14 February 2008

Barpasser's "guesses" - take with a BAG of salt!

Friends in class reporting Barpasser's predictions:
*some similarities to Performance Advantage predictions - more reliable:
Civ Pro, PR, K, Crim Pro)

*some VERY different (Evidence, Con law) - low reliability.

Again, Barpasser's "guesses":

Civ pro – jurisdiction or joinder (was on res and collateral estoppel last time) – not many CA distinctions

PR – full, not cross over
Conflicts of interest

Ks – formation heavy vs. breach heavy
UCC last time, maybe CL this time

Community prop – recently under tested in last three years

Crim pro – know 4th am, Miranda,
Could cross over with evidence or crim law

Con Law – know 14th am (Equal protection and due process clause),
1st am free speech tested 4 times in a row – unlikely again
Commerce clause also tested recently –

Evidence – CA (with crim case b/c that’s where distinctions are)
Only answer re: CA if it’s in the call or somewhere in the question.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

1.5 out of 6 so far...

Anyone else think that Performance Test A was comparable to being raped (mentally not physically)

By far the hardest most disgusting PT I've seen.

Holden said...

I agree, it was horrible. "Actual damages"? WTF?

I'm curious what it was supposed to be, but it doesn't matter anymore ... maybe I'll care a few days from now but I doubt it.

(that being said, if anyone can list what the the "5 to 7" main issues issues were I'd be really happy to find out which I missed)

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that PT was not cool... I have no if I was even close.... Even the subject headings confused me... and my answer pretty short????

Jack said...

PT-A:

As to the 3rd COA, I said that the SOL shouldn't run because (1) the complaint said that they didn't discover the facts until October of 2007, and this was a demurrer, so according to the first case, if you couldn't show that the complaint was obviously defective, you were out of luck on your demurrer, and (2) one of the four exceptions in the main statute applied and so the SOL was tolled. Don't remember what it was.

As to the 4th COA, a different SOL (which they gave you) applied to fraud claims - - three years. So it was timely.

As to the equitable estoppel, I just went through the four-part test in the final case and applied the analysis, and concluded that the lawyer couldn't benefit from his own wrongdoing by claiming the protection of the SOL.

Anonymous said...

What about the next round of essays? Today was kinda unexpected with Murder - PR was due and so was Torts

Anonymous said...

Copying this from my post on the "Day 1" page - My analysis is consistent with Jack
-------------

My $.02 -

PT-A was very straightforward except for 1 thing. The easy stuff first:

3rd COA:
- Under Kursesky case, on demurrer, court must accept as true facts in complaint as alleged. Plaintiff claimed he became aware of cause of action on October 13, 2007. Accepting as true, this is w/in the 1-year SOL, unless he could have discovered it sooner through "reasonable diligence." Per Kuresky, this is a question of fact inappropriate for court to tackle at pleading stage. If court decides it anyway, Plaintiff wins b/c he enlisted law firm to sort out mess same day he fired Defendant.

- Even if SOL does apply, exceptions for "actual injury" and disability toll. Disability is easy - b/c Plaintiff was suspended, could not "physically" bring the case, so SOL tolled during that period of suspension.

- "Actual injury" was the only truly difficult part of PT-A. Key (I believe) was that Jordache case said speculative harms are not actual injury. Plaintiff alleged 3 harms - fines/fees, legal costs, lost claims now barred by SOLs. First two ARE actual injuries, so SOL on malpractice claim not tolled. But claim of damage arising from inability to prosecute claims against other defendants is speculative, therefore not "actual injury," therefore SOL is tolled, at least w/ respect to that claim of harm/damage, so 3rd COA survives to that extent.

4th COA:
- Extremely straightforward. Subject to 3-year SOL. Plaintiff alleges it discovered cause of action October 13, 2007, but even if you accept Defendant's date of November 20, 2006, lawsuit brought in February 2008 still well within SOL. Notably, Defendant's demurrer didn't raise this.

- Equitable estoppel:

Just have to argue factors (from Batt... v. Batt... case) and facts, pretty straightforward.

Anonymous said...

I seriously considered walking out after an hour of trying to organize and match the Library and the File. It finally came together after about two hours, and I literally typed my last letter 1 second before the proctor announced 'Stop'.

Another example of CA trying to prevent more private 'dog bite' attorneys from entering the legal field so the firms can get more business, as one of my profs told me in confidence. Guess who the majority of attorneys on the CA Bar Committe work for???

This PT was absolutely ridiculous, I have clerked for two huge law firms, and niether of them would hand such garbage to a first year associate.

Best of luck all!!