already incorporated Retailer, Inc? Or did I read that into it? I figured it was already incorporated and did directors and officer specifically A as president and director as an agent of corp and which binds Corp to the K. And then Supplier could then PCV to get A personally.

Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder part 3 was about A's loan he made. I had forgotten the rule for distribution so just made up a list with creditors including shareholder that loaned money. And then the deep Rock doctrine to subordinate As claim bc of wrongdoing.

[Lawless!]

Curious as to how everyone approached Corp Q. Did you discuss Corp formation or agency authority for part 1. What about part 2 shareholder suits? And can't remember part 3....?

For part 1, I did quick corporate formation and quickly concluded it was a de jure corp given the facts. Then did a piercing corporate veil analysis. Part 2 was shareholder derivative and then her ability to sue Art personally as a shareholder for duty breaches (both as a majority SH to a minority SH, and as a director/agent of the corp). Part 3 was the bankruptcy question. Upon further inspection of my outline at lunch there are specific rules about this. I didn't know them off the top of my head so I went with "since they pierced the corporate veil the court is likely to find that this was acting a general partnership" and then did a dissolution distribution analysis based on outside creditors --> inside creditors --> capital contribution. LOL. My Part 3 was utter crap.

Did the facts state that A had already incorporated Retailer, Inc? Or did I read that into it? I figured it was already incorporated and did directors and officer specifically A as president and director as an agent of corp and which binds Corp to the K. And then Supplier could then PCV to get A personally.

Oh yea! Thanks for the reminder part 3 was about A's loan he made. I had forgotten the rule for distribution so just made up a list with creditors including shareholder that loaned money. And then the deep Rock doctrine to subordinate As claim bc of wrongdoing.

Crap.. Forgot improper distributions.

[ur_hero]

Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........

This.

[Lawless!]

Hmmm....I said that Bob had good faith in relying on the warrant since he didn't know about Alan''s false affidavit in obtaining the warrant........

This.

That's what I argued. But then argued improper execution of the warrant, where proper execution is without delay and according to the specific time and place of the warrant. But maybe harmless error bc of the improper execution?

[Lawless!]

How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center...

Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM

[Roupie]

How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center...

Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM

Where did fit your ultra vires discussion?

[clockguy]

I messed up PTB big time.......... said the city had immunity if he statute was strictly construed and completely forgot to argue for estoppel Also I felt like both PT's had very little directions from the Boss.

Where was there law or any mention of estoppel?

It was on the second case - Galx case - mere irregularity s in procedural issues such the need for Quorum present - should be ignored and plaintiff should be able to invoke Estoppel if the City recived A benefit by P. But that case for an actual renovation of the ball park and not just a service as with Blanchard...

That was a Supreme Court case, the last case Hiram was an appeals court case which said the City Charter should strictly construed - Coroson charter didn't have any exceptions as to what K and what Ks that it couldn't get into without approval...

That was what I should have put but ran out of time

In the 2nd case, did the contract comply with the charter? I never saw estoppel. I didn't think to overrule the last case, but now that you mentioned it, the dissent was there...

"Estoppel" was mentioned in the Hiram case in this context: "Because they didn't have the right to contract, opposing part cannot enforce contract through estoppel" or something like that... In other words, because the contract wasn't properly made, it can't be enforced regardless of the 3P's reliance and performance on it ... In other words, 3Ps can get hamboned by a city.

The estoppel shit was meant to trip us up. It literally was interchangeable with immunity. "Lack of use of estoppel" = Immunity.

Thanks a bunch, whew!

[Lawless!]

How was the analysis on #2 re QM? Funny thing today: I saw a car with a license plate (black/gold) that said QNMERIT as I was walking into the testing center...

Issue 2 was if B would be successful under QM. I think the 1st case has the elements of QM

Where did fit your ultra vires discussion?

I did ultra virus as a sub issue under issue 1 immunity.