MBE Question Thread 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."
- foundingfather
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:31 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
tag
Anyone using Emanuel's Strategies & Tactics for the MBE to supplement their bar review course?
Anyone using Emanuel's Strategies & Tactics for the MBE to supplement their bar review course?
- cnk1220
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:48 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
foundingfather wrote:tag
Anyone using Emanuel's Strategies & Tactics for the MBE to supplement their bar review course?
I did- great book I recommend!
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
two more for today:
ONE: Am I understanding the right to cancel a contract (not anticipatory repudiation. Think of it as some one getting sick vs. saying they won't perform) exists in this weird reasonableness standard considering:
1. the degree of uncertainty relating to the nature and duration of the other party's ability to person and
2. the extent to which a delay in making substitute arrangements would have prevented continuing obligations
TWO: Is a retailer strictly liable for a manufacturing defect even if it can be shown that it didn't act negligently? My assumption is that unless it can prove it didn't act negligently.
ONE: Am I understanding the right to cancel a contract (not anticipatory repudiation. Think of it as some one getting sick vs. saying they won't perform) exists in this weird reasonableness standard considering:
1. the degree of uncertainty relating to the nature and duration of the other party's ability to person and
2. the extent to which a delay in making substitute arrangements would have prevented continuing obligations
TWO: Is a retailer strictly liable for a manufacturing defect even if it can be shown that it didn't act negligently? My assumption is that unless it can prove it didn't act negligently.
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Does anyone understand the difference between larceny by trick and false pretenses?
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Here's my take, fwiw.TheWalrus wrote:Does anyone understand the difference between larceny by trick and false pretenses?
In short:
False pretenses you get title by fraud.
Larceny by trick you get possession by fraud.
Hypo:
I intend to permanently deprive Susie of her printer. I have a fake $100 bill.
Scenario A: I say to Susie, "hey, here is $100 (fake) for that printer." Susie gives it to me. ---> False pretenses
Scenario B: I say to Susie, "hey, can I borrow your printer?" Susie says, "Yeah." I take the printer and keep it forever. ---> Larceny by trick
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 462
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2015 8:39 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Are Emanuel's Civ Pro questions representative of the actual MBE questions? They are looooong.cnk1220 wrote:foundingfather wrote:tag
Anyone using Emanuel's Strategies & Tactics for the MBE to supplement their bar review course?
I did- great book I recommend!
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:23 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
Civ Pro Question - JMOL
Themis Outline: "the court may grant JMOL if the court finds that there is insufficient evidence for a jury reasonably to find for that party."
Also Themis: "the court may not evaluate the weight of the evidence"
MBE PQ: What did the trial court do wrong here? What suggests that the court "evaluated the weight of evidence" instead of finding that "evidence was insufficient"?
Thank you in advance!
Themis Outline: "the court may grant JMOL if the court finds that there is insufficient evidence for a jury reasonably to find for that party."
Also Themis: "the court may not evaluate the weight of the evidence"
MBE PQ: What did the trial court do wrong here? What suggests that the court "evaluated the weight of evidence" instead of finding that "evidence was insufficient"?
Thank you in advance!
-
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 2:16 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
This is my understanding, and someone with more knowledge of civ pro may correct me:dlrbfl wrote:Civ Pro Question - JMOL
Themis Outline: "the court may grant JMOL if the court finds that there is insufficient evidence for a jury reasonably to find for that party."
Also Themis: "the court may not evaluate the weight of the evidence"
MBE PQ: What did the trial court do wrong here? What suggests that the court "evaluated the weight of evidence" instead of finding that "evidence was insufficient"?
Thank you in advance!
The MSJ/JMOL standard has a shitload of contradictions in it so it seems like it would be hard to test if with multiple choice. I think the rule I would adopt for such questions is that if the evidence being found to be too flimsy to believe involves actual testimony, then a judge can never rule on it (i.e. if it involves credibility). This will be true where the testimony sets out the actual ultimate facts, so that the rule of thumb for MC should be: if there is ANY conflicting evidence on a point--if both parties presented evidence on something--then MSJ or JMOL is inappropriate. Of course, if the parties set out facts from which inferences must be drawn (classic example being my supervisor did X Y Z, the jury can infer he was discriminating against me) then there's more leeway for the court to say no reasonable jury could draw those inferences. But that's probably too nuanced for a MC question.
I wrote out a longer response explaining my understanding of the standard but I've spoilered it because it's way beyond the scope of these MC questions so it might just be a waste of time/muddy the waters
Last edited by Puffman1234 on Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:04 pm, edited 5 times in total.
- pancakes3
- Posts: 6619
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
insufficient evidence means there's not enough evidence. weight of the evidence means the quality of the evidence.
in the Themis practice problem, the mayor presented the defamatory article, which could be enough for a jury to review and find it defamatory. the degree to which the article is defamatory goes to the quality of the evidence.
i'm doing Barbri and the JMOL questions pretty much accept all evidence as sufficient to carry the burden of evidence for dismissing JMOL motions except for instances where the moving party has only submitted affidavits. in this case, affidavit PLUS article is sufficient to defeat JMOL.
fwiw, the MSJ problems allow affidavits to defeat MSJs because affidavits alone can make a genuine dispute of material fact.
in the Themis practice problem, the mayor presented the defamatory article, which could be enough for a jury to review and find it defamatory. the degree to which the article is defamatory goes to the quality of the evidence.
i'm doing Barbri and the JMOL questions pretty much accept all evidence as sufficient to carry the burden of evidence for dismissing JMOL motions except for instances where the moving party has only submitted affidavits. in this case, affidavit PLUS article is sufficient to defeat JMOL.
fwiw, the MSJ problems allow affidavits to defeat MSJs because affidavits alone can make a genuine dispute of material fact.
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Here's the standard for SJ: even if everything the non-moving party has said in pleadings and discovery were true, there is not genuine dispute of fact or law. I lost on SJ once on a failure to warn issue. Opposing counsel argued that even if the manufacturer didn't include a warning on their product, it was of no consequence because a reasonable contractor would know how to use the product. My expert was a complete waste.dlrbfl wrote:Civ Pro Question - JMOL
Themis Outline: "the court may grant JMOL if the court finds that there is insufficient evidence for a jury reasonably to find for that party."
Also Themis: "the court may not evaluate the weight of the evidence"
MBE PQ: What did the trial court do wrong here? What suggests that the court "evaluated the weight of evidence" instead of finding that "evidence was insufficient"?
Thank you in advance!
In contrast, a JMOL happens when after hearing every last shred of evidence that could possible be admitted, the judge feels there is just no way a reasonable jury would find it sufficient to come to a a verdict in favor of the non-moving party. Think: Res ipsa locquitur. Yes, a case of beer fell out of the window and smashed your car. Yes, it was legally parked just outside a frat house. No, you cannot point to Omega Theta Pi House as the payer, because while it is true that Flounder, Bluto or Otter probably tossed it, you can't show that it wasn't Dean Wormer, who was searching the second floor for his daughter. If you're the Plaintiff, and you move for JMOL, you'll lose. If you're Omega Theta Pi House, you win, but you're still on double secret probation.
A party can also move for a judgment on the pleadings, but if there are any exhibits or even an affidavit included, the court will view it as a MSJ, and treat it as such.
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
So if part A knows they can´t sue on a debt but part B thinks they can and says "I'll pay $500 if you don't sue me" is there a contract? I know there's a good faith exception for when a party believes they're settling, but I'm not clear whether it covers both sides.
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Yes. Because B believes there is a bargained-for-detriment. As long as A didn't claim there was an actionable claim to get B to agree to it, there's a contract.ConfusedL1 wrote:So if part A knows they can´t sue on a debt but part B thinks they can and says "I'll pay $500 if you don't sue me" is there a contract? I know there's a good faith exception for when a party believes they're settling, but I'm not clear whether it covers both sides.
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Isn't there a unilateral mistake issue there though? A KNOWS B is wrong about a material part of the decisionInterAlia1961 wrote:Yes. Because B believes there is a bargained-for-detriment. As long as A didn't claim there was an actionable claim to get B to agree to it, there's a contract.ConfusedL1 wrote:So if part A knows they can´t sue on a debt but part B thinks they can and says "I'll pay $500 if you don't sue me" is there a contract? I know there's a good faith exception for when a party believes they're settling, but I'm not clear whether it covers both sides.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:32 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
The court won't reform or rescind a contract for a unilateral mistake unless the non-mistaken party had reason to know of the other party's mistake, and it has to be a mistake that is fundamental to the nature of the contract, not the value. Here, even though the value of the contract is less for B than it is for A, because there is no claim, it's still only a mistake as to value. And A could make an argument that even if there isn't a claim, A could still suffer financial harm just from being sued. So, this is about a mistake as to value, and as long as there's no fraud on A's part, there's a contract.
When there's a mistake as to the nature of the thing, then it's almost certainly a mutual mistake. We both thought I was selling you an old dry cow that you were going to have ground into hamburger. It turns out, you got a fertile, top-producing milker for your milking string who was pregnant at the time of the sale. No contract, because we are both mistaken about the nature of the thing, not the value.
When there's a mistake as to the nature of the thing, then it's almost certainly a mutual mistake. We both thought I was selling you an old dry cow that you were going to have ground into hamburger. It turns out, you got a fertile, top-producing milker for your milking string who was pregnant at the time of the sale. No contract, because we are both mistaken about the nature of the thing, not the value.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Need some reassurance.
Contracts. Mailbox Rule. Rejection sent and then acceptance sent a day after. Mailbox doesn't apply here, rather whichever is received first controls.
My simpleton question--received literally just means you received it, right? I don't have to physically open & read the rejection to receive it, right? As long as I receive it in the simplest meaning of the word, the rejection controls? (and I assume you'd prove first delivery by the postmark?) TIA
Contracts. Mailbox Rule. Rejection sent and then acceptance sent a day after. Mailbox doesn't apply here, rather whichever is received first controls.
My simpleton question--received literally just means you received it, right? I don't have to physically open & read the rejection to receive it, right? As long as I receive it in the simplest meaning of the word, the rejection controls? (and I assume you'd prove first delivery by the postmark?) TIA
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
No, do not have to physically open and read the rejection to receive it.FormerChild wrote:Need some reassurance.
Contracts. Mailbox Rule. Rejection sent and then acceptance sent a day after. Mailbox doesn't apply here, rather whichever is received first controls.
My simpleton question--received literally just means you received it, right? I don't have to physically open & read the rejection to receive it, right? As long as I receive it in the simplest meaning of the word, the rejection controls? (and I assume you'd prove first delivery by the postmark?) TIA
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Dumb question, but what is the eleventh amendment?
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
When, if ever, is ignorance of a law EVER an excuse to a crime? It doesn't even seem it would help "knowing" offenses.
- BulletTooth
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
MPC § 2.04:ConfusedL1 wrote:When, if ever, is ignorance of a law EVER an excuse to a crime? It doesn't even seem it would help "knowing" offenses.
(3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when:
(a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or
(b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
(4) The defendant must prove a defense arising under Subsection (3) of this Section by a preponderance of evidence.
I would only apply this if the prompt tells you that the jurisdiction has adopted the MPC. Generally, mistake of law is not a defense. The facts that would trigger this should also stick out like a sore thumb.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:23 am
Re: MBE Question Thread
I'm so confused about when extrinsic evidence is permitted. My outline and CriticalPass flashcards explain when evidence of specific instances of conduct can be used (on cross-x of witness), but not whether they can be proved by extrinsic evidence if the witness denies it.
As far as I understand, extrinsic evidence (e.g., physical evidence or someone else's testimony) is only permitted in the following two situations:
1. To impeach a witness with prior conviction of crime; and
2. To impeach by showing bias, prejudice, motive, interest
But this MBE question says impeachment by contradiction can also be supported by extrinsic evidence.
Does this mean that one can always introduce EE to "impeach contradiction"? Or does it ultimately just turn on whether the issue is collateral or not? For example, any issue this is material to the case can be supported by EE? In that case, things like bias, prejudice, motive, or interest would obviously allow introduction of EE because these are never collateral. If so, is "credibility of witness" always a collateral matter, given that EE is not allowed to impeach for untruthfulness?
Thank you!
As far as I understand, extrinsic evidence (e.g., physical evidence or someone else's testimony) is only permitted in the following two situations:
1. To impeach a witness with prior conviction of crime; and
2. To impeach by showing bias, prejudice, motive, interest
But this MBE question says impeachment by contradiction can also be supported by extrinsic evidence.
Does this mean that one can always introduce EE to "impeach contradiction"? Or does it ultimately just turn on whether the issue is collateral or not? For example, any issue this is material to the case can be supported by EE? In that case, things like bias, prejudice, motive, or interest would obviously allow introduction of EE because these are never collateral. If so, is "credibility of witness" always a collateral matter, given that EE is not allowed to impeach for untruthfulness?
Thank you!
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Credibility is not always a collateral matter. Using EE to show prior bad acts could end up taking a really long time and become a trial in itself. Thus, you can't do it. However, using proof of a prior conviction as EE is relatively quick in that it typically only requires showing a document. But, when it comes to contradiction, generally, yes, it turns on whether the issue is collateral.dlrbfl wrote:I'm so confused about when extrinsic evidence is permitted. My outline and CriticalPass flashcards explain when evidence of specific instances of conduct can be used (on cross-x of witness), but not whether they can be proved by extrinsic evidence if the witness denies it.
As far as I understand, extrinsic evidence (e.g., physical evidence or someone else's testimony) is only permitted in the following two situations:
1. To impeach a witness with prior conviction of crime; and
2. To impeach by showing bias, prejudice, motive, interest
But this MBE question says impeachment by contradiction can also be supported by extrinsic evidence.
Does this mean that one can always introduce EE to "impeach contradiction"? Or does it ultimately just turn on whether the issue is collateral or not? For example, any issue this is material to the case can be supported by EE? In that case, things like bias, prejudice, motive, or interest would obviously allow introduction of EE because these are never collateral. If so, is "credibility of witness" always a collateral matter, given that EE is not allowed to impeach for untruthfulness?
Thank you!
Last edited by Bobby_Axelrod on Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- foundingfather
- Posts: 1033
- Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:31 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Don't rely on the text of the amendment itself, but it generally grants states immunity from suit unless they consent to being sued. This was based on the Founders' understanding that you couldn't sue The Crown without it's consent since kings and queens were thought to be divine or whatnot.TheWalrus wrote:Dumb question, but what is the eleventh amendment?
Since you generally can't sue the state itself, Ex Parte Young and 28 U.S.C. §1983 claims allow citizens to sue state officials (and federal officials with Bivens claims) that are violating the U.S. constitution under the "legal fiction" that a state official is stripped of their official power when they violate the constitution.
-
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 6:41 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
Question: is a statute of limitations issue substantive or procedural? I was under the belief, b/c of Civ. Pro., that it is substantive. But watching the Barbri Conflict of Laws lecture today, the guy said historically it's procedural, and then never clarified that under modern law its substantive or anything
- TheWalrus
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:24 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
What are special damages for defamation?
- WestWingWatcher
- Posts: 176
- Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 5:08 pm
Re: MBE Question Thread
I think it is treated as substantive for civil procedure purposes, but treated as procedural for choice of law purposes? Now that I say it, that doesn't make any sense, but I also slightly remember one of the lecturers caveating their characterization of statute of limitations in a way that made it seem like it was treated differently in other contexts.FormerChild wrote:Question: is a statute of limitations issue substantive or procedural? I was under the belief, b/c of Civ. Pro., that it is substantive. But watching the Barbri Conflict of Laws lecture today, the guy said historically it's procedural, and then never clarified that under modern law its substantive or anything
ETA: I just did the conflicts assessment and an answer said that the modern trend in conflicts of law was to treat statutes of limitation as substantive... So in an essay, we would just need to say "If this jxd followed the traditional approach to characterizing SOL then _____ but if the ixd followed the modern trend then ____"
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login