July 2016 California Bar Exam Forum

[lhanvt13]

Tagging along the misery

[sssnuggles]

Anyone chillin' at the holiday inn in Ontario with a pencil sharpener? I really need one. Will trade snacks for usage.

[teabreeze]

Edited bc I didn't know there were people who hadn't taken the essays yet.

[llaawwsscchhooooll]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

For a minimum competency exam, they sure try to mind F you.

OF COURSE IT WAS CA. It did have federal analysis of course as well but everything happened in the Superior Court of California there is no way that you could analyze it without bringing CA law, there was no diversity (<$50,000), no fed qs so..... how on earth do you analyze it without bringing up CA law?
I loved the mexican student who went to eat shrooms to a festival SF hehehe

Seems weird that it wouldn't say: “Answer according to California law.”

[Interpretationc]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

Ditto. Anticipatory repudiation, B is screwed, and D discharged for impracticability.

Well, nothing in the contract says it must only be diesel powered, the ban of diesel does not make the contract impracticable, gas power is another way to achieve contract purpose, using a diesel is not a basic assumption to do the job, the contract only talks about the work but not how to do the work. Impracticability is construed strictly. My conclusion is B was in anticipatory breach but neither party's duty shall be excused

[Zaizei]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

For a minimum competency exam, they sure try to mind F you.

OF COURSE IT WAS CA. It did have federal analysis of course as well but everything happened in the Superior Court of California there is no way that you could analyze it without bringing CA law, there was no diversity (<$50,000), no fed qs so..... how on earth do you analyze it without bringing up CA law?
I loved the mexican student who went to eat shrooms to a festival SF hehehe

Seems weird that it wouldn't say: “Answer according to California law.”

The instructions are very clear: only use Ca law when it is specified in the question. As is wasn't then, no Ca law analysis. At least that's what I understood. Also, the essay was totally doable only using FRCP.

[runner1111]

what did you all put down for the contracts question? Excuse for non performance mostly?

I analyzed anticipatory repudiation for both parties and found B in breach and D not. Gave termination to D and nothing to B in terms of damages.

Ditto. Anticipatory repudiation, B is screwed, and D discharged for impracticability.

Well there was definitely legal impossibility. Thats why the law was in the fact pattern.

BUT there was no anticipatory repudiation. Dirk said "i don't know when I can begin. Then Builder terminated. The statement by Dirk was not unequivocal. It was "I don't know when" not a "I will not do it" Also consider that the contract was for performance to be completed by September 1. There was no statement that he wouldn't be able to complete by then.

+1

[superabogadisima]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

For a minimum competency exam, they sure try to mind F you.

OF COURSE IT WAS CA. It did have federal analysis of course as well but everything happened in the Superior Court of California there is no way that you could analyze it without bringing CA law, there was no diversity (<$50,000), no fed qs so..... how on earth do you analyze it without bringing up CA law?
I loved the mexican student who went to eat shrooms to a festival SF hehehe

Seems weird that it wouldn't say: “Answer according to California law.”

Agree but because it wasn't CA law only ... there were also facts that right on hit CA law.... however I do think that if it was CA law they will give credit for federal law as well and the other way around also.... because it was kinda messed up to do it that way...

[teabreeze]

Sigh.

[bnghle234]

College kid went to outside lands and ate some candy laced with German shrooms.

woooooo.

I'm so frickin tired right now.

Germany... shrooms. makes more sense. The "too many marijuanas in the treats" didn't sound quite right. Thanks for clarifying... I hope the grader accepts marijuana instead of shrooms.


Also, I CAN'T believe I pulled the "Transitory Action Rule" out of nowhere.... In a California PI case, venue is proper where the injury arose.

based on the amount of psychedelics that poor mexican kid was on, who knows WHERE the injury arose

[rpupkin]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

The problem with this approach is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not "legal theories" or "principles of general application." The FRCP are specific rules that define the procedures litigants follow in federal court. If you're not in federal court, the FRCP don't apply.

If the hypo was set in California state court, and if answering the question required spotting civil procedure issues, then you were supposed to apply California civil procedure. It's not complicated.

[superabogadisima]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

I answered using FRCP too, since the question didn't ask us to answer using CACP law.

For a minimum competency exam, they sure try to mind F you.

OF COURSE IT WAS CA. It did have federal analysis of course as well but everything happened in the Superior Court of California there is no way that you could analyze it without bringing CA law, there was no diversity (<$50,000), no fed qs so..... how on earth do you analyze it without bringing up CA law?
I loved the mexican student who went to eat shrooms to a festival SF hehehe

Seems weird that it wouldn't say: “Answer according to California law.”

The instructions are very clear: only use Ca law when it is specified in the question. As is wasn't then, no Ca law analysis. At least that's what I understood. Also, the essay was totally doable only using FRCP.

Agree as to PJ, SMJ and Venue but if there was no diversity and no fed qs.... so you can't analyze whether service of process was done right under federal law... so....

[superabogadisima]

While the essay was clearly about CA (superior court, etc.), did it "expressly" ask us to use CA law? Anyone have thoughts on this?

The last line of the instructions said: "Unless a question expressly asks you to use California law, you should answer according to legal theories and principles of general application."

I never even mentioned CA Civ Pro on that question, I straight up used FRCP so I was thinking along the same lines as you. hope it's good enough.

The problem with this approach is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are not "legal theories" or "principles of general application." The FRCP are specific rules that define the procedures litigants follow in federal court. If you're not in federal court, the FRCP don't apply.

If the hypo was set in California state court, and if answering the question required spotting civil procedure issues, then you were supposed to apply California civil procedure. It's not complicated.

[LurkerTurnedMember]

.

[Spartan_Alum_12]

It seems like it was testing CA civ pro. For people who used FRCP and ignored CA civ pro, accept it and move on. No, the question didn't say "Use CA law" at the end but it did specify in what court the case was brought, which translated to "apply CA law." And to the person who asked why a minimum competency test seems to f with applicants' minds so much, it's not f'ing with anyone's mind. Actually, it was straightforward and obvious to use CA law. If you don't know that you should use CA civ pro in CA state court, then maybe you don't have the required minimum competency.

And yes, they will give points to people who applied FRCP to the fact pattern, likely not for the rule statements or wrong conclusions, but they will if you engaged the right facts.

I applied CA law, but thanks.

[superabogadisima]

It seems like it was testing CA civ pro. For people who used FRCP and ignored CA civ pro, accept it and move on. No, the question didn't say "Use CA law" at the end but it did specify in what court the case was brought, which translated to "apply CA law." And to the person who asked why a minimum competency test seems to f with applicants' minds so much, it's not f'ing with anyone's mind. Actually, it was straightforward and obvious to use CA law. If you don't know that you should use CA civ pro in CA state court, then maybe you don't have the required minimum competency.

And yes, they will give points to people who applied FRCP to the fact pattern, likely not for the rule statements or wrong conclusions, but they will if you engaged the right facts.

Agree 100%.

[sssnuggles]

Okay....
gone

[LurkerTurnedMember]

Why did you post that? Do you need someone to validate what you wrote? Make you feel better about your performance today? Or do you just like giving out the exact questions to applicants with accommodations who haven't take the test yet?

[superabogadisima]

Why did you post that? Do you need someone to validate what you wrote? Make you feel better about your performance today? Or do you just like giving out the exact questions to applicants with accommodations who haven't take the test yet?

There's still people who will take the essays?? then we shouldn't discuss even subjects tested let alone issues!!!! Thats a HUGE advantage to them

[sssnuggles]

Why did you post that? Do you need someone to validate what you wrote? Make you feel better about your performance today? Or do you just like giving out the exact questions to applicants with accommodations who haven't take the test yet?

Wait what. I was just trying to clarify confusion.. This whole thread should be deleted then.

[teabreeze]

So the people with accommodation haven't taken ANY portion of the exam yet? What kind of stupid timing is that?! Obviously, they're going to hear things. Agreed that this whole thread should be deleted in that case.

[poundcr]

Lurker has been yelling at everyone all evening, don't take it personally. Can anyone confirm if people have still not taken the test because of accommodations?

[rpupkin]

Why did you post that? Do you need someone to validate what you wrote? Make you feel better about your performance today? Or do you just like giving out the exact questions to applicants with accommodations who haven't take the test yet?

Seems a little harsh coming from someone who just weighed in--as I did--that CA civil procedure clearly applied, even though at least a few test takers were confused on that point. If it's true that "applicants with accommodations" haven't taken the test yet and are lurking here, you've helped them out as well.

Hashing out/stressing about answers in the wake of a standardized exam is a time-honored TLS tradition, albeit one that usually breaks forum rules. I don't judge anyone for doing this.

Oh, and nice answer, sssnuggles. I give you a 70.

[sssnuggles]

Why did you post that? Do you need someone to validate what you wrote? Make you feel better about your performance today? Or do you just like giving out the exact questions to applicants with accommodations who haven't take the test yet?

Seems a little harsh coming from someone who just weighed in--as I did--that CA civil procedure clearly applied, even though at least a few test takers were confused on that point. If it's true that "applicants with accommodations" haven't taken the test yet and are lurking here, you've helped them out as well.

Hashing out/stressing about answers in the wake of a standardized exam is a time-honored TLS tradition, albeit one that usually breaks forum rules. I don't judge anyone for doing this.

Oh, and nice answer, sssnuggles. I give you a 70.

I hope for a 60.

Also, do you have any evidence that some readers COULD be looking at this thread and HAVE NOT taken the exam yet? Seriously... if thats true, thats BS. Not only do they get to have a golden retriever service dog handwrite the entire exam for them, but they get to see answers. I don't believe it.

[wbeezy]

Why did you post that? Do you need someone to validate what you wrote? Make you feel better about your performance today? Or do you just like giving out the exact questions to applicants with accommodations who haven't take the test yet?

I think I just like giving exact questions to applicants with accommodations.