Law School Discussion

I'm fine with the double standard.  I have no use for the word, but I understand how some may have a use for it as a term of endearment.

Quote from: 008 on July 21, 2008, 12:05:01 AM

Quote from: jacy85 on July 20, 2008, 11:19:53 PM

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...

Hi Lucero,

The questions i took were from the second BarBri book, MPQ2.  I feel like the PMBR is easier than the BB and I wonder how the real thing fits in.

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.

Under that approach, the Fourth Amendment would have no meaning, provide no protection AND civil liability would go completely out the window because nothing would be well settled ever.

What exactly is wrong with the current system?  There are plenty of exceptions to the ER.

Why should police be allowed to uphold the statutory law by violating the constitution?  Or is it that actions only violate the constitution if they "shock the conscience"?

People like Roberts and Scalia want to live in a police state where the gov't monitors everything you do and has access to every private space you own. It's seriously disturbing.

Quote from: derby on July 20, 2008, 02:18:23 PM

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.

wow.  that's impressive.  This test is going to give me a heart attack.

On behalf of goaliechica -- though I would gladly take the credit if I could get away with it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html

July 19, 2008

American Exception
U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err
By ADAM LIPTAK

To me, this is scary. 

Illegal searches and seizures happen every day and that is with both civil remedies and the exclusionary.

Civil remedies are hardly a deterrent in the first place. Look up sovereign immunity and qualified immunity.