BarBri Bar Review Hangout - July 2015 Exam Forum

[gmail]

Is it just me or are the barbri tort lecutres frequently insufficient to actually answer barbri tort questions. For example, the lecture clearly states that there is an affirmative duty to act in only three instances, (1) close family relationships, (2) common carriers inkeepers, (3) invitee/invitors. Then there's a StudySmart question where a farmer on a tractor sees a storm was coming and fled to a lightening-safe area, leaving his 16 yr old, city-slicker, farmworker in the back of the tractor to get struck. We're supposed to find the farmer liable b/c "modern cases" extend the affirmative duty to act/rescue to the employer in an employer/employee relationship.

How the shit are we supposed to know that??

I mean, you would think a reasonable person under that circumstance would tell the 16 yr old to get the heck out of there.

I agree, but if a RP has a duty to act/rescue by virtue of their relationship, especially when it is something broad like employer/employee, you'd think Barbri would have their lecturer include that. I'm just preparing for Gmail v. Barbri here...

[LawGuy321]

What were the percentiles for the MBE Refresher? I got 66% right...not as good as my Simulated MBE around 75%. I know I'm above median, but curious what percentile I might be.

[kyle010723]

What were the percentiles for the MBE Refresher? I got 66% right...not as good as my Simulated MBE around 75%. I know I'm above median, but curious what percentile I might be.

There's no percentile. But flip to the front of your MPQ book, the averages are listed there.

[LawGuy321]

What were the percentiles for the MBE Refresher? I got 66% right...not as good as my Simulated MBE around 75%. I know I'm above median, but curious what percentile I might be.

There's no percentile. But flip to the front of your MPQ book, the averages are listed there.

Thanks. I saw that, but was wondering if there had been a discussion on here/what people's sense was regarding self-reported scores.

[Kage3212]

I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

Just got done with the OBE #4. 87/100. Finished in 2 hours 4 mins. Emmanuel score was 161/200. Mixed sets I have done were right around 40 as well, but I have only done three of them. I think 142 on the Barbri midterm and 72 on the refresh. I thought the refresher was much harder then the OBE I just went through.

The OBE, despite some long questions, seemed shorter than emmanuel. Some you can literally breeze through. 20 seconds tops if you know what is going on. Barbri questions often require diagramming out like property stuff, when doing the OBE I could keep everything straight in my head. In terms of difficulty between emmanuel and OBE, I couldnt discern any real differences. Barbri's difficulty is far more notable.

With your scores, and assuming the OBE is a relative indicator of success, you are going to smoke it.

[gmail]

Anyone notice that the right answer on MBE questions is frequently the one that begins with a conditional clause like, "The driver, so long as..." or "Yes, if..." It's rarely the answer that begin "No, because..." or "The child, because...".

[RaleighStClair]

I can't find where you guys were talking about the OPE #4, etc. I was curious - how did you think those questions felt stylistically compared to Emanuel's practice exam and/or BarBri's Mixed Sets? And how did you do relatively?

I've been getting 40ish/50 on the mixed sets, and got 153/200 on the full-day Emanuel. But I didn't do well at all on the 21 NCBE sample, so I'm a little concerned.

Just got done with the OBE #4. 87/100. Finished in 2 hours 4 mins. Emmanuel score was 161/200. Mixed sets I have done were right around 40 as well, but I have only done three of them. I think 142 on the Barbri midterm and 72 on the refresh. I thought the refresher was much harder then the OBE I just went through.

The OBE, despite some long questions, seemed shorter than emmanuel. Some you can literally breeze through. 20 seconds tops if you know what is going on. Barbri questions often require diagramming out like property stuff, when doing the OBE I could keep everything straight in my head. In terms of difficulty between emmanuel and OBE, I couldnt discern any real differences. Barbri's difficulty is far more notable.

With your scores, and assuming the OBE is a relative indicator of success, you are going to smoke it.

Great. Thanks, man. Good job; I'm sure you're going to kill it as well.

And thanks to the above posters for the info.

[Redamon1]

Is assault a specific intent crime? I know it is a specific intent crime if it is an "attempted battery," but is it a specific intent crime if it is for purposes of putting another person in apprehension of fear or danger?

In other words, if you point a gun at someone but are "stage 9" drunk, are you guilty of assault?

yeah it's a specific intent crime so voluntary intox. is a defense

As you said, if it's the "attempted battery" kind of assault, then it's specific intent. But if it's the "creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily injury" kind of assault, then there are instances where it is a general intent/malice crime rather than specific intent crime. If you waive a gun around like a moron just for fun but not intending to scare anyone, you're still guilty of assault. You didn't "intend" to scare anyone but your reckless act gets you convicted of assault. And as a general intent crime in this case, voluntary intoxication is no defense.

[jamescastle]

Anyone notice that the right answer on MBE questions is frequently the one that begins with a conditional clause like, "The driver, so long as..." or "Yes, if..." It's rarely the answer that begin "No, because..." or "The child, because...".

Yeah Guzman said this in one of his lectures. I think it was the Evidence once.
Really more like: If you narrow it down to two answers and have to guess go with the one that has "if" in it.

[seb304]

Think this may have been discussed in the thread somewhat recently, but I can't find it.

What are the rules for joiner of cross-claims (ie one defendant suing another defendant)? My understanding is that as long as the original cross-claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiffs original suit, then the court can ALSO hear any cross-claim that bears no relation to the plaintiffs claim, so long as there is some basis for jdx (supplemental, diversity). Correct?

I may be wrong, but I thought cross-claims MUST be same transaction/occurrence. A third-party plaintiff in an impleader case can assert unrelated claims against the third-party defendant.

[BVest]

Deleting to take wrong info out of the thread so as to avoid confusing people further.

[seb304]

Think this may have been discussed in the thread somewhat recently, but I can't find it.

What are the rules for joiner of cross-claims (ie one defendant suing another defendant)? My understanding is that as long as the original cross-claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiffs original suit, then the court can ALSO hear any cross-claim that bears no relation to the plaintiffs claim, so long as there is some basis for jdx (supplemental, diversity). Correct?

I may be wrong, but I thought cross-claims MUST be same transaction/occurrence. A third-party plaintiff in an impleader case can assert unrelated claims against the third-party defendant.

Correct as to cross-claims (except that it can also include claims relating to property that is the subject of the original action).

For impleader, I know that a 3PD can bring permissive counterclaims, but don't any claims brought by 3PP against 3PD have to be for indemnity/contribution on the underlying claim?

My understanding is that once you bring the "required" indemnity or contribution claim, you can (but are not required to) then bring any other claims you want. Would love to know if that's wrong.

[robinhoodOO]

Think this may have been discussed in the thread somewhat recently, but I can't find it.

What are the rules for joiner of cross-claims (ie one defendant suing another defendant)? My understanding is that as long as the original cross-claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiffs original suit, then the court can ALSO hear any cross-claim that bears no relation to the plaintiffs claim, so long as there is some basis for jdx (supplemental, diversity). Correct?

I may be wrong, but I thought cross-claims MUST be same transaction/occurrence. A third-party plaintiff in an impleader case can assert unrelated claims against the third-party defendant.

Correct as to cross-claims (except that it can also include claims relating to property that is the subject of the original action).

For impleader, I know that a 3PD can bring permissive counterclaims, but don't any claims brought by 3PP against 3PD have to be for indemnity/contribution on the underlying claim?

My understanding is that once you bring the "required" indemnity or contribution claim, you can (but are not required to) then bring any other claims you want. Would love to know if that's wrong.

Rule 14 provides that a third-party defendant may bring permissive counterclaims pursuant to Rule 13(b) and has compulsive counter-claims as well. Further, interplead party can bring claims and defenses against Plaintiff as well.

check out rule 14 for a breakdown.

[jamescastle]

Did my last bit of MBE prep. 30/50 on the last half of the P.M. BARBRI Full-Day. Not as good as most of you whizkids but I'll have to take what I can get.
Overall it was a 113/200 which isn't that impressive but hopefully I get a BARBRI bump and get some lucky guesses on Wednesday.

[BVest]

Think this may have been discussed in the thread somewhat recently, but I can't find it.

What are the rules for joiner of cross-claims (ie one defendant suing another defendant)? My understanding is that as long as the original cross-claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiffs original suit, then the court can ALSO hear any cross-claim that bears no relation to the plaintiffs claim, so long as there is some basis for jdx (supplemental, diversity). Correct?

I may be wrong, but I thought cross-claims MUST be same transaction/occurrence. A third-party plaintiff in an impleader case can assert unrelated claims against the third-party defendant.

Correct as to cross-claims (except that it can also include claims relating to property that is the subject of the original action).

For impleader, I know that a 3PD can bring permissive counterclaims, but don't any claims brought by 3PP against 3PD have to be for indemnity/contribution on the underlying claim?

My understanding is that once you bring the "required" indemnity or contribution claim, you can (but are not required to) then bring any other claims you want. Would love to know if that's wrong.

Ack. You're right. Rule 18(a). Although that would seem to indicate that you can bring additional claims to crossclaims as well.

(a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.

[brotherdarkness]

Think this may have been discussed in the thread somewhat recently, but I can't find it.

What are the rules for joiner of cross-claims (ie one defendant suing another defendant)? My understanding is that as long as the original cross-claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiffs original suit, then the court can ALSO hear any cross-claim that bears no relation to the plaintiffs claim, so long as there is some basis for jdx (supplemental, diversity). Correct?

I may be wrong, but I thought cross-claims MUST be same transaction/occurrence. A third-party plaintiff in an impleader case can assert unrelated claims against the third-party defendant.

Correct as to cross-claims (except that it can also include claims relating to property that is the subject of the original action).

For impleader, I know that a 3PD can bring permissive counterclaims, but don't any claims brought by 3PP against 3PD have to be for indemnity/contribution on the underlying claim?

My understanding is that once you bring the "required" indemnity or contribution claim, you can (but are not required to) then bring any other claims you want. Would love to know if that's wrong.

This is correct. Your first cross-claim must arise from the same transaction or occurrence (note that the court will have supplemental jx over this claim). But once that first cross-claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence comes across, the gloves are off. Any and all cross-claims can tag along, so long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction (but remember, if they're not arising from the same transaction or occurrence, the court will not have supplement jx, meaning that you must find either diversity or federal question jx).

[seb304]

Think this may have been discussed in the thread somewhat recently, but I can't find it.

What are the rules for joiner of cross-claims (ie one defendant suing another defendant)? My understanding is that as long as the original cross-claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiffs original suit, then the court can ALSO hear any cross-claim that bears no relation to the plaintiffs claim, so long as there is some basis for jdx (supplemental, diversity). Correct?

I may be wrong, but I thought cross-claims MUST be same transaction/occurrence. A third-party plaintiff in an impleader case can assert unrelated claims against the third-party defendant.

Correct as to cross-claims (except that it can also include claims relating to property that is the subject of the original action).

For impleader, I know that a 3PD can bring permissive counterclaims, but don't any claims brought by 3PP against 3PD have to be for indemnity/contribution on the underlying claim?

My understanding is that once you bring the "required" indemnity or contribution claim, you can (but are not required to) then bring any other claims you want. Would love to know if that's wrong.

Ack. You're right. Rule 18(a). Although that would seem to indicate that you can bring additional claims to crossclaims as well.

(a) In General. A party asserting a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim may join, as independent or alternative claims, as many claims as it has against an opposing party.

Now I'm not really sure, because Rule 13 says it must be same transaction for a cross-claim.

[rinkrat19]

we're only allowed a quart-sized bag. wtf. Pencils barely fit in it.

Our instruction sheet doesn't appear to specify what size bag (it does say we can use a 2.5 gallon bag for our laptop), but I've put my stuff in a gallon size because the admission ticket itself doesn't fit in the quart size.

We don't have an admission ticket. And they don't mention anything about a bag for the laptop. I guess I'll put it in something that size, and if they object, I'll pull it out and stick the mouse in my pocket and just try not to drop anything. Fortunately I'm just carrying it in from the parking lot.

I hope the day of is run more professionally than the state bar's abysmal instructions. I went back through everything and nowhere do they even mention bringing pencils for MBE day. In one place, it says no electronics including watches, and in another place, it says a watch with no alarm is allowed. I assume that means an analog watch is allowed. They don't mention the lunch break, or medication/tissues/chapstick. They say your bag can contain food, but what is that food for? (It's snacks and you are allowed to have it on your desk while testing; I asked.)

They'd better be pretty fucking relaxed about the rules on exam day, since they didn't actually PROVIDE a coherent or comprehensive set of rules to follow.

[brotherdarkness]

They'd better be pretty fucking relaxed about the rules on exam day, since they didn't actually PROVIDE a coherent or comprehensive set of rules to follow.

The CA Bar seems like a very chill organization.

[3|ink]

At least you guys don't have to wear suits.

[rinkrat19]

They'd better be pretty fucking relaxed about the rules on exam day, since they didn't actually PROVIDE a coherent or comprehensive set of rules to follow.

The CA Bar seems like a very chill organization.

I have no information or experience on what the Oregon bar is like. Just that they really suck at writing exam instructions.

[rinkrat19]

At least you guys don't have to wear suits.

Lol, very true. That sucks so hard.

I've been debating sweats, hiking capris, running tights? Big soft t-shirt or tank top? Which hoodie is my #1 most comfy? Running shoes or flip flops? Wear something with my school logo, yay or nay?

[Outis Onoma]

At least you guys don't have to wear suits.

Lol, very true. That sucks so hard.

I've been debating sweats, hiking capris, running tights? Big soft t-shirt or tank top? Which hoodie is my #1 most comfy? Running shoes or flip flops? Wear something with my school logo, yay or nay?

No hoodies allowed in WA at least.

[rinkrat19]

At least you guys don't have to wear suits.

Lol, very true. That sucks so hard.

I've been debating sweats, hiking capris, running tights? Big soft t-shirt or tank top? Which hoodie is my #1 most comfy? Running shoes or flip flops? Wear something with my school logo, yay or nay?

No hoodies allowed in WA at least.

As if Oregon bothered to tell us one way or the other! I think they said no hats.

ETA: prohibited: "...and hats and/or hoods (except religious apparel) worn on the head."
So a hood not worn on the head is ok?

[3|ink]

You know, after re-reading Virginia's dress code instructions, I'm not sure we're required to wear pants.