Naked pix of Laura may cause one to gouge their eyes out with knitting needles.:eek:
Printable View
Naked pix of Laura may cause one to gouge their eyes out with knitting needles.:eek:
Ahhh, the wonder of the bar exam, where you study a subject so that you know a wealth of areas of the law, only to lose that knowledge just after the exam ends.
Bunion, somehow, I doubt that. :biggrin:
And you need to check your anticedent pronoun disagreement. :FIREdevil
Jennyh is more entertaining than you, I am sad to report.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongLegsInAlaska
(D). Although you could argue that C is appropriate because his pulling away of the chair was a substantial cause of the fall, which in some cases could substitute for the necessary intent. But I am sticking with D.Quote:
Originally Posted by smitchell333
(B)Quote:
Question 2 is based on the following fact situation.
The eleventh grade class of Santa Clarita High School went to Jefferson Avionics on a class field trip. During lunch the school administrator provided the students some time to eat at the cafeteria located on the premises. Margarita, the class clown, decided to pull another prank. As Helen was attempting to sit down with a tray of food, Margarita pulled Helen's chair from beneath her. Helen fell to the floor.
2. Which tort is most applicable under these facts?
(A) Assault
(B) Battery
(C) Negligent infliction of emotional distress
(D) Intentional infliction of emotional distress
DQuote:
Questions 3 - 5 are based on the following fact situation.
Exec and Associate were both white collar workers who were employed by firms located in downtown Centerville. Both Exec and Associate were late for work on Tuesday morning. As such, they each were traveling at an excessive rate of speed toward their respective places of business. Exec was traveling down Second Street, only seven blocks from his office, at a speed of forty-five miles per hour. The posted speed was thirty miles per hour. As Exec approached the intersection of Second Street and Gilbert Avenue, Associate also approached the same intersection. Associate was traveling north on Gilbert Avenue to get to work that morning. Associate was also speeding and witnesses estimated his speed to be somewhere between forty and fifty miles per hour. The posted speed on Gilbert Avenue was thirty miles per hour.
The two cars collided at the intersection of Second and Gilbert. Associate's Buick Skylark hit Exec's Ford Escort causing Exec to swerve out of control into Jose's produce cart parked at the side of the road. Both Jose and his merchandise suffered extensive injuries. The jury found that the accident was caused due to the inattentiveness of both drivers with Exec 40% negligent and Associate 60% negligent.
3. If the jurisdiction follows the doctrine of "pure" comparative negligence, and Associate suffered $10,000 in damages, what will Associate recover in a suit against Exec?
(A) $10,000
(B) $6,000
(C) $4,000
(D) Nothing
CQuote:
4. If this jurisdiction follows the doctrine of "modified" comparative negligence, and Associate suffered $10,000 in damages, what will Associate recover in a suit against Exec?
(A) $10,000
(B) $6,000
(C) $4,000
(D) Nothing
CQuote:
5. Assume for the purposes of this question that Jose has a claim for damages against both Exec and Associate and that he obtains a judgment for the full amount of his damages from Associate. Which theory will now allow Associate to pursue Exec in order to have Exec pay for part of the damages?
(A) Subrogation
(B) Collateral sources rule
(C) Contribution
(D) Indemnity
What is with all of the torts questions?
One thing to remember while visiting this forum, T-tipsters.
For the most part it remains free from moderation.
No Mitch to save the day or keep the feral humans from being themselves.
This isn't Kansas or the "happy forum"
The "happy forum," FWIW, is remarkably self-moderated, Mitch rarely steps in. It's just that the happy inhabitants of the happy forum lead happy lives and self-moderate in a different manner than here.
All torts cause its the 1st section from here: http://www.multistatequestions.com/sample.docQuote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Guess I should be careful not to mis-study you as I know jack shit about lawyering and these could be different under CO law I suppose.
1. (A) Intentional infliction of emotional distress, answer choice (A) is the best answer. Although it is correct that Bland has committed both a battery and the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress we must look to the degree or severity of the conduct. First of all, choice (D) is incorrect because (A) is correct. Answer choice (B) is not correct because Calvoni did not suffer from an imminent apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact. Answer choice (C) is correct to the extent that a harmful or offensive contact occurred, but answer (A) is the better answer as Bland's conduct was extreme and outrageous. Bland's conduct constitutes the intentional infliction of emotional distress because it occurred in front of interested voters who attended the candidate speeches and because it was extreme and outrageous.
2. (B) Battery is the most probable tort for which Helen may be able to assert in a suit for recovery against Margarita. Battery consists of the harmful and offensive touching of plaintiff's person. "Plaintiff's person" includes anything connected with plaintiff's body. The freedom from intentional and unpermitted contact extends not only to any part of the body but also to anything which is attached to the body or identified with the body. Thus, the pulling of Helen's chair, causing her to fall to the floor, constitutes a battery. Note that this fact pattern must be distinguished from the fact pattern which describes conduct which may be characterized as "extreme" and "outrageous." In these questions, the degree or severity of defendant's tortious conduct will determine whether plaintiff will most likely prevail under a theory of battery or under a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. (C) Under the theory of "pure" comparative negligence a negligent plaintiff can still recover even where his negligence exceeds that of the defendant. "Pure" comparative negligence allows recovery no matter how great plaintiff's negligence. On the multistate examination an important area is the calculation of damages and the ability to do so under the appropriate system which the bar examiners give you. Under the facts presented in this question, you are told that the jurisdiction follows a system of "pure" comparative negligence. Thus, if Associate brings suit against Exec for $10,000 and the jury determines that Associate is 60% negligent, Associate would still be able to recover $10,000 minus the percentage of his negligence (60% of $10,000), or $4,000. Therefore, answer (C) is correct.
4. (D) Associate may recover nothing under these facts if the jurisdiction follows a "modified" comparative negligence system. Under a theory of "modified" comparative negligence the negligent plaintiff may recover so long as his negligence is not equal to or greater than that of the defendant. No recovery will be allowed if the plaintiff's negligence is equal to or greater than defendant's negligence. Under these facts, the jury found that Exec was 40% negligent and Associate was 60% negligent. Since Associate (the plaintiff here) was 60% negligent and Exec (the defendant here) was only 40% negligent, Associate may recover nothing. Answer (D) is correct.
5. (C) Contribution allows a defendant to claim recovery of damages against other jointly liable parties for excess damages when that defendant is required to pay more than his share of damages. Answer (C) is correct. Contribution apportions responsibility among those at fault. In a comparative negligence system, apportionment is in proportion to the relative fault of the defendants. Answer choice (A) is incorrect because one defendant is not being substituted for another and responsibility for the entire loss and all damages may not be placed upon Exec. Answer choice (B) is incorrect because this rule will not act to shift responsibility for damages from Associate to Exec. The collateral sources rule provides that a defendant tortfeasor may not benefit from the fact that plaintiff has received money from other sources. This rule does not help Associate. Finally, choice (D) is incorrect because indemnity involves shifting of the entire loss from one tortfeasor to another. Indemnity is not available under these facts where both Exec and Associate were negligent.
I guess I had my modified and pure comparative negligences mixed up, whoops!
wow, I got all the torts answers right! Ron should be worried.
and IIRC under the old common law rule, ANY comparative negligence was a complete bar to recovery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus O-tool
Oh yeah?
Well.
Umm.
At least Mitch has a nice ass.
I just called and withdrew from the exam :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Ri-i-ight. A lot more people seem to get banned here than at the happy forum. I could be wrong about that...but I don't think I am.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus O-tool
Since Rontele is obviously screwed as far as the exam goes, longlegs should not have to delay posting her naked photos.
I am fucked, though not satisfied with their answer for the first question. IIED requires extreme and outrageous conduct and damages. I guess doing it in front of the voters would constitute required damages...Quote:
Originally Posted by brent
Of course more people get banned, more people come here. And by come I am talking about the Padded Room.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Question 1 is based on the following fact situation.
Florida Airlines flight #1286 was scheduled to fly from Los Angeles, California to Miami, Florida on Tuesday, October 16. Jennie, a resident of California, was scheduled to visit her grandmother in Miami, Florida for a one week vacation. Jennie was also scheduled to fly on Florida Airlines flight #1286. The Florida bound plane departed on time and began its flight toward the southeast. There was one stop in Houston, Texas and another in New Orleans, Louisiana. Once the plane had completed its stop in New Orleans, Jennie felt the strong desire to smoke a cigarette. As such, she went back to the rear of the plane and lit up.
As Jennie was enjoying her cigarette, she noticed a sign on the ceiling overhead which read, "Cigarette Smoking Is Illegal On This Flight." Unbeknownst to Jennie, Congress had passed a statute, only two months prior to her flight, which banned cigarette smoking on "all passenger and commercial airline flights within the United States." Congress, in enacting the statute, felt that flights would be safer as the potential of starting an unwanted fire would be eliminated, or at least reduced. Congress was presented results from a study which showed that eighty-seven percent of all fires on board aircraft resulted from the butts of cigarettes being disposed of in an improper fashion. Congress also recognized and cited the Surgeon General's studies which indicated that, "Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health." Furthermore, Congress stated, "There is no inherent right to smoke which is granted to citizens by the United States Constitution."
1. Jennie is charged with violating the statute making smoking illegal on the flight. If Jennie challenges this statute on constitutional grounds, the court should find the statute
(A) Unconstitutional, as it takes away one's right to life, liberty and property in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(B) Unconstitutional, as it takes away one's right to life, liberty, and property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(C) Constitutional, because Congress could find that the statute is in the public interest as it acts to protect the health, safety, and welfare of airline passengers.
(D) Constitutional, because Congress is exercising its federal commerce power.
Question 2 is based on the following fact situation.
Sometime in July, 1990 problems arose in the Middle East when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States, as well as several other countries around the world, became very upset with this invasion. Acting to protect its own interests, the interests of other Middle Eastern countries, and to show its disapproval of Iraq's actions, the United States surrounded Iraq. The United States militia, in the form of Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine troops were sent to the confrontation to maintain peace until this new Middle Eastern crisis could be resolved. As negotiations took place, troops and supplies from other countries, as well as the United States, remained in place.
Although the United States did not declare war, the U.S. Government did raise and support an army and appropriated money to such use. The United States Government also provided for organizing, arming, and disciplining these military troops and governed such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. Our government also provided and maintained a navy during this period of time.
2. Which United States Government body and/or official has the power to perform the above-described acts?
(A) The President, acting alone.
(B) The President, acting with the advice and consent of Congress.
(C) The Congress.
(D) All of the above.
Questions 3 - 4 are based on the following fact situation.
Regarding the nature and requirements of the marriage contract in the State of California, the California Civil Code at section 4100 states the following:
"Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone will not constitute marriage; it must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this code, except as provided by Section 4213."
Jonathon and Joey are two males, 42 and 37 years of age respectively, who have resided in San Francisco, California for the last nine years. Both of these men have been living together in a loving relationship unencumbered by the vestiges of a marriage contract for quite some time now. Jonathon, the older of the two, has wanted to get married for a least the last ten years. Jonathon just recently convinced Joey that, since they have been together for approximately twelve years now, it might be time for them to "get married" to express the permanency of their relationship.
Just two months ago Jonathon and Joey went to the San Francisco County Building and requested the necessary paperwork to get the ball rolling on their marriage license. The clerk immediately informed the men that she could not prepare the paperwork for them as California Civil Code section 4100 allows marriages to be consummated between a "man and a woman." Both men were furious. They immediately contacted an attorney who filed the necessary papers challenging this law on constitutional grounds.
3. As applied to Jonathon and Joey, the California statute is likely to be held
(A) Constitutional, because the statute promotes a compelling state interest.
(B) Constitutional, because it protects the welfare and morals of the citizens of the state.
(C) Constitutional, as a proper exercise of the state's police power.
(D) Unconstitutional, as violative of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Assume for the purposes of this question that Jonathon and Joey win their suit. Assume that the federal court states in its opinion that the right to freedom of choice in marriage relationships is a protected interest which is violated by California Civil Code section 4100. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional basis which may be cited in support of the federal court's decision?
(A) Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
(B) Equal Protection Clause
(C) Due Process Clause
(D) Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D, C, A, B. All correct!
you can't overthink this shit. I probably told you this before, but I got a "mootness" question wrong even though I wrote a published paper on the doctrine. I viewed the question in terms of how federal courts handle the issue, and answered accordingly. Unless the fact pattern mimics a well known case, just look at what they've set up as the important facts, don't try to finesse it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
If posting bar exams questions doesn't get you banned, I can't imagine what would.Quote:
Originally Posted by RootSkier
i agree. i don't think reading questions off a screen of a computer since I have been up since 6 am after studying for past three weeks will be dispostive of my performance Tuesday or Wed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Not really true. You have to bite your tongue a lot, which I guess is a form of self moderation, instead of just calling out all the passive aggressive assholes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Uh oh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Get some sleep man.
NO! YOU'RE GONNA FAIL!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
serially. this shit is whackQuote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
His memories of Farnsworth, the cat, not the legal scholar, will haunt him the entire two days.
Im in yer laptop, fuggin yer answers.
The happy people living happy lives was a joke, but my point still stands, the place self-moderates, just in a different manner than here. Here, you can call Rontele a juvenile asshole with no repercussions, there, you might get in trouble (and thus self-moderate). But that board also avoids the defjef's, unibonger's, etc, that this board "enjoys", and the tone of the forums are, IMO, responsible for that difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark
It is wiggedy, but WTF, it'll be over before you know it. Two days ain't shit- after the first two days of California, I could still remember my own name and everything. Things were a little shakier after day three...
Give 'em hell buddy.
my advice. drink lots of beer after day one. it worked for christian and I.
I agree. The last three weeks have FLOWN by and I feel very prepared. I have embraced the beauty of this exam and its role in the economic protectionism of our profession.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
Good luck to you too, tomorrow and Wednesday. I can only strongly presume that internet killing is an adequate substitute for studying and that you will surely pass if the Bar Examiners were to read your posts on this board.
In about 15 minutes I am done studying for the bar, forever. Tomorrow night is reserved for a good dinner with Tara.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Well good luck - you may need it.:biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Thankfully your multiple choice questions were not the real test. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by smitchell333
don't forget to toss the salad before the test, better yet, do it before you go to bed... so you can have a restful sleep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
we need to see naked pictures of you before we welcome you to this boardQuote:
Originally Posted by Heather
JONG!!!
One can only hope. I don't really have very high hopes, to be honest- I ended up missing a solid week of study time due to a family matter and am definitely in a hole, possibly one with a spite fence surrounding it. But I can construct a scenario where I pass- slay the MPT, get a couple MBE-based essays, then do okay on the MBE itself. If it's New York-heavy, I'm screwed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rontele
Yeah, well you are new here. You should be careful what you wish for. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by elk-tamer
Are you in Albany right now? I will imagine you will do fine. Good luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas
Good thing they don't ask any grammar and usage questions on the bar. :FIREdevilQuote:
Originally Posted by Danno
No, Manhattan, 'cause I live here. It's all the way over on the West Side, though- I was considering getting a hotel room, until I realized I didn't give a shit (what with interviews for LA jobs with Skadden, O'Melveny, and Bingham this Thursday and Friday).