BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[ladylawyer1221]

Can someone please explain #35 on Mixed Set 6??

[+] Spoiler

I thought that since girlfriend testified under oath at a deposition, the deposition testimony could be used for ANY reason (impeach + substantive evidence), but the answer says to impeach only..... What am I missing?

[kyle010723]

Can someone please explain #35 on Mixed Set 6??

[+] Spoiler

I thought that since girlfriend testified under oath at a deposition, the deposition testimony could be used for ANY reason (impeach + substantive evidence), but the answer says to impeach only..... What am I missing?

I thought it would come in as Prior inconsistent statements by a witness under oath at a legal proceeding, but I guess not

ETA: I second guessed the original answer, now I have no clue why I was wrong either, lol.

[ladylawyer1221]

Is there a certain percentage goal Barbri says you should reach on the mixed sets? Thanks in advance.

Set 1: 31
Set 2: 33
Set 3: 33
Set 4: 34
Set 5: 34
Set 6: 34
Set 7: 34

[kyle010723]

Is there a certain percentage goal Barbri says you should reach on the mixed sets? Thanks in advance.

Mixed Set 1: 31/50 (62%)
Mixed Set 2: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 3: 33/50 (66%)
Mixed Set 4: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 5: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 6: 34/50 (68%)
Mixed Set 7: 34/50 (68%)

[Blue Ivy]

Are there any special rules with respect to getting jurisdiction over foreign country defendants? Or are just subject to regular personal jurisdiction analysis contact, relatedness, and fairness?

[ladylawyer1221]

Can someone please explain #35 on Mixed Set 6??

[+] Spoiler

I thought that since girlfriend testified under oath at a deposition, the deposition testimony could be used for ANY reason (impeach + substantive evidence), but the answer says to impeach only..... What am I missing?

[+] Spoiler

Because she was not a party in the case, she was a mere witness... I made the same mistake

[+] Spoiler

Wait... so the use of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach + substantive evidence only applies to parties?? I don't remember ever learning that... I thought it applied to any witness.

This question is driving me insane and it really shouldn't lol.

[kyle010723]

[+] Spoiler

Wait... so the use of a prior inconsistent statement to impeach + substantive evidence only applies to parties?? I don't remember ever learning that... I thought it applied to any witness.

This question is driving me insane and it really shouldn't lol.

Yea, I said that and realized that doesn't make sense. SO now I have no idea why we were wrong. lol. The key lies somewhere within the way the deposition was took, but I cannot figure out why the way it was took would make any difference.

[RaleighStClair]

Can someone explain Interpleader to me like I'm an 8 year old? Or just tell me that I don't need to know it, cause that would be even better.

[xChiTowNx]

Quick Q: Is this a typo in emmanuels MBE AM #45

[+] Spoiler

"[re: negligence per se] ... an excused violation of [the statutory standard] that leads to harm will constitute PF case of negligence.

Should "excused" be "unexcused"? Just cause the D showed an excuse for the conduct and therefore would most likely win?

[kyle010723]

Can someone explain Interpleader to me like I'm an 8 year old? Or just tell me that I don't need to know it, cause that would be even better.

P has money or property that potentially D1, D2, and D3 can assert rights in.

So P interplead all D1, D2, and D3.

Under Rule Interpleader
P must have diversity against all D1, D2, and D3, and amount of controversy must exceed $75,000

Under Statutory Interpleader
As long any one of the two defendants are from a different state, then diversity is satisfied. And amount of controversy is only $500+
Oh, and venue is proper under statutory interpleader in any venue where any defendant resides...

Easy right ?

[BearState]

Rule Interpleader = Regular diversity requirement (complete diversity, $75k)
Statutory Interpleader = Special (limited) diversity (only Ps need to be diverse, $500)

[musicfor18]

Can someone please explain #35 on Mixed Set 6??

[+] Spoiler

I thought that since girlfriend testified under oath at a deposition, the deposition testimony could be used for ANY reason (impeach + substantive evidence), but the answer says to impeach only..... What am I missing?

I think (but am not completely confident) that the reason this can't come in as substantive evidence is just because the question doesn't show whether or not the prior inconsistent statement would be relevant as substantive evidence. In another words, just the fact of inconsistency is enough to impeach. But it can only be admitted as substantive evidence (as a hearsay exclusion) if it's actually relevant. The question doesn't say what the statement was about, or really what her live testimony was about either.

Also, I think the wording "for any purpose" is too broad. Nothing can be used "for any purpose." For example, what if the statement was impermissible character evidence?

Thoughts?

[kyle010723]

Can someone please explain #35 on Mixed Set 6??

[+] Spoiler

I thought that since girlfriend testified under oath at a deposition, the deposition testimony could be used for ANY reason (impeach + substantive evidence), but the answer says to impeach only..... What am I missing?

I think (but am not completely confident) that the reason this can't come in as substantive evidence is just because the question doesn't show whether or not the prior inconsistent statement would be relevant as substantive evidence. In another words, just the fact of inconsistency is enough to impeach. But it can only be admitted as substantive evidence (as a hearsay exclusion) if it's actually relevant. The question doesn't say what the statement was about, or really what her live testimony was about either.

Also, I think the wording "for any purpose" is too broad. Nothing can be used "for any purpose."

Thoughts?

I agree, but ONLY to impeach seems too narrow too. And I think it didn't say that the statement was "inconsistent," we just assumed that because it was because of impeachment.

[robinhoodOO]

Rule Interpleader = Regular diversity requirement (complete diversity, $75k)
Statutory Interpleader = Special (limited) diversity (only Ps need to be diverse, $500)

*At least 2 claimants need to be diverse in statutory interpleader.

I'd also add that statutory interpleader is an independent action; while, rule interpleader is brought after the fact.

[musicfor18]

Can someone please explain #35 on Mixed Set 6??

[+] Spoiler

I thought that since girlfriend testified under oath at a deposition, the deposition testimony could be used for ANY reason (impeach + substantive evidence), but the answer says to impeach only..... What am I missing?

I think (but am not completely confident) that the reason this can't come in as substantive evidence is just because the question doesn't show whether or not the prior inconsistent statement would be relevant as substantive evidence. In another words, just the fact of inconsistency is enough to impeach. But it can only be admitted as substantive evidence (as a hearsay exclusion) if it's actually relevant. The question doesn't say what the statement was about, or really what her live testimony was about either.

Also, I think the wording "for any purpose" is too broad. Nothing can be used "for any purpose."

Thoughts?

I agree, but ONLY to impeach seems too narrow too. And I think it didn't say that the statement was "inconsistent," we just assumed that because it was because of impeachment.

I mean, the call of the question is also says the prosecutor plans to use it to impeach. It didn't say the prosecutor wanted to use it as substantive evidence.

[RaleighStClair]

Can someone explain Interpleader to me like I'm an 8 year old? Or just tell me that I don't need to know it, cause that would be even better.

P has money or property that potentially D1, D2, and D3 can assert rights in.

So P interplead all D1, D2, and D3.

Under Rule Interpleader
P must have diversity against all D1, D2, and D3, and amount of controversy must exceed $75,000

Under Statutory Interpleader
As long any one of the two defendants are from a different state, then diversity is satisfied. And amount of controversy is only $500+
Oh, and venue is proper under statutory interpleader in any venue where any defendant resides...

Easy right ?

Rule Interpleader = Regular diversity requirement (complete diversity, $75k)
Statutory Interpleader = Special (limited) diversity (only Ps need to be diverse, $500)

*At least 2 claimants need to be diverse in statutory interpleader.

I'd also add that statutory interpleader is an independent action; while, rule interpleader is brought after the fact.

Awesome. Thank you all!

[gmail]

I am doing repeat 20 q sets of civ pro, torts, real prop, and contracts (my shittiest topics) and I am consistently stuck at 40%. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[gmail]

I am concerned that the Studysmart MBE questions are often decided on the most minute distinctions of law that will not be tested on the actual bar. Am I just a whiny little, underperforming bitch, or am I right here?

[kyle010723]

I am concerned that the Studysmart MBE questions are often decided on the most minute distinctions of law that will not be tested on the actual bar. Am I just a whiny little, underperforming bitch, or am I right here?

You can change difficult to introductory or intermediate, that should eliminate some minute distinctions

[moreheesh]

How do we know which clause to drop when a portion of a conveyance violates the RAP?

To my daughters and her heirs, so long as its used to burn Bar prep materials, then to my son and his heirs.

The answer says we cross out "then to my son and his heirs." I had crossed out "so long as....materials". But I guess To my daughter and her heirs, then to my son and his heirs, makes no sense?

I'm confused

[kyle010723]

How do we know which clause to drop when a portion of a conveyance violates the RAP?

To my daughters and her heirs, so long as its used to burn Bar prep materials, then to my son and his heirs.

The answer says we cross out "then to my son and his heirs." I had crossed out "so long as....materials". But I guess To my daughter and her heirs, then to my son and his heirs, makes no sense?

I'm confused

You cross out as little as necessary. So it becomes a FSD instead of a FSA to daughter.

It is much easier on theory, extremely difficult to figure out in an actual exam type question.

[musicfor18]

How do we know which clause to drop when a portion of a conveyance violates the RAP?

To my daughters and her heirs, so long as its used to burn Bar prep materials, then to my son and his heirs.

The answer says we cross out "then to my son and his heirs." I had crossed out "so long as....materials". But I guess To my daughter and her heirs, then to my son and his heirs, makes no sense?

I'm confused

You cross out as little as necessary. So it becomes a FSD instead of a FSA to daughter.

It is much easier on theory, extremely difficult to figure out in an actual exam type question.

You pretty much use grammatical common sense. You cross out only the interest that violates RAP. Then, if what's left makes grammatical sense, you leave it. If it doesn't, then you probably strike that also. In your example, "so long as . . ." isn't part of the interest that violates RAP, and if you strike only what comes after it, you're left with "to my daughter and her heirs so long as it's used to burn Bar prep materials." Fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter in grantor.

In contrast, imagine the conveyance was "to my daughter and her heirs, but if it is ever used other than to burn Bar prep materials, then to my son and his heirs." In that case, you'd be left with "to my daughter and her heirs, but if it is ever used other than to burn Bar prep materials." I think courts split on what they'd do here. For MBE purposes, I believe the proper answer is to strike the conditional clause, giving daughter a FSA. But some courts would probably imply a right of re-entry.

[jwe-houston]

I am concerned that the Studysmart MBE questions are often decided on the most minute distinctions of law that will not be tested on the actual bar. Am I just a whiny little, underperforming bitch, or am I right here?

Yes. Barbri "studysmart" has that "makes shit up" quality about it. Some in the printed sets aren't much better (When has the 13th Amendment *ever* been the right answer?). Mixed sets progressively get harder and harder (trying to fine tune the distinctions?). At this point, get the ~35Q's per topic of decommissioned questions and plow through those if you need something to practice on.

Yesterday I rage-quit studysmart ...TWICE. You are not alone. Barbri is a sadistic bitch.

[musicfor18]

I am concerned that the Studysmart MBE questions are often decided on the most minute distinctions of law that will not be tested on the actual bar. Am I just a whiny little, underperforming bitch, or am I right here?

Yes. Barbri "studysmart" has that "makes shit up" quality about it. Some in the printed sets aren't much better (When has the 13th Amendment *ever* been the right answer?). Mixed sets progressively get harder and harder (trying to fine tune the distinctions?). At this point, get the ~35Q's per topic of decommissioned questions and plow through those if you need something to practice on.

Yesterday I rage-quit studysmart ...TWICE. You are not alone. Barbri is a sadistic bitch.

I've actually seen 13th Amendment be the right answer a few times. It has an enforcement clause that Congress can use to make laws against private racial discrimination ("badges of slavery").

[catch12]

Anyone else feel like it's impossible to know ALL these rules for the essays?

Reading the passing (like 65-70) answers from prior years is kind of scary, they seem to hit the rules pretty accurately... Not totally sure that I can replicate that on Tuesday, especially if it's on CA Evidence or something.