2017 July California Bar Forum

[nsv]

Coconspirators statement? Dying declaration? Present sense impression? Mental state? No idea on that one.

I put present sense impression because the facts said it was made right after the event

[Xochi]

does a judge need to give detailed opinions as to law and fact for summary judgment? can a judge order summary judgment and then vacate and amend later? can a judge do lickity splits while ordering summary judgment? can a judge affect summary judgment even though the defendant winked twice? what's the standard of review on winking? substantial error? jk that's not a thing, but then again maybe it is

Lollllllll

Y'all keep it coming, this is so therapeutic

[Hangastaronit]

Coconspirators statement? Dying declaration? Present sense impression? Mental state? No idea on that one.

I thought that was a BS question, but went mental state because I thought the others had a missing element (didn't seem like he declarant was under the stress of the event). IDK, though, maybe have been PSI...

[BenjarvusGreenEllis]

When does an emergency become testimonsk?

[happybar]

Re the condo in the Community Property essay - I looked at old essays and that exact pattern appeared. H/W adds another spouse as joint title because the joining spouse suggested to do this to "avoid probate". The source is SP funds. The rule is Anti Lucas as people previously mentioned here.
I was sure I was going to get at least a 70 on this question until I realized I totally messed up the condo part because I failed to mention Lucas and just said that the funds were SP and there was no valid transmutation + husband trusted wife who is more sophisticated /knowledgeable in this regard, who convinced him to do it.

Also feel really bad that I missed the ultra hazardous tort in the torts question where I focused my analysis on negligence and just briefly raised and dismissed strict product liability.

[happybar]

Weird MPT and harder than usual MBE. I think I am f... Lol

Unfortunately this was my second time. I am really bad at PTs but I thought this PT/ MPT was actually quite easy as opposed to the Feb PT and the old ones which I practiced.. i hope I did not miss anything.
I honestly thought it was very straightforward.

[mimim8]

Re the condo in the Community Property essay - I looked at old essays and that exact pattern appeared. H/W adds another spouse as joint title because the joining spouse suggested to do this to "avoid probate". The source is SP funds. The rule is Anti Lucas as people previously mentioned here.
I was sure I was going to get at least a 70 on this question until I realized I totally messed up the condo part because I failed to mention Lucas and just said that the funds were SP and there was no valid transmutation + husband trusted wife who is more sophisticated /knowledgeable in this regard, who convinced him to do it.

Also feel really bad that I missed the ultra hazardous tort in the torts question where I focused my analysis on negligence and just briefly raised and dismissed strict product liability.

I know the exact question you're talking about. That's all I could think of when I saw this question.

Also the remedies question there was a super similar MBE contracts barbri fact pattern- random flashback during the exam.

[spacedandy]

I remember someone on here saying they believed experimental questions tend to be frontloaded in the first half of each exam and are rarely ever in the last 20 or so. Any validity to this or is it truly random generated? I mean I guess it makes sense- I would assume examiners want the experimental questions answered by an examiner who actually read it and answered it to their best ability for it to be useful to them. Doesn't do them much good if the answers are gonna be complete guesses because the examiner ran out of time.

[logical seasoning]

I second the bloodbath.

At least all of us here would save a child drowning in 4 feet of water in an above ground pool, right?

RIGHT?

[dimetech]

Lawyer from CA (passed in July 2016 first time). Just took the UBE. Lemme tell you from experience. If this is your first time seeing actual bar multis (or you are a repeat taker and not very good at multis), they are NOTHING like what the courses give you. Much trickier. That said, if you actually KNOW the law, it's so easy to avoid their tricks.
I personally thought this years set was 10x easier than last years. Sailed right through. But I was "new" then too. Just take it all in stride. Try to put it behind you (I know, impossible) and you'll appreciate it all when you pass. In hindsight the answers are always 20/20. It's a right of passage we all must go through.

[jman77]

Lol @ 10x easier.

[dimetech]

Lol @ 10x easier.

Try again buddy. That ain't my post. Oh you edited your post huh? I see.

And if you read my post, you will see it had to do with experience. First time is always the hardest, unless you're just bad at multis. Just was giving some general advice. Enjoy the long wait bud.

[jman77]

Lol @ 10x easier.

Try again buddy. That ain't my post. Oh you edited your post huh? I see.

Yeah, I admit I got that wrong. Still, 10x easier? Go troll somewhere else.

[netrag]

Lawyer from CA (passed in July 2016 first time). Just took the UBE. Lemme tell you from experience. If this is your first time seeing actual bar multis (or you are a repeat taker and not very good at multis), they are NOTHING like what the courses give you. Much trickier. That said, if you actually KNOW the law, it's so easy to avoid their tricks.
I personally thought this years set was 10x easier than last years. Sailed right through. But I was "new" then too. Just take it all in stride. Try to put it behind you (I know, impossible) and you'll appreciate it all when you pass. In hindsight the answers are always 20/20. It's a right of passage we all must go through.

They're completely different now than they were in 2014. Took the UBE in July 2014. The questions were really well-written then, and very much like the OPEs (especially 3 & 4) and Emanuel. This set was completely different. I felt like I was taking those purposefully deceptive Barbri MC tests. They're not testing as in depth as they did before, probably because of the addition of Civ Pro. Pre-Civ Pro* , the MBE was very much like everything Emanuel, and also OPE-4. Before, there were a lot of questions that required narrowing down two plausible options to one, which was just fine, because if you studied hard and understood the law, a quick re-read would reveal the answer. This go around, there were hardly any of those. Instead, every other question was "choose the best" of four shitty paths, or spend the 1.7 minutes allotted here trying try to decipher which purposefully mangled standard you had in your head 1.2 minutes ago, etc.


* Civ Pro questions were not difficult at all, and were mostly drawn from Rules 18-60 -- wish I spent my time studying Remedies more instead of memorizing all of those dates. Property was also much easier.

[netrag]

does a judge need to give detailed opinions as to law and fact for summary judgment? can a judge order summary judgment and then vacate and amend later? can a judge do lickity splits while ordering summary judgment? can a judge affect summary judgment even though the defendant winked twice? what's the standard of review on winking? substantial error? jk that's not a thing, but then again maybe it is

I had two of those. Lmao though.

quote="whats an updog"]

Barbri "you'll see one to two Summary Judgnent Qs"
MBE: here's 5000 of them

Lol I didn't know what dispositive meant

At one point I filled in 5 "D" bubbles in a row, almost cried when I saw that.

A state can require public schools at some point Btwn elementary and HS


There was one evidence Q that was alone 1 full page long, lol wtf

It's over, I honestly don't know anyone that said, I feel like I'm gonna pass, everyone just shared that notion of, "I just put my head down, answered the best I could, wrote the best I could and when I looked up 3 hours flew"

I hope we all pass and move on

yo, so many Ds and also sets of 3s of Cs and As too. made me think i for sure fucked up. even went back and checked some, but sometimes you either know the answer or you don't. and if you don't, you just gotta guess. shit show, blood bath, whatever you call it, the NCBE and the bar exam as a whole is a dumb fucking scam. it is not a proper test of one's ability to practice the law. not by a long shot. and 4 months to determine the score? jesus, what year are we living in[/quote]


Also tons of Cs and Ds in 3s, and also a bunch of As (usually just two As in a row). Did you have Version 3?

Regarding private schools, education is not a fundamental right, but sending your kid to private school is fundamental right.

[netrag]

I thought so too: Lucas comes into play when the purchase is made with SP of one spouse or with part SP and part CP. Hal inherited his condo.
I was generous and gave Hal his the condo and the increased value of that Condo as well. However, my first thought was about Lucas too.
Now all Wendys and Hals, the jury, negligent drivers and BFPs with non-recorded mortgages are burning in my personal hell.

very confused as to all the above regarding the condo. wouldn't the special community property presumption have applied on divorce? i.e. on divorce any jointly titled property is presumptively considered CP unless rebutted in the deed or a separate express writing. therefore, it would have been CP because no writing existed to keep it as SP. there might have been some sort of undue influence argument because W was an accountant who insisted on the transfer, but that seemed like a failing argument. very well could be wrong, drunk now

I must be the only fucking idiot who missed that aggregation of marijuana sales near school answer. I put plenary power over DC instead because for some reason I kept thinking about that other case the S Ct said no aggregate (was it gun sale near schools? Or something). Fuck.

I also put plenary power. Do they not have plenary power? Oh well. I am pretty sure I bombed the MBE after feeling pretty good about the essays

Plenary power is a better answer - you don't even have to get into an analysis as to the aggregate effects, etc. Congress can pretty much do anything on federal lands, DC, etc. Also, having taken the MBE in NY a few years ago, I can say that today's MBE was significantly tougher. I was hoping my MBE would put me in auto-pass territory like in NY, but I'm not too sure now (in NY I was pretty certain I was going to pass after the MBE day). Thankfully, I think I did fairly decently yesterday.

Yes! Sorry for the triple post, but that was my reasoning as well. The Lopez questions always throw me for a spin, but my gut instinct was go to with "plenary" because police power made more sense in the context of the question.

[dimetech]

When does an emergency become testimonsk?

Gotta love triple hearsay.

[nsv]

Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?

[jman77]

When does an emergency become testimonsk?

Gotta love triple hearsay.

Uhm, that was not a hearsay question. It was a right to confront question, which turned on whether each of the 3 statements was testimonial in nature. Also, I don't think you understand what double/triple hearsay means. Three separate instances of hearsay do not make for a triple hearsay. It has to be hearsay within hearsay (all in one).

Anyway, I'm just cranky and tired. Signing off now.

[jman77]

Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?

In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).

[dimetech]

When does an emergency become testimonsk?

Gotta love triple hearsay.

Uhm, that was not a hearsay question. It was a right to confront question, which turned on whether each of the 3 statements was testimonial in nature. Also, I don't think you understand what double/triple hearsay means. Three separate instances of hearsay do not make for a triple hearsay. It has to be hearsay within hearsay (all in one).

Anyway, I'm just cranky and tired. Signing off now.

Without getting too specific here (don't wanna violate rules) I'm pretty sure when a record contains a persons statement about what another person said... It's triple HS. I hope we're talking about the same food poisoning mbe question. That was essentially the call. If not, misunderstanding.

[jman77]

When does an emergency become testimonsk?

Gotta love triple hearsay.

Uhm, that was not a hearsay question. It was a right to confront question, which turned on whether each of the 3 statements was testimonial in nature. Also, I don't think you understand what double/triple hearsay means. Three separate instances of hearsay do not make for a triple hearsay. It has to be hearsay within hearsay (all in one).

Anyway, I'm just cranky and tired. Signing off now.

Without getting too specific here (don't wanna violate rules) I'm pretty sure when a record contains a persons statement about what another person said... It's triple HS. I hope we're talking about the same food poisoning mbe question. That was essentially the call. If not, misunderstanding.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the police officer and the wife, hence the question as to when things said in an emergency become testimonial (essentially, when the statement is being made as part of police investigation and not to assist in an ongoing emergency).

[dimetech]

When does an emergency become testimonsk?

Gotta love triple hearsay.

Uhm, that was not a hearsay question. It was a right to confront question, which turned on whether each of the 3 statements was testimonial in nature. Also, I don't think you understand what double/triple hearsay means. Three separate instances of hearsay do not make for a triple hearsay. It has to be hearsay within hearsay (all in one).

Anyway, I'm just cranky and tired. Signing off now.

Without getting too specific here (don't wanna violate rules) I'm pretty sure when a record contains a persons statement about what another person said... It's triple HS. I hope we're talking about the same food poisoning mbe question. That was essentially the call. If not, misunderstanding.

I'm pretty sure he was talking about the police officer and the wife, hence the question as to when things said in an emergency become testimonial (essentially, when the statement is being made as part of police investigation and not to assist in an ongoing emergency).

ya, i thought he was referencing a different question.

[netrag]

Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?

In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).

Also did this analysis, but I forgot about the CA specific rules, so I pretended they were the same after stating hearsay was exempt from Prop 8.

How did you come out on right to jury trial re: Civ Pro & proximate cause on the following q?

[nsv]

Did everyone address hearsay on the second question?

In the essays? Yup. I saw 2 hearsay within a hearsay issues. One was admissible (opponent party statement/admission) within a business record and the other inadmissible (I think statement of a belief -- also, it was irrelevant).

Also did this analysis, but I forgot about the CA specific rules, so I pretended they were the same after stating hearsay was exempt from Prop 8.

How did you come out on right to jury trial re: Civ Pro & proximate cause on the following q?

Fml...I totally just threw a few sentences in there on hearsay. Welp