The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
ITT: I am your online bar study flash cards
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:07 PM Author: Plum halford Adverse Possession. Go! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468067) |
 |
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:08 PM Author: maniacal forum COHENS
Continuous, Open & Notorious, Hostile, Exclusive, Statutory Period. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:09 PM Author: Plum halford Nice. You have to mix up the traditional order for your Jewish mnemonic, but I give you full credit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468088) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:14 PM Author: olive corn cake deserves extra credit since AP is such a jewish way of acquiring title (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468134) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:15 PM Author: Plum halford lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468149) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea ty I will never forget COHENS now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468173) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468186) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:38 PM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression this! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468377) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:01 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468632) |
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:10 PM Author: Plum halford Six uses of prior bad acts for non-character purpose: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468090) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:11 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor fuck evidence man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468100) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:12 PM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression MIMIC for babri but is use MOPPKIA
motive opportunity preparation plan knowledge identity absence of mistake/accident. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:13 PM Author: Plum halford Why MOPPKIA? I like MIMIC. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468130) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:14 PM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression bc i remembered moppkia in LS. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468139) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:41 PM Author: yapping transparent mother MIMIC is cool...I'm kind of warming up to the idea of MOPPKIA though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468405) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 8:27 PM Author: brass talented trailer park i'm actually a fan of MIAmKOPP, as opposed to MIMIC. that was given to us in our barbri lecture. makes it easy to remember it's criminal law, as well.
M = motive I = intent Am = absence of mistake I = identity K = knowledge O = opportunity P = plan P = preparation |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:10 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor NIED (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468093) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:14 PM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression
bystander - must be at the scene when a close relative was injured near miss - someone almost hits you or some shit
requires physical manifestation. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:21 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor forgot relationship, but almost dood. and i don't think relationship requires physical manifestation, but i'm not sure. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468209) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:10 PM Author: Plum halford Six agreements that fall under Statute of Frauds:
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:11 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor land, marriage, testamentary, over 1 year, over $500 and...? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468104) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:12 PM Author: Plum halford Surety (guarantee for another's debt). EXCEPT, if benefit of underlying contract actually accrues to the guarantor. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468114) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:14 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor ah yeah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468137) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: maniacal forum MY LEGS, broheim (no homo) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468174) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea MY LEGS dood (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468180) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:20 PM Author: maniacal forum (no homo) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468200) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:11 PM Author: Plum halford When does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel begin? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468101) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:12 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor when you're detained? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468112) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:13 PM Author: Plum halford No. Only when formal charges have been brought. Before that, it's Fifth Amendment right to counsel, but the D must unambiguously request one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468123) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:14 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor oh. wtf is 6th amendment right to counsel? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468133) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:15 PM Author: Plum halford Formal charges. No questioning of a defendant without counsel present once he has been formally charged. The adversary process has begun at that point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468147) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:16 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor oh, yeah, now i remember (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468154) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:11 PM Author: Plum halford Three types of hearsay admissible only if the declarant is unavailable: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468107) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:13 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor prior sworn statements
dying declaration?
fuck |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:14 PM Author: Plum halford Statement against interest. I can't confirm the prior sworn statements. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468141) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:15 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor oh yeah. i always confuse that with party admissions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468151) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:17 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea confirmed on prior statement (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468169) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor huh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468181) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:20 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea the three uses are
1) prior sworn statements 2) statements against interest 3) dying declaration
just confirming that dood's intuition |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:21 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor oh got it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468218) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: Plum halford Cool, thanks. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468184) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:38 PM Author: Supple field turdskin this is easy to remember with 4 letters: FFSD
Former testimony Forfeiture by wrongdoing Statement against interest Dying Declaration
HTH |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:42 PM Author: yapping transparent mother tyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468409) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:44 PM Author: Supple field turdskin seriously, everytime you have an evidence question where the declarant is unavialable, write those four letters down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468427) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: yapping transparent mother forfeiture by wrongdoing...is that like a party admission? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468458) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:54 PM Author: Supple field turdskin no; it's where you kill off the witness before trial... it's almost never tested on so dont sweat it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468541) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:54 PM Author: maniacal forum where there is a witness that is unavailable because you killed him or threatened him one is estopped from asserting a hearsay objection. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468545) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:04 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage FOR FUCKS SAKE, DAWG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468679) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:10 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor LOL yes. also, this is how i feel every time i see an evidence question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468765) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:12 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea TYTYTY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468802) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:14 AM Author: Supple field turdskin "FFS, dawg, where the fuck is the declarant?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468831) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:24 AM Author: glittery white becky what about statements of personal or family history?
lol why does barbri suck so much cock |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:31 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage wait...wtf is forfeiture by wrongdoing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469021) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:32 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor when the person against whom the statement is sought to be used caused the witness to be unavailable (i.e. mafia guy whacks someone). i forget what the standard is as far as proving that they were the cause of why the person isn't there, but i'm guessing that's not going to come up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469031) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:34 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage i'm gonna go ahead and ignore that fact pattern (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469061) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 9:09 PM Author: odious impertinent keepsake machete partner it's totally intuitive. you can't kill a witness to keep the testimony out. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15518071) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:16 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor ITT: wrassler demonstrates his ability to fail the bar (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468159) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:17 PM Author: fragrant brindle house skinny woman how fucked am i that i dont know any of this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468167) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:18 PM Author: Plum halford What is a spouse entitled to when the decedent dies intestate?
W/ no issue
W/ issue only of spouse and decedent
W/ issue that is surviving spouse's only
W/ issue that is decedent's only |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:19 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor this is state specific no? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468192) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:21 PM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression depends on state. not outing self. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468213) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:21 PM Author: Plum halford Oh, sorry, I just know UPC (?). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468225) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:28 PM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468295) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:33 PM Author: Plum halford My state. It's great.
A surviving spouse with no issue gets $250,000 and then 3/4, with 1/4 going to the parents.
If either the spouse or decedent had issue with someone else, then surviving spouse gets $150,000 and 1/2. The other 1/2 goes to the decedent's issue directly.
Or something along these lines. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:37 AM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469087) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:53 AM Author: Plum halford Yes, if that child had no children. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469262) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:05 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage for cali:
W/ no issue
everything
W/ issue only of spouse and decedent
if 1 child, all CP and 1/2 SP if 2+ children, all CP and 1/3 SP
W/ issue that is surviving spouse's only
everything
W/ issue that is decedent's only
if 1 child, all CP and 1/2 SP if 2+ children, all CP and 1/3 SP
CP includes QCP |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:21 PM Author: Plum halford What is the constitutional test for the limits of Congressional power to regulate commerce? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468214) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:22 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor seriously? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468227) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:22 PM Author: Plum halford Two words (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468238) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:26 PM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468273) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:30 PM Author: Plum halford I was looking for "substantially affects," Mr. Lopez. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468322) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:32 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor those are probably the two most meaningless words in all of con law. why are they on your flashcard? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468336) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:33 PM Author: Plum halford That is the THE commerce clause test. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468343) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:37 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor well, yeah, but it's meaningless. i guess you need to know it to state it in essays? i haven't started essays yet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468371) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:38 AM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469111) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:37 PM Author: yapping transparent mother were you looking for the three things that congress can regulate using the commerce clause?
channels of commerce (e.g. railroads, rivers, interstate highways)
instrumentalities (the shit that goes through the channels)
anything that substantially affects interstate commerce |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:39 PM Author: Plum halford Nah, but extra credit for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468390) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:23 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea yeah Ifeel like the conlaw questions are loltastic anyway, make this a bit harder plz. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468241) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:24 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor the ones that trip me up are the "what is the best basis for an argument?" because they're all shitty arguments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468253) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 9:12 PM Author: odious impertinent keepsake machete partner i completely agree with this. they piss me off.
the bar examiners are testing you on your ability to decide which incorrect argument you should apply, even though making a frivolous argument directly violates our pr. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:24 PM Author: Plum halford It's hard to make it hard without writing actual questions. (plus these are kind of hard for some of us) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468259) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:22 PM Author: Plum halford What are the tests for analyzing state action under the dormant commerce clause? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468231) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:27 PM Author: maniacal forum discrimination against interstate commerce on the face of a state law is unconstitutional
effects on interstate commerce is a balancing test burden to interstate commerce vs. benefit to the state. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:34 PM Author: Plum halford 3/4 credit. You should try to work "unreasonable burden" in there. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468351) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:07 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage i believe it's actually "undue burden" d00d (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468717) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:11 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor i think that's for fundamental rights, not interstate commerce (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468785) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:31 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage ok, ty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469024) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:54 AM Author: Aggressive Jet Party Of The First Part Library Assuming congress hasn't spoken:
1) if discriminatory towards IC on its face, then strict scrutiny 2) If discriminatory in effect but not on its face, then intermediate scrutiny 3) If undue burden, then balancing test |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:23 PM Author: Plum halford Time, place, and manner restrictions in public forums are evaluated on: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468250) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:30 PM Author: yapping transparent mother whether or not there is an alternative forum available
some other shit |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:31 PM Author: Plum halford lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468325) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:07 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage alternative forum and narrowly tailored
(think of a punk in a european suit) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor lol nice i'll remember that now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468747) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:10 AM Author: yapping transparent mother narrowly tailored to what kind of gov't interest? compelling i imagine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468778) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:13 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage good q - i'm not sure (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468811) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:53 AM Author: Plum halford It's "significant" government interest.
Yes, it's different from the levels of reviews. But I see kids refer to to it as intermediate scrutiny, so that should be fine. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:25 PM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468261) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:26 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the test for nuisance. Go! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468276) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:27 PM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468288) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:30 PM Author: Plum halford That is incorrect. It's a substantial interference with another person's reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. (or something like that) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468313) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:40 AM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469125) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:29 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor depriving someone of the use & enjoyment of their land (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468304) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:27 PM Author: Plum halford What are the three theories of title? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468285) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:29 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor what? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468309) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:40 PM Author: Supple field turdskin title theory
lien theory
intermediate theory
if you execute a mortgage on a JT in a title theory state your JT gets pwned and severed and you're stuck with a fucking POS TIC. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:51 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor lol
what's intermediate theory? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 7:13 AM Author: Turquoise Persian the mortgagor has title until default, at which point the bank gets title.
it differs from lien theory, because that requires foreclosure for the bank to get title. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:27 PM Author: Plum halford Tell me the EIGHT ways an easement can be terminated: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468292) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:30 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor lol fuck that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468310) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:31 PM Author: Plum halford Yeah, I can't do this one. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468326) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:31 PM Author: Mind-boggling Trump Supporter Generalized Bond 1. Chuck Norris
2. Chuck Norris
3. Chuck Norris
4. Chuck Norris
5. Chuck Norris
6. Chuck Norris
7. Chuck Norris
8. Chuck Norris |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:32 PM Author: yapping transparent mother END CRAMP
Estoppel = Promise by easement holder that easement will no longer be enforced + servient owner materially changes his position in reasonable reliance
Necessity = Easements created by necessity expire as soon as the necessity ends, unless it was created by express grant
Destruction = Destruction of the servient land, other than through the willful conduct of the servient owner, terminates the easement
Condemnation of servient estate (i.e. eminent domain)
Release = Written release by easement holder
Abandonment = Easement holder demonstrates by physical action the intent to never use easement again. Mere nonuse or words are insufficient for abandonment.
Merger Doctrine = Easement extinguished when title to dominant estate and title to servient estate become vested in the same person.
Prescription = Servient estate owner may extinguish the easement by interfering with it in accordance with the elements of adverse possession (COAH = we need interference that is continuous, open and notorious, actual, and hostile to the easement holder)
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:34 PM Author: olive corn cake "Easements created by necessity expire as soon as the necessity ends, unless it was created by express grant"
how can an easement be created by necessity and by express grant? |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:42 PM Author: maniacal forum s/he means an expressed grant to cover a necessity, not created by necessity. The dominant estate would have this easement by necessity anyways, but perhaps they got an expressed grant too. You see this bullshit in bar exam questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468408) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage it could be created by necessity and then later by express grant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468753) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:35 PM Author: Plum halford Fuck yeah, now this is what I'm talking about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468361) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:40 PM Author: Supple field turdskin ENDCRAMP YOU FILTHY NIGGER (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468396) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:36 PM Author: Plum halford Name the three types of Waste a tenant can commit: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468367) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:39 PM Author: yapping transparent mother what kind of tenant (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468384) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:40 PM Author: Plum halford As far as I know, waste is the same for tenant in a leasehold or a life estate dude. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468398) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:43 PM Author: yapping transparent mother hm i think you're right, carry on dooder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468418) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:39 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor well, for one, he can steal all your plumbing and wires and shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468385) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:41 PM Author: Supple field turdskin voluntary (subject to PURGE exceptions) permissive ameliorative |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:42 PM Author: Plum halford You da' man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468411) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:53 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor what are the PURGE exceptions? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468532) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:55 PM Author: Supple field turdskin prior use (including open mines doctrine) repair - you can use proceeds from the thing to make rsbl repairs grant - conveyance expressly says you can do the thing exploitation - land is ONLY good for the use |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:06 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor tyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468704) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:34 AM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression Usually this is associated with Life Tenancy affirmative waste: harming the property or depleting its resources UNLESS 1) the land is good for no other use 2) open mines doctrine (if already mined can continue but limited to mines already opened) 3) resources needed to make reasonable repairs or 4) granted the right to exploit.
permissive waste: allowing the property to fall into disrepair by not maintaining that ish.
ameliorative waste: altering the land in a way the changes its character even though it increases the economic value. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:39 PM Author: Plum halford Land owner's duties to guests, invitees, and known and unknown trespassers:
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:43 PM Author: Supple field turdskin unknown trespassers - none known/anticipated trespassers - known, concealed, artificial conditions, death traps licensees (social guests) - artificial conditions known to D, concealed from P invitees (land held open or conferring economic benefit) - artificial conditions known or knowable via rsbl inspection to D, concealed from P
HTMFH
PS: attractive nuisance doctrine -- if some dumb shithead kid enters your property and 1) he was unable to appreciate the risk & 2) the risk could have been mitigated for relatively little money, you get fucking pwned. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:51 PM Author: yapping transparent mother this isn't a landowner doctrine but even for unknown trespassers, you can't protect your property with deadly force right? so you couldn't have a rabid guard dog that you know is dangerous and will kill shit in your backyard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468510) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:04 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor yeah that's one of the MPQ torts questions. can't protect property with force which would cause death or serious injury. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468682) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:10 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage but i like leaving my transformers on to protect my shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468773) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:11 AM Author: maniacal forum which? I find starscream is a pretty solid choice but he's always trying to cuckold me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468782) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:13 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage u mad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468814) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:16 AM Author: Supple field turdskin yeah that was the one where that bitch had a rottweiler that mauled a kid who went to grab a baeball. poor kid :( (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468852) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:43 PM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew unknown: NO DUTY BIOTCH known: all known, manmade death traps licensee: all known traps invitee: all reasonably knowable traps
go lecture vids
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:44 PM Author: Supple field turdskin schechter is a god (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468424) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:45 PM Author: Plum halford There's a duty to repair and make reasonable inspections for licensees (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468437) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew thats for invitees, ya? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468457) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:45 PM Author: maniacal forum guests/ known trespassers - warn of man-made deathtraps invitees for business - reasonable care / inspection for hidden dangers unknown trespassers - no duty unless attractive nuisance
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:46 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor people there for a business purpose or property open to the public: must warn about dangers which he knows about or should know about based on a reasonable inspection
social guests: must warn about dangers which he knows about
known trespassers: must warn about dangers which are artificial, concealed, very dangerous and known (hidden, man-made death traps)
unknown trespassers: no duty
child trespassers are subject to the attractive nuisance doctrine (which i don't remember all of, except if it's cheap to get rid of the nuisance, you have to do it, and if the child recognizes and understands the danger, then you're not liable)
edit: damn, messed up the trespassers part. fixed. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: maniacal forum Not sure this is correct. Someone else confirm. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468456) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:50 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea Only need to warn KNOWN trespassers of really dangerous shit
edit: you got it |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:44 PM Author: Plum halford What is the one type of property conveyance that contains a warranty of quality or fitness? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468429) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: maniacal forum
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: Supple field turdskin conveyance from a seller-builder of a home. htmfh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468448) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:48 PM Author: maniacal forum fuck you are right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468465) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:46 PM Author: Supple field turdskin P gets into an accident with D1 & D2 in a state with partial comparative negligence.
party / fault % / damages P / 20 / 100k D1 / 50 / 10k D2 / 30 / 20k
what judgment is P entitled to if the JD retains JSL? if it has abolished JSL? |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:50 PM Author: Supple field turdskin Subject: ANSWER if JSL retained: P gets ENTIRE judgment he's entitled to from each (80k). Any offset will have to be handled via contribution in a different action.
If JSL abolished:
P can only get his proportionate share--
P can get 48k judgment against D1 (50% at fault x $100k damages - P has to offset his 20% fault for D1's 10k damages)
P can get 56k judgment against D2 (30% at fault x $100k damages - P has to offset his 20% fault for D2's damages)
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:12 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage WRONG
with JSL, you're right, but without it, you discounted his fault twice.
He'd get 50k (50% of 100k) from D1 and 30k (30% of 100k) from D2
This way, his 20% fault makes him pay for 20% of his own damages. hth |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:17 AM Author: Supple field turdskin i'll admit i'm not 100% sure on this; but his recovery has to be reduced by the damages he owes the other two. D1 had 10k of personal injury himself and D2 had 20k of damages.
right? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:34 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage because P was less at fault than the others, he can recover from D1 and D2 for his injuries, and they can't touch him for theirs because its partial comparative fault (if it was pure comp fault, you might be right - i'm not sure) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469055) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:43 AM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469157) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:50 PM Author: Plum halford Does the partial comparative negligence even factor in here? Doesn't that only matter if P is more than 50% at fault? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468495) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:52 PM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew o shit.
Retains: $74k from either Abolished: $48k from D1, $26k from D2
?? |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:46 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea for those of us self studying, this is INCREDIBLY HELPFUL plz keep this thread going (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468445) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:50 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor yeah the mnemonics are really great (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468491) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:53 PM Author: Supple field turdskin here's a good one. whenever you have a theft question, think "LEFT"
that's:
L - arceny E - mbezzlement F - false pretenses T - rick, larceny by
then, in parentheses next to each, write:
L - arceny (poss) E - mbezzlement (conv) F - false pre***T***enses (title) T - rick, larceny by (poss)
this helps remind you the crucial elements of each: larceny involves obtaining possession; embezzlement involves a conversion; false pre***T***enses involves obtaining ***T***itle and larceny by trick is the same as FP except it's possession. HTMFH. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:55 PM Author: maniacal forum solid, thanks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468560) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor awesome (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468760) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the M'Naughten test for insanity
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:49 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor wrongness and nature (someone posted the other night: flip the M upside down and it's a W, take the two first letters) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468475) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:49 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea dammit I RAN here to post this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468477) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:52 PM Author: yapping transparent mother lol that's sweet! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468523) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:47 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the MPC test for insanity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468451) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:51 PM Author: Supple field turdskin lacks substantial capacity to something something (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468507) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:57 PM Author: yapping transparent mother D entitled to acquittal if he had a mental disease/defect, and as a result, lacked the substantial capacity to: (i) appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or (ii) conform his conduct to the requirements of law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468588) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:02 AM Author: Supple field turdskin hmm... i see a cool mnemonic:
MPC =
M/P = aPPreciate criMinality C = Conform ConduCt
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:48 PM Author: Plum halford When does jeopardy attach for purposes for the Double Jeopardy clause? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468470) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:49 PM Author: maniacal forum jury = jury is sworn
bench = first witness is called
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:54 PM Author: Plum halford Nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468548) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:51 PM Author: Supple field turdskin what is the one criminal offense which duress is no good defense for? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468514) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:53 PM Author: yapping transparent mother murder (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468534) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:54 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea guessing murder? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468542) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:55 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor homocide (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468556) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: yapping transparent mother this is right, murder is too specific. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468675) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:53 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the specific intent crimes, go! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468537) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:55 PM Author: yapping transparent mother solicitation conspiracy attempt first degree murder burglary assault embezzlement robbery larceny forgery false pretenses |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:56 PM Author: Plum halford What did you get on the simulated MBE? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468573) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:58 PM Author: yapping transparent mother shit, like right around median. around 110. i didn't know this before then of course lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468602) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:02 AM Author: Plum halford Damn, seems like you know this shit better than that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468646) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:57 PM Author: fragrant brindle house skinny woman whats a good mnemonic for this (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468592) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:56 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor rape and...?
edit: lol fail |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:56 PM Author: Supple field turdskin this is dumb. makes more sense to remember the malice and GI crimes.
malice is easy -- M-urder;A-rson;lice
GI is a bit harder but i know there are only 4: battery, kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment i think
if you can remember the (2) and (4) category ones, you know everything else is SI. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:01 AM Author: yapping transparent mother yeah this is definitely more efficient.
also if you can't remember all of the GI, you can help but eliminating all the inchoate crimes as specific intent. |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:58 PM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew conspiracy, solicitation, attempt assault (attempted battery) first degree murder larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, kidnapping
fuck, i think im missing some
|
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:54 PM Author: Plum halford In the sale of real property, after the contract is signed but before closing, who bears the risk of loss? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468555) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:56 PM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea seller? fuck. someone confirm plz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468577) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:57 PM Author: Supple field turdskin buyer. equitable conversion FTMFL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468585) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:04 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea ty, won't forget now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468681) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:45 AM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469174) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:57 PM Author: fragrant brindle house skinny woman buyer!!!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468584) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:56 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the definition of an valid contract/agreement (you will have to do this on the essays) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468570) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:58 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor offer, acceptance, consideration (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468597) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:59 PM Author: maniacal forum an offer that is accepted supported by consideration where there are no defenses to the formation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468608) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:02 AM Author: Plum halford Mutually bargained-for exchange, yada yada. We can do better than this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468653) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:57 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the test for voluntary manslaughter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468589) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:59 PM Author: fragrant brindle house skinny woman 2 objective and 1 subjective test, right? i have no idea
a reasonable person would be emotionally charged? no time to collect thoughts def didnt actually collect thoughts |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:59 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor getting really pissed for a good reason and killing someone in the heat of the moment (someone else say that correctly for me) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468614) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:00 AM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew just throw word "provocation" in there and you are golden (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468623) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:08 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor oh yup that was the word i was looking for. provocation (objective test), with no cooling down period. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468739) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:16 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage i think it's the objective/subjective double-whammy (person did not chill AND reasonable person would not have chilled the fuck out yet) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468857) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor that's right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468995) |
|
Date: July 10th, 2010 11:58 PM Author: Plum halford Give me the Automobile rule for a search incident to arrest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468603) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:02 AM Author: maniacal forum When D is shackled in his car, the popos can't search his vehicle "incident to arrest." They gotta impound that bitch.
While unshackled can search within interior cabin and containers but not the trunk. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: Plum halford Caveat: Can only search if police reasonably believe that evidence of the offense for which the person was arrested may be found in the vehicle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468668) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:02 AM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew (1) if unsecured passenger, can search passenger area of car if they can still gain access OR (2) can search passenger portion if reasonably believe evidence of offence for which they were arrested may be found in auto |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: maniacal forum combine our two answers for the perfect Voltron answer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468672) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: yapping transparent mother AZ v. Gant
if warrantless automobile SIA, pigs can only search your car if you're not constrained/in custody to the point where you may have an opportunity to have access to the vehicle OR if they believe that the instrumentality of the crime is in the vehicle. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:05 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor this rule makes no sense btw, because an administrative search is going to find everything in the trunk, glove compartment, etc. anyway. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468697) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: Plum halford Harder to plant drugs during an inventory search. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468748) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:10 AM Author: maniacal forum Also, say the car is in a parking lot. No reason to impound if the wife will come get the car. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468774) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:01 AM Author: Supple field turdskin it's easy to remember every causation issue. there are only 3 really:
but for causation has two things: merged cuases & unascertainable causes -merged = two fires that end up joining and burning down your house. apply substantial factor test. -unascerainable = two faggots who go hunting and shoot you in the face. shift BOP to the two Ps and if neither can prove they didnt do it, they're both JSL to you.
proximate causation has a really sweet ass chart toward the end of the CMR. it has 2 rows (foreseeable harm; unforeseeable harm) and 3 columns (direct cause case; indirect cause case causing foreseeable harm; indirect cause case causing unforeseeable harm). if you can figure out what's what in the question, you know the answer because the rows go like:
foreseeable harm - {check} - {check} - (check*) unforeseeable harm - (x) - (x) - (x)
where (check) is D=liable and (x) = D is not liable
* - except for crimes & ITs |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor that seems like an overly complicated way to approach proximate cause (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468664) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:04 AM Author: Plum halford Just going to say that. Seems like a law school exam level of knowledge. I only need to not be in the bottom 10% (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468687) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:03 AM Author: Supple field turdskin someone DESCRIBE the differences between the automobile exception and the search incident to arrest exception as it applies to automobiles. tyty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468670) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:06 AM Author: Submissive electric whorehouse jew auto exception: if probable cause to stop car cuz believe contraband inside, can search WHOLE CAR
incident to arrest: can search passenger portion if unsecured passenger OR can search passenger portion if reasonably believe evidence of offence for which they were arrested can be found in the auto
right? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:07 AM Author: maniacal forum Search incident to arrest the D has to be arrested. Under auto exception it doesn't even have to be D's car so long as they have prob cause of evidence of a crime. If this were a house or some shit, they'd need a warrant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468716) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:07 AM Author: yapping transparent mother arguably AZ v. Gant doesn't change the automobile exception, it only expands on it. the original motor vehicle exception provided that you could only search the automobile w/o warrant if there was probable cause that contraband or instrumentality of the crime was in your car.
AZ v. Gant just took that and added on the whole limitation re: the person having potential access to the car.
someone confirm? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:08 AM Author: maniacal forum Az v. Gant only applies to search incident to arrest (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468733) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: yapping transparent mother ok thanks, yeah that makes sense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468758) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: Supple field turdskin i have no clue; all i know is i took a practice 100 question test today and i missed all 3 questions involving these POS exceptions. i kept fucking up when PC was needed and when they could search the trunk.
i got 69/100 overall though so not bad, not bad. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:04 AM Author: fragrant brindle house skinny woman im gonna cry. i only knew 1-2 of all listed. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468680) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:05 AM Author: Plum halford I started looking at my CMR halfway down when someone asked for harder questions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468691) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:06 AM Author: Plum halford Give the exceptions to the Fruit of the Poisonous Tray doctrine: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468715) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:09 AM Author: yapping transparent mother only eat from the poisonous tray if it contains ice cream (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468749) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:17 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468877) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:15 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor inevitable discovery
info given in violation of miranda? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 7:00 AM Author: Turquoise Persian only if the miranda violation was in bad faith (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471529) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:18 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage spontaneous action of D inevitable discovery independent source |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:07 AM Author: Supple field turdskin name the five non-hearsay categories also, quick, DESCRIBE the differences between:
-spousal testimonial privilege & spousal communication privilege -present recollection refreshed and past recollection recorded -prior inconsistent statement & prior consistent statement
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:11 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea prior inconsistent statement vs prior consistent:
prior inconsistent statement is used on cross for impeachment
prior consistent statement allows the attorney to bring in evidence, otherwise hearsay, that rehabilitates the declarant's testimony. Can only be done if the other side "opens the door" by calling into question the declarant's testimony |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:14 AM Author: Supple field turdskin sorry mang this is not really right.
PIS - can ALWAYS be used to impeach (though not on a collateral matter) but if it was 1) under oath & 2) in a formal proceeding, it can be used as substantive evidence as well
PCS - can ALWAYS be used to rehabilitate; but it can also be used as substantive evidence if 1) offered after opponent suggests a motive to lie; 2) the utterance happened after the motive to lie took place; 3) something else.
shit now even i'm feeling lost on this shit. need to review my notes. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:46 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea yeah I forgot about the substantive evidence rules that go along with this. was really fucking me over on evidence Qs, ty for the correction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469188) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:17 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor objection, compound question (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468874) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:20 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage spousal testimonial (aka spousal) - witness has right to refuse to testify if currently married to D
spousal communication (aka marital) - both spouses hold privilege - communications intended to be confidential (if made during marriage) are inadmissible unless both spouses waive |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:23 AM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression skipping the first q.
- spousal testimonial priv is for the testifying spouse. he/she holds the privilege and alone can waive it or exercise it to avoid testifying against spouse. By contrast, all confidential spousal communications are privileged and it is not waivable by the testifying party if the other spouse wishes to exercise it. communications in furtherance of a crime though are not privileged.
- present recollection refreshed is anything you show to a witness to refresh his memory so he can testify (can be picture, writing etc...) Past recollection recorded is a substitute for the testimony of a witness who 1) can't remember 2) knew at the time 3) made the statement while the events were fresh in the mind 4) the statement was accurate when given (might be another element). The thing shown to the witness for present recollection refreshed is not admitted into evidence but i think the past recollection recorded is.
- prior inconsistent statement can be used to impeach a witness' credibility on a material matter. Prior consistent statements cannot be used to bolster your own witness' credibility BUT can be used after your witness' credibility has been attacked. I believe a consistent statement to rebut bias is only admissible if it was made prior to the motive to lie. Multiple identifications, however, are admissible. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:26 AM Author: Supple field turdskin mostly right but, re PRR & PRR -- both of them can be READ by the dooder on the witness stand and not introduced; however, the opposing party is entitled to introduce them into evidence. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468972) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:08 AM Author: slate tripping boistinker *is an 0L* *memorizes this thread* |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:48 AM Author: godawful slap-happy dilemma death wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469211) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:10 AM Author: Supple field turdskin okay, i keep getting boned by 1) third party bullshit in Ks & 2) PER & SOF. someone give me a quick rundown of what i need to know for those two TTTs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468779) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:15 AM Author: Plum halford A third-party beneficiary to a contract can sue who?
-Both of the parties to the original contract (promisor and whatever the other guy is called)
When can a third-party beneficiary sue?
-When his rights vest.
Can parties to contract rescind promise to third-party beneficiary?
-Yes, as long as the third-party beneficiary has not justifiably relied on the promise.
When a contract is assigned, the obligor can sue either the assignee or assignor for performance. The assignee can only sue the obligor.
That's all I know.
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:22 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage "Can parties to contract rescind promise to third-party beneficiary?
-Yes, as long as the third-party beneficiary has not justifiably relied on the promise. "
Not quite. They can rescind/modify if the 3rd party's rights have not yet vested. They vest if (1) the third party knows of the K and assents to it, (2) the third party knows of the k and detrimentally relies on it, or (3) the third party sues on the K |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 9:37 PM Author: odious impertinent keepsake machete partner Also, the promisor and promisee can contractually agree for the TPB's rights not to vest until a stated occurrence.
This was tested in the simulated MBE - if individual can choose which charity receives a donation at his retirement and reserves the right to change his selection until he actually retires, rights of TPB don't vest even if it assents, detrimentally relies, or sues to enforce, until the individual retires. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:16 AM Author: yapping transparent mother i'm in the same boat re: third party bullshit in Ks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468850) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:12 AM Author: Supple field turdskin DESCRIBE the two elements for an implied equitable servitude via common scheme. ty. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468792) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:19 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor notice and...?
not sure if notice has to be actual or just constructive |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:22 AM Author: maniacal forum it can be constructive -- that's the "implied" part of implied easements.
a) common scheme by original subdivider and b) notice |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:41 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor ty, i just thought "common scheme" was a given as it was an "equitable servitude by common scheme". guess that makes it easy to remember. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469141) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:12 AM Author: maniacal forum Third Party Beneficiary of a K -- Test for when contracting parties may modify. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468807) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:16 AM Author: Plum halford At any point before beneficiaries rights have vested and if the beneficiary has not justifiably relied on the promise? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468854) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:19 AM Author: maniacal forum close -- no modification after TPB rights have vested. Rights vest upon a) knowledge and b) reliance.
(reliance assumes knowledge but they seem to test this through knowledge of the K)
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:20 AM Author: Plum halford Gotcha. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468923) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:23 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage also vest upon knowledge and assent or upon bringing suit on the K (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468948) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: maniacal forum oh yes, shit. good catch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469008) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 9:40 PM Author: odious impertinent keepsake machete partner Posted above, but will post here too.
Exception - the promisor and promisee can contractually agree for the TPB's rights not to vest until a stated occurrence.
This was tested in the simulated MBE - if individual can choose which charity receives a donation at his retirement and reserves the right to change his selection until he actually retires, rights of TPB don't vest even if it assents, detrimentally relies, or sues to enforce. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:15 AM Author: ebony charismatic pocket flask What's a quick way to remember what things might be admissible for impeachment purposes and what things might also be admissible for substantive evidence? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468836) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 7:02 AM Author: Turquoise Persian it will often have to do with prior inconsistent statements. just remember that any prior inconsistent statement of a witness can be used to impeach. but for it to also come in substantively, it must have been under oath in a "proceeding." affidavits or talking to police don't count (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471532) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:19 AM Author: Plum halford Give the rule for expert witnesses: (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468905) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:22 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor Daubert. need a mnemonic for this. i know there are like 5 factors. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468944) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:24 AM Author: Plum halford TARP (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468957) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:33 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor tyty (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469039) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:34 AM Author: Plum halford Tested methodology
Acceptance by other experts
Rate of error
Peer Review and publication |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:26 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage published and subjected to peer review low error rate tested, subject to retest reasonable level of acceptance by experts based on accepted principles
not sure if these are exactly right |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: Supple field turdskin these wont be tested. ive done every single barbri evidence question and didnt get asked about this shit once. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468999) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:36 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage yeah - i only know it for possible essay shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469084) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:20 AM Author: maniacal forum Buyer's remedies for breach under the UCC? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468921) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:21 AM Author: Plum halford Rejection
Acceptance and sue for damages for non-conforming goods
?? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: maniacal forum Reject all, sue for damages Accept all, sue for damages Reject non-conforming goods, accept conforming goods, sue for damages |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:22 AM Author: Supple field turdskin god i hate that UCC shit wrt nonconforming goods/acceptance, etc. fuck fuck fuck that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468942) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:26 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage cost of cover - K price + incidentals (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468973) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: maniacal forum that's measure of damages (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468994) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:37 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage yeah - so that's the remedy, isn't it? or did i misunderstand the question? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469095) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:22 AM Author: Supple field turdskin what does voluntary intoxication serve as a defense to? involuntary intoxication?
what are the two circumstances in which an initial aggressor can regain his privilege to use force?
is it possible to attempt arson? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:26 AM Author: Plum halford Voluntary intox is a defense to any specific intent crime.
Involuntary intox is a defense to any crime.
Initial aggressor can regain right to self-defense if other party escalates from non-deadly to deadly force. ?????
??? Seems like it, why not? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:27 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage invol intox is not a defense to a strict liability crime, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468981) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:30 AM Author: glittery white becky in my notes i have "invol intox is a defense to ALL crimes" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469016) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:41 AM Author: Plum halford I hope somebody surreptitiously gets me so fucking roofied up that I go out and commit statutory rape! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469138) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:44 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage yes, as a matter of law, you'd be ng, but the bar doesn't test on your ability to convince a jury (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469172) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: yapping transparent mother i think for the third one the initial aggressor has to withdraw also (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468985) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:37 AM Author: Plum halford This seems right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469091) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: Supple field turdskin re attempted arson - yes. the only rule is you cannot attempt reckless/negligent crimes.
initial aggressor gets right if 1) other party escales from NDF to DF & if he demonstrates withdrawal from the fight but the other dood keeps fighting. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:30 AM Author: yapping transparent mother but remember guyz, if your fire causes SMOKE damage you're in the clear for arson, but charring = ur fucked (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469013) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:31 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor seriously, that's the rule? good to know. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469023) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:32 AM Author: yapping transparent mother it's not really an explicit rule afaik, but i just remember the barbri mpqs making this distinction and being pissed off. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469028) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:34 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469047) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:38 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage what's the deal with "blackening"? that's just smoke damage, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469108) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:50 AM Author: yapping transparent mother no clue. i don't know what smoke can do to walls. if i had to guess, that would be at least charring. if you blacken chicken you usually cook it i guess. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469233) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:58 AM Author: glittery white becky Mere blackening by smoke or discoloration by heat (scorching) is insufficient. However, mere charring is sufficient (what a stupid fucking rule)
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: glittery white becky voluntary intoxication - only is a defense to specific intent crimes
involuntary intoxication - defense to everything...right?
2 circumstances - #1 the other person escalates the fight (e.g., u punch someone and they take out a knife), and #2..... um, u say u're sorry and try to run away. i dunno.
yes, why wouldn't it be possible to attempt arson? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: razzle-dazzle set indirect expression voluntary intoxication can be a defense to specific intent crimes or under MPC crimes that require knowingly, purposely or recklessly. Involuntary intoxication can be a defense to any crime.
initial aggressor can regain priv to use force when: 1) he has unequivocally withdraws and the other person continues to attack. 2) other person escalates level of force.
no. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:24 AM Author: Supple field turdskin modification standard under UCC vs. CL?
alteration of terms & whether a K is formed under UCC vs. CL?
who bears ROL in a destination K? a shipment K? when the goods aren't being shipped via common carrier?
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:27 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea modification: CL, none allowed; UCC, good faith? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468980) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage CL: need new consideration (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468988) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: Supple field turdskin titcp. unless accord & satisfaction or signed writing affirming a debt barred by SOL. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469004) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:30 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea oh yeah new consideration, ty. should've known that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469009) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: Plum halford Common law - any modification of terms of contract are invalid. (?)
UCC - Modification between merchants valid if:
(1) Does not materially alter terms; or (2) Is an express condition of acceptance; or (3) Other party does not object within 10 days |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:28 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage this is correct for a non-mirror image acceptance, but i think the question was about modifying a K (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15468998) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:32 AM Author: Adventurous deranged marketing idea yeah that's the knockout rule, which was the second question in this subthread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469033) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:35 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor need to limit posts to one question at a time so it's not confusing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469071) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:39 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469115) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:29 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage ROL shifts at X where "FOB X"
so dest K = seller and shipment K = buyer |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:35 AM Author: Supple field turdskin dest K = ROL shifts when goods are tendered to buyer at destination shipment K = ROL shifts when seller tenders delivery to common carrier
if the goods arent shipped via common carrier, ROL shifting depends on merchant/nonmerchant status of parties. i forget exactly how though. |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 7:09 AM Author: Turquoise Persian We also learned in my barbri class that if one party breached any part of the contract, the risk of loss is on them, even if the breach isn't related to risk of loss. But I haven't seen that in CMR or any practice Q's. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471536) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:30 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor A REQUEST: limit posts to one question each. that way it's easier to scan at the top for specific subjects and read the responses. TYIA (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469020) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:36 AM Author: glittery white becky wat (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469076) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:38 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor don't post something like this:
what are the elements of larceny? embezzlement? armed robbery? larceny by trick? burlgary? what if D was voluntarily intoxicated? involuntarily intoxicated? what if D's co-conspirator died during the robbery? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:33 AM Author: Supple field turdskin in order to recover, what sorts of damages do you need to show for:
-IIED -the other intentional torts -the different types of defamation (slander, libel, per se, etc.) -NIED -negligence actions
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:36 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor stop it with these fucking compound questions. it makes the answers difficult to follow. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469082) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:39 AM Author: glittery white becky IIED - severe emotional distress
defamation - if it's a public figure re a matter of public concern you have to meet the NYT v. sullivan "actual malice" standard - knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard as to its truth. if it's a private figure about a private concern, you have to prove AT LEAST negligence. but you have to prove actual malice if you want SUPER SWEET damages.
nied - physical symptoms of emotional distress
negligence actions - damages |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:40 AM Author: Supple field turdskin titmfcp except your defamation thing is a bit off. there's a chart with how you can rely on "presumed" damages for some defamaiton actions and need to show actual for others. it's a clusterfuck i was hoping some other shcmuck could clarify for me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469129) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:44 AM Author: glittery white becky in defamation law you have to prove special damages if it's a slander action. however, special damages are presumed in 4 situations: D says something that reflects adversely on one's conduct in business/profession, D says that a woman is unchaste, D says that P has a loathsome disease (i.e., veneral disease or leprosy), D says P is guilty of a crime involving moral turptitude.
|
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:49 AM Author: Plum halford Does the public concern/ public figure bar apply to these per se slander categories, too?
For example, if someone called a congresswoman a Herpes ridden whore, would the congresswoman have to prove falsity? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:54 AM Author: glittery white becky you're confusing 2 separate things. 1) u have to prove special damages in a slander action UNLESS it falls under one of those 4 categories. this is always true.
2) if you're a public figure, u have to prove falsity + fault on the part of the D (actual malice) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:57 AM Author: Plum halford TYTY. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469322) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:47 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor libel: damages are presumed
slander:
must show actual damages UNLESS it is one of these categories:
- business reputation
- loathsome disease (leprosy or venereal)
- woman's chastity
- committed a crime of moral turpitude (stealing, etc.)
if it's one of those four, then damages are presumed |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:49 AM Author: Supple field turdskin tyty. also, turns out that radio broadcasts aren't slander but considered libel. fuck you barbri. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469220) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:57 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor yeah, radio & tv are libel. i'm guessing internet is too, but :D could probably speak better to that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469310) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:34 AM Author: Supple field turdskin only 2 things that you can introduce (and reasons for their introduction) re the bitch you raped when you're on trial for rape? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469050) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:58 AM Author: Turquoise Persian whether the two of you had sexual relations before - to establish consent
whether she had sex with other guys, to establish whether they were the source of the physical evidence |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:35 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage this thread is a 180, btw (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469067) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:36 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor yeah i've got it bookmarked (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469077) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:38 AM Author: Supple field turdskin someone should undertake to create 5 new threads; one for each MBE subject... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469104) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:40 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage news flash - there are 6 MBE subjects (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469126) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:41 AM Author: Supple field turdskin conLOL is a waste of time to study for. look at your outline once and youre golden. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469135) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:40 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage when can you use extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469132) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:41 AM Author: Supple field turdskin in ANY situation except 1) extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts (must ask witness about those bad acts on cross examination and you're stuck with his answer) & 1 other one i forget (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469142) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:15 PM Author: Twinkling beady-eyed dysfunction impeachment by contradiction on a collateral matter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474030) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:42 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage who must be joined in a foreclosure action? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469147) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:49 AM Author: glittery white becky the person whose property is being foreclosed + all necessary parties (usually junior interests)
right? pretty sure u don't have to join any senior interests since their mortgage will pass with the land (buyer at foreclosure sale will take subject to any senior interests) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:50 AM Author: Plum halford yes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469228) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:51 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469241) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:43 AM Author: marvelous old irish cottage due process/equal protection - which one applies to states? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469162) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:47 AM Author: Plum halford Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment applies to states. That is the source of substantive due process. And of course EPC applies to states. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469197) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:45 AM Author: Plum halford What are the four instances of slander per se? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469178) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:48 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor business reputation
loathsome disease (leprosy / venereal)
woman's chastity
crime of moral turpitude |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:48 AM Author: Supple field turdskin being a fag in NY (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469210) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:50 AM Author: glittery white becky this probably isn't true anymore (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469230) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 12:54 AM Author: Supple field turdskin this thread has gotten too long. we should start a new one for each of the 5 important mbe subjects. i've started a crm one: http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363553&mc=5&forum_id=2 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15469269) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:03 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale Sorry I logged off yesterday evening - this is a great idea. I'll post some questions to get the discussion started for the day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471458) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:04 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale If you sign a land sale contract and later close on the deed, are you still liable for the promises made in the land sale contract? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471459) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:07 AM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor fyi, the board is dead between about 5:30am and 9:00am, especially on weekends. but i'll be back on tomorrow and would like to continue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471465) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:09 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale I'm an early riser, and I'll be offline studying by 9. Just trying to give people something to get started on for the day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471469) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:10 AM Author: avocado stimulating roast beef i.e. you're a faggot (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471470) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:13 AM Author: Racy ticket booth hominid lol cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471478) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:39 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage no - merges into the deed (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474308) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:04 AM Author: Racy ticket booth hominid I am very cold (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471460) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:05 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale If you acquire property from a BFP but you don't pay him anything for it, do you still have priority over prior, unrecorded owners? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471462) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:53 AM Author: Turquoise Persian yeah - shelter rule (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471518) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:06 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale When can public employees be fired for political activities? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471463) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:54 AM Author: Turquoise Persian something about whether their activities involved lawlessness. there's a three-part test that i missed on a pmbr question (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471519) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:07 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale What is the test for whether police obtained consent from a third party to search? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471464) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:41 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage basically the 3rd party must have access to the area given consent for (e.g. can't give consent to break open your son's safe, but can go in their room if unlocked) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474324) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:08 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale Can a state legislature order all state agencies to only buy office supplies from distributors located within the state? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471468) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:42 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage yeah - market participant exception to privileges and immunities (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474334) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:10 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale Someone gives you a watch as a gift and you accept it. The next week he tells you he stole it. You decide to keep it. Can you be charged with a crime? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471471) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:42 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage yes - accessory after the fact? or is it something like possession of stolen proeprty? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474341) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:11 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale When can a lawyer ask leading questions? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471472) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:43 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage on cross, or on direct against adverse party or hostile witness, or witness having trouble remembering shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474347) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 8:25 PM Author: judgmental rehab alpha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15517454) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:12 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale Can you convey clear and marketable title if you acquired the land through adverse possession? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471477) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:43 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage no - not marketable (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15474352) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:14 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale When is it ok for states to discriminate against aliens? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471481) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:56 AM Author: Turquoise Persian strict scrutiny, but it's ok for positions of public policymaking, jury service, and voting (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471522) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:15 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale Who decides whether evidence is hearsay?
Who decides whether a writing is authentic? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 4:44 PM Author: marvelous old irish cottage objection - compound question
judge
jury |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:16 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale In a civil case, what is the effect of judicial notice?
In a criminal case? |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:55 AM Author: Turquoise Persian civil - it is binding on jury criminal - jury may or may not view it as conclusive |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:18 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale What takes priority:
Treaty v. executive agreement
Treaty v. federal law
Executive agreement v. state law |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:57 AM Author: Turquoise Persian treaty and federal law win over exec agreements and state laws
exec agreements win over state laws
treaties/federal laws: whichever was most recent wins |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:19 AM Author: canary bateful love of her life locale What is the constitutional test for obscenity? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471492) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 6:58 AM Author: Racy ticket booth hominid trick question: the constitution has no stance on obscenity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15471528) |
|
Date: July 11th, 2010 7:05 AM Author: Turquoise Persian i think he means the test for whether it gets 1A protection because it's not obscene:
-prurient interest (community standard) -patently offensive (community standard) -no value (national standard) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 8:23 PM Author: judgmental rehab alpha What are the 5 methods of impeachment and for which can extrinsic evidence be used. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15517430) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 8:26 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor - prior inconsistent statement
- convictions for misdemeanors involving dishonesty or felonies (subject to balancing after 10 years)
can't think of the others |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 9:11 PM Author: judgmental rehab alpha Bias, prior bad acts, and something else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15518097) |
|
Date: July 15th, 2010 9:44 PM Author: odious impertinent keepsake machete partner Someone explain to me accord and satisfaction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#15518451) |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 8:27 PM Author: Nighttime Infuriating Ceo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#18200318) |
|
Date: June 8th, 2011 9:41 PM Author: Erotic Den I can't believe I once knew this shit. I remember fucking nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#18200898) |
|
Date: July 9th, 2011 5:05 PM Author: aquamarine idiot parlor (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1363451&forum_id=2#18460970) |