IMHO the only thing that matters is your GPA and LSAT. That's it. Everything else is probably no more than 5% combined. So will it hurt you, maybe if you could have gotten a better GPA somehow else, but only by like 2%.
Hi Lucero,If anyone wanted more proof...
There are so many ridiculous questions that require you to make FACTUAL judgments. In the crim sets, I'll see a question in one set with certain facts, and the answer turns on those facts being reasonable. The next problem set, the same facts end up being unreasonable. (and i'm not talking answer choices like, "Yes, IF A's belief was reasonable." I'm talking, "Yes, BECAUSE'S A's belief was reasonable). Typically, I do pretty poorly on the crim and torts sets for this very reason. Without case law to compare it to, it's a crap shoot as to deciding the reasonableness of something.
I just did the set of *real* released crim law questions in the MPQ2 book. Bar/Bri doesn't recommend doing those questions, because "they're not indicative of what you'll see on the real exam" or some crap like that. I got 37 out of 39 right. I'm not sure how old the questions are, but seeing as how 4 different Bar/Bri professors told us that the MBE cannot require a correct answer that turns on a factual determination (like reasonableness), I'm thinking the old released questions are MUCH closer to the real deal than Bar/Bri's wacky, subjective questions.
So again, thank you Bar/Bri for inciting so much completely unnecessary and avoidable panic. I really, really appreciate it.
Yeah, and I just did the property set from the previously released Qs and got my butt kicked. I feel like I don't know anything at all.
There are released Qs for the individual MBE subjects? I took the released, mixed subject 100-question set from 2006, which seemed almost unrealistically (refreshingly?) straighforward after 100s of PMBR questions, but I haven't seen any individual sets. Did you purchase it online or is it from a few years back? Thanks...
Expectation of privacy against the interest of the state in seizing contraband, focusing on how reprehensible the violation was...something like a "shocks the conscience" for the 4thA, with a dosage of good faith.
I'm not terribly concerned with the violation of the rights of those conducting illegal activities. Slippery slope, I know, but I think a balancing approach would work.
Can't get rid of it soon enough.
I like the idea of a balancing approach.
supplemental J is T&O but you cant force a P to implead a party you want to sue but don't have diversity with and assert a claim against them.
What are you talking about? Impleader is done by a Defendant for the purpose of seeking contribution or indemnification. Furthermore, the plaintiff's citizenship is irrelevant for impleader, because it's a claim by a defendant. And the third party the defendant is trying to implead is never an indispensible party, because the defendant will have their own separate claim arising against the third party if the defendant is actually found liable in the original action. Finally, supplemental jurisdiction is only unavailable when the PLAINTIFF tries to add a claim that destroys diversity; a defendant can make claims that would otherwise destroy diversity because we're only concerned with the plaintiff trying to make an end run around federal diversity jurisdiction requirements.
The only other time you have to worry about diversity of citizenship when you have impleader is when the plaintiff is trying to assert a crossclaim against the third party defendant. This is under the limitation of a PLAINTIFF asserted supplemental jurisdiction that violates complete diversity.
And apparently federal civil procedures is the ONLY thing I'm ready to be tested for on the bar exam.