2017 July California Bar Forum

[hatethelaw]

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

[WARRENE00]

My wife just finished Day 1. I'm a practicing attorney and she briefly tried to explain to me the torts essay. Based on what she told me it sounded like the light pole fact pattern was asking for an analysis of products liability. Would appreciate if someone could confirm (or deny). Just a worried spouse hoping my wife did ok.


-Warren

[JDMBALLMMS]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

[barjamie8]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

[a male human]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

I'm no fan of Sacuzzo, but it seems like he only got Torts wrong?

[lawlschool1l]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

[netrag]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

Oh thank god. Was terrified for a second that I answered that one incorrectly.

[Robertjy]

My wife just finished Day 1. I'm a practicing attorney and she briefly tried to explain to me the torts essay. Based on what she told me it sounded like the light pole fact pattern was asking for an analysis of products liability. Would appreciate if someone could confirm (or deny). Just a worried spouse hoping my wife did ok.


-Warren

Hi Warren, strict liability was an issue but more so for a ultra hazardous activity rather a products liability issue. Don't tell her lol she will start freaking out.

[WARRENE00]

Actually, I told her that it sounded like there was a products liability issue. So it sounds like I am wrong. Which is a good thing bc she talked about abnormally dangerous activity.

[Alt123]

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.

[JDMBALLMMS]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

Then he got 100% right.
Did not sit the examination today but using Saccuzzo's bar-secrets and his propionic to study for now and a great way to nail the rules.

[Alt123]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..

[netrag]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..

I think that the third question asked for CA.

[Alt123]

Yes, you're talking about the evidence/PR question that asked for CA law.

[netrag]

Yes, you're talking about the evidence/PR question that asked for CA law.

Oh, thought other was too. Phew.

[lawschoolgradz1]

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.

I DID THE SAME THING!!!!! Please tell me this has been done before and people still pass?????? I knew the law and wrote the right stuff just didn't use the case library!

Also, rude. I took a class on PT work and this was just an honest mistake. The only trolls here are you, commenting on things making people feel worse about themselves.

[Alt123]

Lmao, both of these accounts made one after the other responding to themselves.

Well played, excellent troll game, sir/madam.

[InterAlia1961]

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

The good news is that it's only worth about 15% of your score, if I remember correctly. Someone will correct me if that's wrong. As long as you didn't bomb the essays completely, you're probably alright. The only thing in the library was one case, and you only needed it to explain when a non-routine search required reasonable suspicion. You already know the rule about unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth. I wouldn't worry if I was you. I would, however, worry if you were me. I sucked on all of it. I'm a friggin' genius in my own living room. Put me in a testing center, and I'm a stooge. Sigh.

[whats an updog]

Fuck I did ordinary negligence for the utility pole and just spent more time on the standard of care. Did not consider that utility pole was an abnormally dangerous activity because I figured it was normally done in the community. I guess I should have at least mentioned that. Oh well, otherwise I felt mostly good about the rest of the questions.

The CA evid/PR question definitely threw me for a loop at first and was probably the strangest question on the exam.

Feel good about: CommProp, Remedies
Feel ok about: CivPro, Torts, PT
Feel uneasy about: CA evid / PR

Did anyone else completely miss the library? As in just use the file and then realize there was a library after........

Not to be rude but, have you never done a practice PT before?

Edit: Just noticed this account is super recent, so assuming troll.

I DID THE SAME THING!!!!! Please tell me this has been done before and people still pass?????? I knew the law and wrote the right stuff just didn't use the case library!

Also, rude. I took a class on PT work and this was just an honest mistake. The only trolls here are you, commenting on things making people feel worse about themselves.

I did not make this mistake, but I'm sure you can both still get passing scores providing you're on track with the rest of the essays and MBE. This was definitely a weird PT and the library only had a single case in it, which was a little freaky in itself.

[justfordis]

Feel ok about: CommProp, Civ Pro, Torts
Feel uneasy about: Remedies
Feel terrible about: PR and PT

Anybody know what sacuzzo predictions were and how these matched up? Didn't he predict con law?

Saccuzzo's predictions were: CommPro, CA Civ Pro, Remedies, PR, CA Evidence. BA/Con law as WILDcard

Looks like he was mostly wrong.

There was a little of CA Civ Pro and a decent amount of CA evidence.

There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..

I think that the third question asked for CA.

i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest

[whats an updog]

i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest

Yes, this was in the 4th question (CivPro), and I think the answer was something like:

Fed court sitting in DJ applies state substantive law. But when more than one state's law is at play, as a matter of federal common law, the court applies the choice of law principles of the state in which the federal court sits. Therefore California choice of law principles apply to determine what substantive state law the federal court should apply.

Then you'd use CA state choice of law principles to determine whether a NY or CA court would apply.

[Alt123]

Oh, that's what you mean?

That was dealing with Erie, I believe.

[netrag]

i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest

Yes, this was in the 4th question (CivPro), and I think the answer was something like:

Fed court sitting in DJ applies state substantive law. But when more than one state's law is at play, as a matter of federal common law, the court applies the choice of law principles of the state in which the federal court sits. Therefore California choice of law principles apply to determine what substantive state law the federal court should apply.

Then you'd use CA state choice of law principles to determine whether a NY or CA court would apply.

Right, I mentioned both the governmental interest and referred to the other one as "choice of law" because I haven't read up on state specific conflicts of interest in four years and couldn't remember which was for torts and which was for ks and property.

[whats an updog]

i could be 100% wrong about this but one call asked if the court would apply CA law. After doing the analysis for using substantive state law for diversity claims, i said CA has civ pro has special rules regarding which state law it uses in contract cases when more than one state has an interest

Yes, this was in the 4th question (CivPro), and I think the answer was something like:

Fed court sitting in DJ applies state substantive law. But when more than one state's law is at play, as a matter of federal common law, the court applies the choice of law principles of the state in which the federal court sits. Therefore California choice of law principles apply to determine what substantive state law the federal court should apply.

Then you'd use CA state choice of law principles to determine whether a NY or CA court would apply.

Right, I mentioned both the governmental interest and referred to the other one as "choice of law" because I haven't read up on state specific conflicts of interest in four years and couldn't remember which was for torts and which was for ks and property.

Yeah, I think that'll be totally fine. The only thing more complicated other than governmental interest really is if there was a choice of law clause in the contract. But there wasn't, so if you mention it fine, if not, probably also fine.

[InterAlia1961]

There wasn't any CA civ pro, the question didn't specify what law to use, so you were supposed to use FRCP. It was also in federal district court, so..

I'm glad you brought that up. Where the question asked about the Erie Doctrine, I knew the rule. I couldn't, however, figure out what specific law they were referring to. I think I might have missed something in the fact pattern. So, I talked about how what's-her-name will claim the pleading is suffient under Cal. Rules of Civ Pro, because then she won't have to specifically plead the fraud allegations, only a primary right. But it wouldn't fly because it's procedural. I was just lost. Someone fill me in. Put me out of misery.