. Forum

[forza]

How are you to Crim Pro already? That's not for a while for me on the Texas schedule. I'm jealous.

Got us New York kids doing the fun stuff early I guess. Don't worry, next for me is the always-riveting Agency, followed by Partnerships, then Corporations, then Wills, and then Trusts.

City never sleeps, better slip you an Ambien

[antonious13]

How are you to Crim Pro already? That's not for a while for me on the Texas schedule. I'm jealous.

CA here, started Crim today, starting Crim Pro Monday (I take Sundays off), and Evidence later in the week.

[antonious13]

Karlan for Crim Law's my new favorite prof. Mad Men spoilers, haha.

I enjoyed Karlan's new country single "Abandoned and Malignant Heart".

[HeAdYLaWDudE]

Barkow is a babe.

[mrloblaw]

My daily venting about the quality of some of the MBE problems, this one for torts:

A well-known politician was scheduled to address a large crowd at a political dinner. Just as he was about to sit down at the head table, the defendant pushed the politician's chair to one side. As a result, the politician fell to the floor. The politician was embarrassed at being made to look foolish before a large audience but suffered no physical harm. If the politician asserts a claim against the defendant for damages because of his embarrassment, will the politician prevail?
A. Yes, if the defendant knew that the politician was about to sit on the chair.
B. Yes, if the defendant negligently failed to notice that the politician was about to sit on the chair.
C. No, because the politician suffered no physical harm along with his embarrassment.
D. No, if in moving the chair the defendant intended only a good-natured practical joke on the politician.

Incorrect: Answer choice A is correct. Intentional infliction of emotional distress is the use of extreme and outrageous conduct to intentionally or recklessly inflict severe emotional distress. While the defendant's behavior in some circumstances may not constitute extreme and outrageous conduct, it is likely that pulling out a well-known politician's chair causing him to fall in front of a large crowd he was about to address would establish that requisite element. Even if the defendant's embarrassment does not rise to the level of severe emotional distress, it is the best answer choice provided.

Sorry, but this is a terrible question. IIED? There's nothing even remotely approaching "extreme and outrageous conduct" causing "severe emotional distress." Embarrassment and severe emotional distress are not, to my mind, synonymous.

I will second your irritation. The other kind of MBE question that really irritates me is con law questions in which the issue of compelling state interest or narrow tailoring -- both of which would be briefed and argued extensively in a real case -- are perfunctorily treated as *obviously* present/absent.

Even if you analyze it as a battery (which probably makes more sense, although there's a minor issue as to whether the chair is sufficiently connected to the politician before he sits down), you arrive at the same answer. That's how I did the problem.

I think the important point is that you're clearly in intentional tort--and not negligence--territory, based on the prompt, in which case none of the other answer choices are even coherent.

When in doubt, just think about which test each of the answer choices is a relevant part of. Answer A is part of an intentional tort framework. B points to common negligence. C points to negligent infliction of emotional distress. D is irrelevant under any test (afaik, it would be relevant only if you were dealing with a punitive damages issue, i.e. malice). All that's really involved in most of the tort problems is (1) figuring out which test to use, and (2) which answer choice(s) have a rational connection to some part of that test.

This question would be really difficult if it wasn't multiple choice. As a multiple choice, there shouldn't be any way to get it wrong. Harder questions involve situations which probe at, for example, whether the sticky issue presented by the fact pattern is duty or proximate cause in a negligence framework, where you have to make some sort of legal judgment call.

Edit: I guess, my point being, real MBE questions aren't exactly written by the sharpest legal minds, and they certainly aren't written to beat the sharpest legal minds. You don't need to explore the questions to the deepest nuances of the issues presented. You just have to be slightly more clever than the person who wrote the question (and thus three red herrings in an attempt to trick you). Outsmart them too much and you'll fuck up.

[Holly Golightly]

The sound on the Wills guy for IL is so poorly recorded that I can't hear it without headphones.

[BarbellDreams]

I love Evidence, but 403 questions should be out of bounds for the MBE. I may think something is overly prejudicial, YOU may not, and there could be 1000 different people with different opinions inbetween. Its essentially guessing if the bar exam makers thought it was or wasnt overly prejudicial.

[jerwood84]

"Hey, Virginia is for lovers. Let's do it!"

-Karlan

[Kretzy]

Checking in.

Super late graduation (damned quarters) and moving out means I'm only 5% complete for California. The next 40 days are going to suck, glad there's somewhere I can bitch

[Holly Golightly]

Do you guys use your notes when you do practice essays? I feel like I basically have to now, since I don't have anything memorized yet.

[BarbellDreams]

18% here, way behind but honestly not too worried. They dont call it a minimal competency test for nothing

[Holly Golightly]

18% here, way behind but honestly not too worried. They dont call it a minimal competency test for nothing

I'm pretty proud of myself for getting up to 15%...

[locusdelicti]

Do you guys use your notes when you do practice essays? I feel like I basically have to now, since I don't have anything memorized yet.

Absolutely. I think it helps remember things. Plus, didn't they tell us to do that in the opening lectures?

I can barely remember things I like...

[Agoraphobia]

Is anyone else having trouble with the Corporations lectures? There's no sound on him with my Firefox, and that's the only browser (Chrome, Explorer - Windows 8 ) where I've successfully been able to speed up. His lectures are endless so I'd love to speed them up.

[CaliBum]

18% here, way behind but honestly not too worried. They dont call it a minimal competency test for nothing

I'm pretty proud of myself for getting up to 15%...

I'm at 18% too! But, I've just been told by Themis that I'm 1/3rd away from where I need to be.

[geekrocker37]

41/50 on practice mbe. Seemed like these torts questions were way easier than the practice Torts questions were.

[HETPE3B]

38/50. I'll take that.

I'm a little confused.. I received a message saying to check back later in the week to compare myself with other NY students as they complete the first milestone, but there's already a posted average for every remaining exam that is not yet available.

Also, I don't think the question of why the practice MBE percentages don't change has been answered. Are these percentages from prior years?

Themis???

[mjj]

So I'm behind but I'm baffled by an early Torts assessment question:

Regarding the transferred intent doctrine, which of the following statements is FALSE?
Intent can be transferred from one victim to another or from one tort to another, but not both.
The doctrine apples to assault and battery.
The doctrine does not apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress.
None of the above

Apparently the correct answer is "Intent can be transferred from one victim to another or from one tort to another, but not both" (in other words, that statement is false) - but the lecturer specifically gave an example of A shoots a gun intending to scare (but not hit) B, but accidentally hits C, and said that A's intent to commit assault against B creates intent for battery against C. So how is that statement false? Am I a moron?

[09042014]

TSO far behind, at 19%.

[Reinhardt]

The statement is false because intent can transfer from assault of B, to battery of C. The assessment answer choice, if true, would mean you can't do that.

[mjj]

The statement is false because intent can transfer from assault of B, to battery of C. The assessment answer choice, if true, would mean you can't do that.

ahahaha, I am a moron. I was having a double negatives reading problem. Thanks!

[elysiansmiles]

Heh, the video editors definitely forgot to edit a section out of my Corporations video where the lecturer messed up and then went back to re-do. I actually heard the camera-person (or whoever is behind the camera) talking to the lecturer while she made some notes to herself. I must be losing my mind, because it was actually kind of funny.

[Bustang]

Got an 80%. Not really frustrated with my results, but I am frustrated with how seemingly difficult the questions seemed to be when in reality they shouldn't have been (forgetting simple rules/standards).

Also ownership rights completely escapes me. Every property question dealing with "O to A then to B" etc etc I more or less guess on. I need to find an E&E or something on property to do practice questions.

Edit - just checked my overview. All 7 questions I missed in property were ownership questions

[Niddar]

Going back to a previous conversation in this thread about MBE question difficulty: I think that the questions are harder than are typically on the MBE. I just took the milestone exam and got 43/50. I had been consistently scoring ~60% on MBE practice tests. I realize that this is a sample size of one, but this just felt easier, especially the tort questions, than what we have been doing. Anyone feel similarly?

[Bustang]

Going back to a previous conversation in this thread about MBE question difficulty: I think that the questions are harder than are typically on the MBE. I just took the milestone exam and got 43/50. I had been consistently scoring ~60% on MBE practice tests. I realize that this is a sample size of one, but this just felt easier, especially the tort questions, than what we have been doing. Anyone feel similarly?

I agree with this to an extent. I think part of the reason behind the quizzes are to not only help us issue spot/solve the problem, but also introduce us to concepts that were either a) not covered well in the outline or b) not covered at all (see wildberry question in property quiz #4). The milestone exam was obviously doctored in an attempt to cover a large breadth of material. I wouldn't say it was "easy," however.