THEMIS JULY 2018 - DISCUSSION Forum

[dlrkgml]

Advice to bounce back from a devastating practice exam #4 score with one week to go?

I got below average after scoring consistently in the mid 60s on mixed sets and am currently devoid of any will to live.

I am waiting to review all the MBE subjects before I subject myself to disappoint. What is the current average score?

64%

[bananaphone]

To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?

(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are estab-lished for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained out-side. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.


Can someone explain these please?

[Findedeux]

I don't know about the essay graders.

I do know that I find the essays way harder than the questions.

They are trickier and I never have enough time.

[Lawworld19]

To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?

(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are estab-lished for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained out-side. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.


Can someone explain these please?

I might be completely wrong, but is the answer no crime??

At common law you can't have a unilateral conspiracy I don't think. Here there seems to be.

Obv no burglary because he lacked the intent. Can't be d.

[Lawworld19]

He also didn't have the requisite intent for conspiracy.

[Findedeux]

To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?

(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are estab-lished for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained out-side. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.


Can someone explain these please?

I haven't come across this question yet, but...

If common law requires a bilateral conspiracy and the facts suggest the friend is not truly a guilty mind then he won't be guilty of conspiracy and he won't be guilty of any crime of the conspiracy.

I am guessing the answer choices suggest this because the predicate crime to burglary does not merge with burglary and if he was guilty of burglary he would be guilty of larceny as well (the predicate crime).

Even accomplice liability would require the specific intent that the crime be committed.

So he is not guilty of any crime.

What's the right answer?

[Pajsa18]

To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?

(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are estab-lished for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained out-side. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.


Can someone explain these please?

I'll give this a stab, but not sure if I'm correct.

I would select D for the first question because although children are not a protected class, they are entitled to equal protection of the laws pursuant to the 14th amendment. Additionally, as soon as a person moves into a state they start paying state taxes that fund public schools, and are therefore entitled to have their children attend those public schools - they have a vested property right.

A is wrong because it does violate the fundamental right of equal protection of the laws by denying children the property right of attending public schools.
B is wrong because State duration residency requirements established for publicly funded services are not per se constitutional, and can be found invalid for several reasons.
C is wrong because the right to education is not a fundamental right provided for in the Constitution.

I would select A for the second answer because under CL, there must be two people in agreement to form a conspiracy, feigned agreement does not constitute conspiracy. Here, the friend arguably "feigned" his intent to conspire as the facts state he never intended to actually commit the crime, but rather intended to have the young man arrested.

B is wrong due to the aforementioned reasoning.
C is wrong because he did not break and enter into the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.
D is wrong because he is not guilty of conspiracy.

Hope this helps and hope the answers are correct!

[bananaphone]

But isn’t his intent to help commit a crime even if he also wants to do it for the purpose of getting his friend caught?

Also I thought the right to education was not a fundamental right, only tge right to educate your children as you see fit?


You got both right btw

[Lawworld19]

But isn’t his intent to help commit a crime even if he also wants to do it for the purpose of getting his friend caught?

Also I thought the right to education was not a fundamental right, only tge right to educate your children as you see fit?

This might not be the right way to explain, but even if what you say is true, does he have the "mens rea or intent to actually have THE crime committed? No.

[Pajsa18]

But isn’t his intent to help commit a crime even if he also wants to do it for the purpose of getting his friend caught?

Also I thought the right to education was not a fundamental right, only tge right to educate your children as you see fit?


You got both right btw

I see where you are coming from in your reasoning. The way I got to the answer is that even though he does want the crime committed and helps the friend get to the crime scene, the actual final reason he wants the crime committed is to have his friend arrested, not to accomplish the burglary, i.e., get the television set.

[Neilt001]

BULLSHITTING ESSAYS:
For everyone complaining about essay graders, I'll just repeat my experience. I agree with you. I think I generally scored like a 2/6 to 4/6. No matter what I could never properly improve my score and there was little rhyme or reason to the grades. I never did very well and usually got the same comments (eg "IRAC better" "use better headings", "apply more facts" etc). I then scored in the 89th percentile on the MEE and was like WTF??

So I'm not sure why but I reckon the Themis graders are too tough. As someone said maybe it's a psychological thing to prepare you better. Who knows. Either way, just know that the real bar graders aren't actually that tough.

I made up two of the six essays because I hadn't studied what they were asking and didn't know the actual legal rules. What REALLY matters is using all the facts you're given, and letting them guide you. You can usually come up with a pretty intelligent sounding statement of the law based on the facts because they will be pointing you to something. For instance, I had no idea what the test for a criminal's capacity to stand trial was, and yet that's what the essay was all about. But the facts indicated that the criminal didn't understand what a trial was, didn't understand what guilt meant, etc etc. Now, that's a pretty simple scenario but it's pretty easy to use those facts to come up with a ballpark statement of the rule (eg "in order to stand trial, a criminal must understand the case put to him" or something. Even if that's wrong, you can still do well if you understand how to BS).

And Always :
- IRAC
- use good headings
- use an easy to understand format using lots of signposting language
- consider a counter argument
- come to a conclusion one way or another

Your statement of the law doesn't matter that much, so long as you're in the ballpark. Memorization isn't the key. Of course, if you want full points, you need the correct statement of the law, but you can pass without it, for sure.

[bananaphone]

But isn’t his intent to help commit a crime even if he also wants to do it for the purpose of getting his friend caught?

Also I thought the right to education was not a fundamental right, only tge right to educate your children as you see fit?

This might not be the right way to explain, but even if what you say is true, does he have the "mens rea or intent to actually have THE crime committed? No.

How does he not? The crime needs to happen for the friend to be committed. Why does it matter that we agree to steal a TV set? Maybe I want to pawn it and you want to keep it. Different intents but still a conspiracy? Seems like the same thing here to me. You want the tv stolen to sell it, I want it stolen so that you go to jail. Either way we are both agreeing to further a plan to steal it.

[dabigchina]

To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?

(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are estab-lished for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained out-side. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?

(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny.


Can someone explain these please?

I haven't come across this question yet, but...

If common law requires a bilateral conspiracy and the facts suggest the friend is not truly a guilty mind then he won't be guilty of conspiracy and he won't be guilty of any crime of the conspiracy.

I am guessing the answer choices suggest this because the predicate crime to burglary does not merge with burglary and if he was guilty of burglary he would be guilty of larceny as well (the predicate crime).

Even accomplice liability would require the specific intent that the crime be committed.

So he is not guilty of any crime.

What's the right answer?

The first one is specifically a reference to Saenz v Roe, where SCOTUS inexplicably stated that it was an equal protection violation to deny state subsidies for in state colleges merely to save money, even though substantive due process probably would have been a better doctrinal fit.

[xhe02]

5. A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liabilityaction in federal court against a manufacturer incorporatedand with its principal place of business in State B. The con-sumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer’s product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer,the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint againstthe product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed boththat the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer’s injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault.

(A) The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.
(B) The manufacturer failed to obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint.
(C) The manufacturer’s failure to follow the designer’s speci-fications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer’s injuries.
(D) The manufacturer’s third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.

Do people know why the answer to this is D? Thanks!

[White Dwarf]

Do people know why the answer to this is D? Thanks!

You can't use impleader (third-party claims) to argue that another party committed the offense, only to bring in a party who is responsible for some or all of your liability (ex. an insurer).

[Wendelsr]

5. A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liabilityaction in federal court against a manufacturer incorporatedand with its principal place of business in State B. The con-sumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer’s product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer,the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint againstthe product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed boththat the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer’s injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault.

(A) The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.
(B) The manufacturer failed to obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint.
(C) The manufacturer’s failure to follow the designer’s speci-fications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer’s injuries.
(D) The manufacturer’s third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.

Do people know why the answer to this is D? Thanks!

Think of this as "the plaintiff is master of her complaint." You can only bring in another defendant, if that defendant is LIABLE to YOU. You can't bring someone else in and say, they did it not me. See FRCP 14(a)(1).

[xhe02]

Do people know why the answer to this is D? Thanks!

You can't use impleader (third-party claims) to argue that another party committed the offense, only to bring in a party who is responsible for some or all of your liability (ex. an insurer).

Thank you!

[xhe02]

5. A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liabilityaction in federal court against a manufacturer incorporatedand with its principal place of business in State B. The con-sumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer’s product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer,the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint againstthe product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed boththat the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer’s injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault.

(A) The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.
(B) The manufacturer failed to obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint.
(C) The manufacturer’s failure to follow the designer’s speci-fications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer’s injuries.
(D) The manufacturer’s third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.

Do people know why the answer to this is D? Thanks!

Think of this as "the plaintiff is master of her complaint." You can only bring in another defendant, if that defendant is LIABLE to YOU. You can't bring someone else in and say, they did it not me. See FRCP 14(a)(1).

Thank you!

[Pajsa18]

5. A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liabilityaction in federal court against a manufacturer incorporatedand with its principal place of business in State B. The con-sumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer’s product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer,the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint againstthe product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed boththat the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer’s injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault.

(A) The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.
(B) The manufacturer failed to obtain the court’s leave to file the third-party complaint.
(C) The manufacturer’s failure to follow the designer’s speci-fications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer’s injuries.
(D) The manufacturer’s third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.

Do people know why the answer to this is D? Thanks!

I came to the same answer (D) but for reasons different than the other posters.

I thought the manufacturer failed to state a claim because his pleading was insufficient on it's face - he needed to make a short and plain statement of the facts, but failed to include why the designer was a fault. The manufacturer merely asserted that the designer was solely responsible but he (the manufacturer) was not. He did not include anything about why the designer was responsible - the manufacturer's claim was conclusory and devoid of facts.

Also, because it is a products liability action, the designer would be liable to the manufacturer anyway if the product is found to be defective.

Not sure if my reasoning was correct, but that's how I got to the answer!

[dabigchina]

Anybody find that themis's long outlines are horrible? I'm finding a lot of times that they bury important exceptions several pages away from the general rule - IE assignments are treated as assignment + delegation.

[fuuuuuuuuuu]

Anybody find that themis's long outlines are horrible? I'm finding a lot of times that they bury important exceptions several pages away from the general rule - IE assignments are treated as assignment + delegation.

Having done both Barbri and now Themis, I welcome Themis' outlines.

[jcwest]

Anybody find that themis's long outlines are horrible? I'm finding a lot of times that they bury important exceptions several pages away from the general rule - IE assignments are treated as assignment + delegation.

There are a few I hate more than others. Especially family law but overall they are not terrible. It would be cool if they gave us a focused sheet. Not the biggest fan of the FROs.

I really did not like the videos. I learn more from reviewing the outline. I regret watching them because I had to review the outline in full to learn most subjects.

[mike241]

random question: should we write the essays double-spaced or single-space? i have been writing in single-space, but i wanted to see if anyone knew anything more definitive. thanks

[2015_Splitter]

Can anyone explain to me the rule on fixtures? I feel like every problem I see on the MBE is changing up the rules on me.

I was under the impression that (1) if a fixture could be removed without damage, or the damage was fixed, and (2) the contract for sale of the property is silent with regards to the fixture, then the seller has a right to remove the fixture. However, I recently read something that said the complete opposite. Does anyone have a clear understanding/rule basis for this?

[Lawworld19]

Three percent of us themisers got this right hahahah.


Question 7588
The owner of a boat contracted with a sail maker to make a replacement sail for the boat at a price of $1,500. Under the terms of their written contract, which did not contain a liquidated damages clause, the owner made a deposit of $750. The owner sold the boat before the sail maker finished making the sail. Despite the unusual configuration of the sail, the sail maker was able to sell the finished sail to another boat owner for $1,500. The owner has sued the sail maker in restitution for the return of his deposit. How much of his deposit is the boat owner entitled to receive?
Answers:
$0
Correct Answer: $450
$500
You Selected: $750
Rationale:
Answer choice B is correct. For contracts for the sale of goods, a defaulting buyer is entitled to a refund of any payments made on the contract less damages provable by the seller and either (i) the amount to which the seller is entitled by virtue of an enforceable liquidated-damages provision or (ii) a penalty of “20 percent of the value of the total performance for which the buyer is obligated under the contract, or $500, whichever is smaller.” Here, because the contract between the boat owner and the sail maker did not contain a liquidated damages clause, the boat owner is entitled to a refund of his $750 deposit less the smaller of $500 or 20 percent of the price of the sail ($1,500), which is $300. The boat owner, therefore, is entitled to recover $450 ($750 - $300) of his deposit. Answer choice A is incorrect because, even though the boat owner breached the contract, the boat owner is nevertheless entitled to recover a portion of his deposit in restitution. Answer choice C is incorrect because, although $500 is the maximum that a seller who is not otherwise entitled to damages may retain of a buyer’s deposit, it is in this case neither the amount that the sail maker may retain, which is $300, nor the amount that is due to the boat owner, which is $450 ($750 - $300). Answer choice D is incorrect because the boat owner, despite breaching the contract, is entitled to a recovery with respect to his deposit, but that recovery is limited in this case.