Comments on: California Bar Exam – Day One Essays & NOW WITH PT OUTLINE! (bottom)

By: Thanks

Thanks — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 01:08:00 +0000

Note I’m posting this three days or so later. I meant that you seem to be giving your friends who likely got accomodations a big break. How much did they pay you?

By: Andrew Leventhal

Andrew Leventhal — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:04:54 +0000

for property I had this:

1) leasehold – implied PT month to month

2) holdover (maybe – couldnt figure out any other way to nail her for march and april)

3) breach of duty to pay rent

4) ICQE – contructive eviction

5) Implied Warranty of Habitability (i know commerical lease, but he covenanted expressly for “essentials” and the place was a wreck, so this defense had to be raised, plus some courts have applied IWH to comercial leases in unconscionable scenarios)

6) Duty to mitigate

7) Polar Bears and good weed

By: Andrew Leventhal

Andrew Leventhal — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:01:20 +0000

FEDERAL PREEMPTION?!!!!!!

In the products liability question of purely state tort law, federal preemption of mere compliance with federal regs???

Okay, don’t worry, the grader will be stoned as fuck reading your paper (or skimming your heading I should say).

You will be fine – as long as you didnt put “FEDERAL PREEMPTION” as a header. This was not a Con Law fact pattern. Nobody raised this.

By: Salmon Chase

Salmon Chase — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:17:51 +0000

Presumably, you mean that the disservice was the bar’s decision to allow certain Jews to take the test a day later.

By: Thanks

Thanks — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:14:48 +0000

You realize that you completely outlined the exam for those with accomodations and taking this test Wednesday. This is such a disservice to other examinees. I could care less who observes what on religious holidays, but let’s have an even playing field.

By: nobody

nobody — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 23:39:44 +0000

duh dude. Federal preemption had no place in the products liability discussion. The statute merely requires certain safety standards. Compliance with those standards, at best, is evidence that the product is not unreasonably dangerous.

Oh well, the grader will be in a coma and will skim right over that anyway.

By: Top Posts « WordPress.com

Top Posts « WordPress.com — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:59:45 +0000

[...] California Bar Exam – Day One Essays & NOW WITH PT OUTLINE! (bottom) So, here’s what I remember about today’s Essays 1-3 Feel free to post-game in the comments section. (NOTE: […] [...]

By: Jew

Jew — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:49:47 +0000

I am thanking you! Why are you deleting my posts?

By: j

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 05:11:05 +0000

You realize that observant Jews will be taking this portion of the test tomorrow. Good job.

By: PTs Suck BAD

PTs Suck BAD — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 03:40:22 +0000

Mine was very different than you and biff. I did 1) can the initial lawyer be disqualified (which focused on the substantially related thing – and the presumption), then 2) is any disqualification imputed to NCHC, then 3) judicial recommendation.

KH – mine was closer to yours, but missed the reliance bit, and added the minority position on IWH as applicable to commercial leases.

Oh well – there’s always Thursday.