Page 1 of 1

Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 9:54 am
by Sprout
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?

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:02 am
by sam91
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:09 am
by Sprout
Thank you that was helpful.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:44 am
by sam91
Sprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.
No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOL

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:50 am
by cnk1220
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:47 pm
by SilvermanBarPrep
Great idea, and I'll check back to this thread often to see if I can be of help.

Sean (Silverman Bar Prep).

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:53 pm
by Toubro
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 3:10 pm
by Sprout
Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:40 pm
by BulletTooth
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).

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 12:39 pm
by Sprout
Thank you so much
BulletTooth wrote:
- that was extremely helpful.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 5:36 pm
by pancakes3
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:17 pm
by TheWalrus
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?

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:19 pm
by Bobby_Axelrod
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:21 pm
by TheWalrus
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 6:42 pm
by pancakes3
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:48 pm
by Toubro
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.

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:06 pm
by pancakes3
we're to assume pure comparative negligence unless otherwise stated?

Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17

Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:28 pm
by ConfusedL1
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