Top Law Schools

Hi all I thought it would be beneficial to have a single thread where people can ask questions and discuss black letter law for the July UBE. I personally am using barbri (+ other sources) and I have found myself getting confused at points. Regardless of prep method/course, it might be helpful to have a running list of topics with (hopefully) explanations. I'll go first.

In Civ Pro:

1. Is nonmutual issue preclusion an entirely separate thing than issue preclusion? Because, how can you use nonmmutual ever if it is an issue preclusion requirement that it can only be used against someone who was a party to case 1 (or someone "in privity with a party from case 1"?)

2. Is a JMOL literally the same as a directed verdict?

Sprout wrote:1. Is nonmutual issue preclusion an entirely separate thing than issue preclusion? Because, how can you use nonmmutual ever if it is an issue preclusion requirement that it can only be used against someone who was a party to case 1 (or someone "in privity with a party from case 1"?)

More of a subset. It is "nonmutual" because the party using it, either offensively or defensively (i.e. the person who is asserting issue preclusion), was not a party to case one.

Sprout wrote:2. Is a JMOL literally the same as a directed verdict?

Yup. Same thing, different name.

Thank you that was helpful.

Sprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.

No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOL

sam91 wrote:

Sprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.

No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOL

This is beyond what you asked but hopefully it helps reiterate

I remember seeing JMOL/JNOV issues tested in 2 ways on the MBE:

1. Bringing JNOV after trial w/o bringing JMOL during trial (can't do this).
2. Timing of when P and D can bring JMOL during trial.

Great idea, and I'll check back to this thread often to see if I can be of help.

Sean (Silverman Bar Prep).

Sprout wrote:
1. Is nonmutual issue preclusion an entirely separate thing than issue preclusion? Because, how can you use nonmmutual ever if it is an issue preclusion requirement that it can only be used against someone who was a party to case 1 (or someone "in privity with a party from case 1"?)

Just to expand on Sam's answer with an example,

CASE 1: P1 v. D1, P1 loses.

CASE 2: P1 v. D2, same issue, D2 will succeed on a 12(b)(6) against P1 (assuming all other issue preclusion requirements are met). This is nonmutual DEFENSIVE issue preclusion.

CASE 3: P2 v. P1, same issue, P2 will succeed in precluding P1 from litigating that issue again (assuming all other issue preclusion requirements are met). This is nonmutual OFFENSIVE issue preclusion, and the Supreme Court OK'd it if some criteria are met as a matter of federal preclusion law, so state courts would have to apply it if CASE 1 was from a federal district court (many states hate doing this because nonmutual offensive preclusion isn't sanctioned by their own laws, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯).

Now back to CASE 1: P1 v. D1, but imagine P1 wins.

CASE 2: P1 v. D2, P1 tries to use the judgment to preclude D2 from litigating it again. Can't do this, because of the rule you cited in your question.

Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused

Sprout wrote:Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused

An executory interest is a future interest in a third person that cuts short the previous estate before before it would have naturally terminated. A remainder is a future interest in a third party that is intended to take effect after the natural termination of the preceding estate.

The key difference between executory interests and remainders is that an executory interest cuts short the previous estate before it would have naturally terminated, while a remainder takes effect upon the natural termination of the preceding estate.

For instance, "O to A and his heirs so long as the A does not use the land commercially, but if A uses the land commercially, then to B" creates an executory interest in B because B's future interest would cut short A's estate before it naturally terminated. But "O to A for life and then to B" creates a remainder because B takes upon the natural termination of A's estate (when A dies).

Thank you so much

BulletTooth wrote:

- that was extremely helpful.

how is driving a car through a red light into a crosswalk full of people not murder but throwing a brick off some scaffolding murder?

i never liked crim law.

Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?

TheWalrus wrote:Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?

Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:

TheWalrus wrote:Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?

Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.

Ok, so B's interest is still valid. That's what I was presuming, but just wanted to make sure.

pancakes3 wrote:how is driving a car through a red light into a crosswalk full of people not murder but throwing a brick off some scaffolding murder?

i never liked crim law.

95% of crim law is intent. Only reason I don't hate it, they basically have to tell you the answer in the question.

TheWalrus wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:how is driving a car through a red light into a crosswalk full of people not murder but throwing a brick off some scaffolding murder?

i never liked crim law.

95% of crim law is intent. Only reason I don't hate it, they basically have to tell you the answer in the question.

for the car question, the driver didn't have intent. for the scaffolding question the statute included malignant heart and i didn't catch that.

you're right that everything is in the question. still hate it though.

Bobby_Axelrod wrote:

TheWalrus wrote:Readin an outline and it says O conveys "to A for life, then to B and his heirs one day after A's death"; B does not have a remainder (because there is a gap).

What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?

Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.

Yes, so it's not a remainder. It's a springing executory interest.

we're to assume pure comparative negligence unless otherwise stated?

FYI, there's a thread already for most of the same exact stuff...

MBE Question Thread
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=278465