Black Letter Law - UBE July 17 Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
- Sprout
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm
Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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?
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?
- sam91
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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: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"?)
Yup. Same thing, different name.Sprout wrote:2. Is a JMOL literally the same as a directed verdict?
- Sprout
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Thank you that was helpful.
- sam91
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 1:03 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOLSprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.
- cnk1220
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
sam91 wrote:No problem! Helps to write it out anyway, I probably won't forget it now. LOLSprout wrote:Thank you that was helpful.
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.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- SilvermanBarPrep
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:19 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Great idea, and I'll check back to this thread often to see if I can be of help.
Sean (Silverman Bar Prep).
Sean (Silverman Bar Prep).
- Toubro
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Just to expand on Sam's answer with an example,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"?)
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.
- Sprout
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused
- BulletTooth
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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.Sprout wrote:Can someone explain to me how to tell the difference is between an executory interest and remainders? I am v confused
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).
- Sprout
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Thank you so much
- that was extremely helpful.BulletTooth wrote:
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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.
i never liked crim law.
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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?
What does this mean? Does it revert back to O after the Death of A?
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.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?
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Ok, so B's interest is still valid. That's what I was presuming, but just wanted to make sure.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.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?
95% of crim law is intent. Only reason I don't hate it, they basically have to tell you the answer in the question.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.
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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.TheWalrus wrote:95% of crim law is intent. Only reason I don't hate it, they basically have to tell you the answer in the question.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.
you're right that everything is in the question. still hate it though.
- Toubro
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:18 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
Yes, so it's not a remainder. It's a springing executory interest.Bobby_Axelrod wrote:Yes. O holds until B's interest kicks in.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?
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
we're to assume pure comparative negligence unless otherwise stated?
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: Black Letter Law - UBE July 17
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
MBE Question Thread
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=278465
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login