THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION Forum

[Auxilio]

.

[Lawworld19]

Anyone take practice set 8 yet?

[Pajsa18]

Anyone take practice set 8 yet?

Yes I’ve taken 8 and I took 9 today. My scores climbed from an abysmal score on set 1 through set 5, and the decline from set 5 through set 9 has been an equally abysmal decline.

[2015_Splitter]

I noticed that I've been getting tripped up on answer choices between Void vs. Voidable contracts. So, I made a small table to categorize them. Anyone want to confirm if I have this right?

Void = Illegal Contract, Misunderstanding, Unconscionable

Voidable = Incapacity (incapacitated can void), Misstatement (even if intentional/fraud - harmed party can void), Mutual Mistake (both parties can void), Unilateral Mistake (mistaken party can void only if other party knew or should have known of the mistake and failed to remedy),

If a party is intoxicated and the other party knows --> Voidable by the intoxicated party

Minors --> void unless for necessities

Generally, if the other side knows of the condition (intoxication, mental illness, mistake), the contract is voidable only by the affected party. I like to think of it that the side who is aware that the other party is impaired accepted the risk and therefore can have the contract enforced against them.

Aren't contracts with minors voidable by the minor?

Yeah, just checked - contracts with minors are voidable by the minor. Additionally, if the minor turns legal age and continues to use the good/obtain benefit from the contract, the minor can no longer void the contract as they have waived their right.

[Lawworld19]

Anyone take practice set 8 yet?

Yes I’ve taken 8 and I took 9 today. My scores climbed from an abysmal score on set 1 through set 5, and the decline from set 5 through set 9 has been an equally abysmal decline.

They must be randomized. My 1-5 scores were absolutely terrible. Starting to rebound. just got a 70% on 8.

I started in the 50's FYI haha...Gradually been increasing to 60's now cracking 70. Really forgot everything besides torts. Learned civ pro and evidence practically from 0.

[jcwest]

I don't even know how to feel. I have been consistently at 60% - 65% on literally everything.

[Pajsa18]

Anyone take practice set 8 yet?

Yes I’ve taken 8 and I took 9 today. My scores climbed from an abysmal score on set 1 through set 5, and the decline from set 5 through set 9 has been an equally abysmal decline.

They must be randomized. My 1-5 scores were absolutely terrible. Starting to rebound. just got a 70% on 8.

I started in the 50's FYI haha...Gradually been increasing to 60's now cracking 70. Really forgot everything besides torts. Learned civ pro and evidence practically from 0.

Wow that’s great! I do hope my numbers start to improve again over these last few sets - but that’s a great confidence booster to be scoring so well this late in the game!

[White Dwarf]

Pretty happy with my mixed MBE scores at this point (averaging mid-high 70's). Not feeling good about the essays, though. I've made attack outlines for every subject, but I still feel like I have no idea what I'm doing on a lot of subjects. There's just so much material, and I didn't take any of the MEE subjects in law school (besides Corporations).

[dabigchina]

Pretty happy with my mixed MBE scores at this point (averaging mid-high 70's). Not feeling good about the essays, though. I've made attack outlines for every subject, but I still feel like I have no idea what I'm doing on a lot of subjects. There's just so much material, and I didn't take any of the MEE subjects in law school.

Same, except CA essays are 1 hour long so they are less BSable. FML.

[deacon]

I received a message today from the Themis team. They suggest memorizing of course. They told that "you should not feel compelled to complete every set of PQs assigned at the expense of foregoing substantive learning. If you have completed more than 1200 MBE PQs plus the 300 questions from Practice Exams 1, 2, and 3, you have likely done enough". I have done the mixed sets 1-12 and decided to stop doing mixed sets. I will do if I have time of course, but now I start my day with memorization rather than taking one set of mixed sets. Still not sure whether it will work, but I think I need to trust the system.

[Tala29]

There was a question in the morning simulated MBE that referenced a JX that had abandoned the zone of danger requirement for NEID, but then said the mother could not recover because she was not within the zone of danger - am I missing something here? I thought she could recover specifically because the JX had "abandoned the requirement"???

This is always super confusing to me as well. I think I got this. There are two ways to get NIED.

#1: Zone of Danger: You're a random person when something catastrophic happened near you that made you scared. So, for example, you're walking down the street, and the pole falls mere feet in front of you crushing the boy. You don't know the boy, but you were terrified for your own life and you suffer emotion damage. Normally, you have an NIED claim. However, this jurisdiction has disclaimed zone of danger recovery.

#2. You're related to someone and something catastrophic happens to them while you're around. You're in your house watching your son from the window. Your son is playing 500 feet away from the house when you see the pole break and crush your son. You have a breakdown from that sight.

So, in this question - the zone of danger portion was a red herring designed to make you think of situation #1. (They got me too.) However, we were always in situation #2 under these facts. Only problem is that the woman was nowhere near perceiving the catastrophic event happening to her son. So she can't recover under #2 either.


Edit:

There's a #3 way of getting to NIED. #3 - Special Scenarios

This is when a morgue mishandles the body of a loved one, a physician improperly diagnoses you, etc.

Thank you for the explanation! The problem for me - I think - is the wording on the part where the JX has abandoned the requirement. I took it as the abandonment made it no longer necessary to "see" the accident despite not being in the zone - some of these questions are worded so that I don't get it, even when I "get it" if you know what I mean? Lol

I totally know what you mean, and I read it the same exact way as you and got it wrong for the same reason. There's quite a few I get wrong because I interpret the problem differently than Themis. Hopefully, the NCBE questions aren't open for interpretation lol.

Idk if this reasoning is the same and my brain is over it, but I got it right. I think it was modeled after the CA tort case Dillion v. Legg. CA abandoned that zone of danger requirement in that case. And following Dillion "factors" here she wasn't close to the scene of accident (several miles away), plus she didn't hear or see it for herself contemporaneously, instead she learned of the news over the phone. I think thats why the fact pattern made a point about her distance and the phone call. I think I am just repeating most of the points already said, but ya thats my take.lol

I'm still confused about the differences!

Bystander recovery for NIED:

(1) Plaintiff must be related to the party harmed
(2) Plaintiff must be present (can't see your family member is being killed by a crane on TV)
(3) must suffer actual physical harm

Bystander recovery under IIED:

Can use either normal IIED elements or:

(1) Plaintiff must be related to party harmed
(2) Plaintiff present - (so also can't just see it on TV??)
(3) Plaintiff need not suffer actual physical harm (?)

(1) person harmd is not family member
(2) Plaintiff was present
(3) Plaintiff suffered actual physical harm

Also:

I am confused with the actual damages for IIED I think - It says that the difference in NIED is that you need actual physical harm - nightmares; vomiting; heart attack. But for IIED you don't need any manifestation of that?! I thought you do.

I also read the other day that IIED is the only intentional tort that can be proven with recklessness - I was under the assumption that recklessness suffices for all the other intentional torts?

[Tala29]

Pretty happy with my mixed MBE scores at this point (averaging mid-high 70's). Not feeling good about the essays, though. I've made attack outlines for every subject, but I still feel like I have no idea what I'm doing on a lot of subjects. There's just so much material, and I didn't take any of the MEE subjects in law school (besides Corporations).

I'm in the same boat - there's just too many rules for each of the MEE subjects to remember. I haven't even looked at Conflict of Laws since watching the lectures. I think we just have to hope that the more MBE subjects show up on the essay parts..

I also am really worried that there's going to be an essay where I absolutely do not know the answer at all. I mean in February they asked the ENTIRE civ pro question about Rule 11?! If they do that with a minor rule from an MEE subject I'm screwed.

[Ohnt]

Pretty happy with my mixed MBE scores at this point (averaging mid-high 70's). Not feeling good about the essays, though. I've made attack outlines for every subject, but I still feel like I have no idea what I'm doing on a lot of subjects. There's just so much material, and I didn't take any of the MEE subjects in law school (besides Corporations).

I'm in the same boat - there's just too many rules for each of the MEE subjects to remember. I haven't even looked at Conflict of Laws since watching the lectures. I think we just have to hope that the more MBE subjects show up on the essay parts..

I also am really worried that there's going to be an essay where I absolutely do not know the answer at all. I mean in February they asked the ENTIRE civ pro question about Rule 11?! If they do that with a minor rule from an MEE subject I'm screwed.

I know! I mean how is it even insanely possible to know all these rules. Iv read all the subjects yet I cannot remember conflicts, or Tran or any of the mee subjects in detail. As soon as you move away from the mee subjects you forgot the deets needed for a good essay answer. Sob sob. I have so many areas on the mbe to cover as well.

[Pajsa18]

I received a message today from the Themis team. They suggest memorizing of course. They told that "you should not feel compelled to complete every set of PQs assigned at the expense of foregoing substantive learning. If you have completed more than 1200 MBE PQs plus the 300 questions from Practice Exams 1, 2, and 3, you have likely done enough". I have done the mixed sets 1-12 and decided to stop doing mixed sets. I will do if I have time of course, but now I start my day with memorization rather than taking one set of mixed sets. Still not sure whether it will work, but I think I need to trust the system.

This is extremely helpful. My MBEs have never been consistently in the 60%+ range (which is incredibly unsettling), and to be honest, I'm not sure doing any more questions will help at this point since I've already done 1800, plus the 3 practice exams - thanks for the info! It's a relief that we can let those go for a bit to focus on other things.

[Findedeux]

There was a question in the morning simulated MBE that referenced a JX that had abandoned the zone of danger requirement for NEID, but then said the mother could not recover because she was not within the zone of danger - am I missing something here? I thought she could recover specifically because the JX had "abandoned the requirement"???

This is always super confusing to me as well. I think I got this. There are two ways to get NIED.

#1: Zone of Danger: You're a random person when something catastrophic happened near you that made you scared. So, for example, you're walking down the street, and the pole falls mere feet in front of you crushing the boy. You don't know the boy, but you were terrified for your own life and you suffer emotion damage. Normally, you have an NIED claim. However, this jurisdiction has disclaimed zone of danger recovery.

#2. You're related to someone and something catastrophic happens to them while you're around. You're in your house watching your son from the window. Your son is playing 500 feet away from the house when you see the pole break and crush your son. You have a breakdown from that sight.

So, in this question - the zone of danger portion was a red herring designed to make you think of situation #1. (They got me too.) However, we were always in situation #2 under these facts. Only problem is that the woman was nowhere near perceiving the catastrophic event happening to her son. So she can't recover under #2 either.


Edit:

There's a #3 way of getting to NIED. #3 - Special Scenarios

This is when a morgue mishandles the body of a loved one, a physician improperly diagnoses you, etc.

Thank you for the explanation! The problem for me - I think - is the wording on the part where the JX has abandoned the requirement. I took it as the abandonment made it no longer necessary to "see" the accident despite not being in the zone - some of these questions are worded so that I don't get it, even when I "get it" if you know what I mean? Lol

I totally know what you mean, and I read it the same exact way as you and got it wrong for the same reason. There's quite a few I get wrong because I interpret the problem differently than Themis. Hopefully, the NCBE questions aren't open for interpretation lol.

Idk if this reasoning is the same and my brain is over it, but I got it right. I think it was modeled after the CA tort case Dillion v. Legg. CA abandoned that zone of danger requirement in that case. And following Dillion "factors" here she wasn't close to the scene of accident (several miles away), plus she didn't hear or see it for herself contemporaneously, instead she learned of the news over the phone. I think thats why the fact pattern made a point about her distance and the phone call. I think I am just repeating most of the points already said, but ya thats my take.lol

I'm still confused about the differences!

Bystander recovery for NIED:

(1) Plaintiff must be related to the party harmed
(2) Plaintiff must be present (can't see your family member is being killed by a crane on TV)
(3) must suffer actual physical harm

Bystander recovery under IIED:

Can use either normal IIED elements or:

(1) Plaintiff must be related to party harmed
(2) Plaintiff present - (so also can't just see it on TV??)
(3) Plaintiff need not suffer actual physical harm (?)

(1) person harmd is not family member
(2) Plaintiff was present
(3) Plaintiff suffered actual physical harm

Also:

I am confused with the actual damages for IIED I think - It says that the difference in NIED is that you need actual physical harm - nightmares; vomiting; heart attack. But for IIED you don't need any manifestation of that?! I thought you do.

I also read the other day that IIED is the only intentional tort that can be proven with recklessness - I was under the assumption that recklessness suffices for all the other intentional torts?

IIED
-Extreme & Outrageous conduct intentionally/recklessly causing severe emotional distress

Non-Outrageous Conduct:May still be actionable where
1)kid, elderly, pregnant woman, or
2)D targets P’s known sensitivity or weakness
3)D is common-carrier or innkeeper


-Scope: V,
V’s immediate family present at scene who suffers SED
and
Bystander present who suffers bodily injury from SED


NIED
GR: P can’t recover
Exceptions:
-Zone of Danger + SED
OR -
-Closely related to person injured, present at scene, and personally observed injury

[LawIsLyfe33]

Welllllll Practice Test 4 was a lot harder than the simulated exam from last week, right???

I dropped 8% points

[Lawworld19]

Welllllll Practice Test 4 was a lot harder than the simulated exam from last week, right???

I dropped 8% points

Just came on here to say the same. Mixed sets I hit 64-70%.

I just got a 54% on the MBE practice test 4. IDK wtf happened.

[dabigchina]

Welllllll Practice Test 4 was a lot harder than the simulated exam from last week, right???

I dropped 8% points

I'm scheduled to take it next Monday. Should be interesting to have my confidence crushed a week before the exam.

[Pajsa18]

How is everyone reviewing / memorizing MBE's for these last two weeks? Are you doing one main MBE subject a day in it's entirety, all subjects everyday, part of each subject every day, or something else altogether? Not sure how to tackle the review process.

[Lawworld19]

How is everyone reviewing / memorizing MBE's for these last two weeks? Are you doing one main MBE subject a day in it's entirety, all subjects everyday, or part of each subject every day? Not sure how to tackle the review process.

My schedule- 8:15-10:00 is MBE one sheets review (3 one day-4 next then alternate)

10:30-12 - MBE guide by jd advising, one subject per day for 7 days

12:30-1:30 strategy and tactics

1:45-5 half of state specific law subjects (alternate)

5:30-bed, Themis program

[ithrowds]

Do these problem sets get harder towards the middle?

I was scoring consistently 76-90 on MBE sets 1-10 (although I noticed the questions weren't particularly hard), and have noticed a significant uptick in question difficulty over the last couple sets (11-12)

[thisyearsgirl]

How is everyone reviewing / memorizing MBE's for these last two weeks? Are you doing one main MBE subject a day in it's entirety, all subjects everyday, part of each subject every day, or something else altogether? Not sure how to tackle the review process.

I'm doing one subject per day, starting w/ MBEs before moving onto MEEs. I do MBE mixed sets in morning and then review over my subject outline -> condense -> memorize key concepts. I outline practice essays at night or if I run out of time, the next morning. I'll have to stack two MEE subjects per day in order to get everything memorized on time but hopefully it won't be too bad? I'm not looking forward to it since I didn't take a single MEE subject in law school lmao.

[Ohnt]

Wednesday, July 11, 2018
How do I differentiate between offer into evidence, introduce into evidence, read into evidence?

Which is applicable to present Recollection refreshed and which is applicable to past recorded please?


Please help.

[EncyclopediaOrange]

Wednesday, July 11, 2018
How do I differentiate between offer into evidence, introduce into evidence, read into evidence?

Which is applicable to present Recollection refreshed and which is applicable to past recorded please?


Please help.

Offer into and introduce into evidence are two ways of saying essentially the same thing. Whatever is being offered and introduced becomes part of the record that the jury is allowed to inspect during deliberations (an exhibit).

When a writing is read into evidence, the jury will not be able to look at the physical writing, they will only have access to the transcript of it being read out loud.

Present recollections refreshed are never introduced into evidence but could be used to impeach if it's a writing and inconsistent with present testimony. They are any tangible object that will spark at witnesses memory of the event in question (can be notes or a paper clip they always keep in their pocket).

Recorded recollections may be read into evidence by the proponent if:
(A) is on a matter the witness once knew about but now cannot recall well enough to testify fully and accurately; (B) was made or adopted by the witness when the matter was fresh in the witness’s memory; and (C) accurately reflects the witness’s knowledge.

The party opponent may introduce the record if they want, but the proponent can only read it out loud.

[bananaphone]

Ok, I've been trying for a month now and just cant seem to understand character evidence. Has anyone found a one-two sentence list/explanation for the following?

1. When can you introduce extrinsic evidence of a witness's truthfulness before asking them about it on cross? How about the defendant? Can you ever bring specific acts in these cases?

2. When can you introduce extrinsic evidence of a witness's truthfulness after asking about them on cross? And the defendant? Can you ever bring specific acts in these cases?

3. When can you bring evidence to impeach a defendant but not use the evidence substantively? How about impeaching another witness but not using it against the defendant substantively?

4. When can you introduce extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness for not being credible (not regarding truthfullness?)