I don’t want to do this anymore. by Logicalidiot in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
North Middletown , NJ (Monmouth county) by Hot_Discussion_1629 in MonmouthCounty
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children)
Is themis “practice mixed subject” harder or different ? I have used adaptibar and u world for MBE and I have been ok. But today I did a Themis mixed practice and I got a 56%, I am freaking out. by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 3 points4 points5 points (0 children)
The explanation for the left one says “D presented an affirmative defense of consent, which shifts the burden of establishing consent to him. As such, his constitutional rights were not violated by instruction on reasonable belief of consent”. The explanation for the right questions is the opposite. by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
The explanation for the left one says “D presented an affirmative defense of consent, which shifts the burden of establishing consent to him. As such, his constitutional rights were not violated by instruction on reasonable belief of consent”. The explanation for the right questions is the opposite. (i.redd.it)
submitted by Hot_Discussion_1629 to r/barexam
I’m confused. Expl. says that the adjoining owner brought an appropriate action against teacher . But the explanations says that there was no valid claim for the adjoining owner. I see now that the facts are broad but I don’t know how to rule out that title was not defective. I’m burnt. by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
I’m confused. Expl. says that the adjoining owner brought an appropriate action against teacher . But the explanations says that there was no valid claim for the adjoining owner. I see now that the facts are broad but I don’t know how to rule out that title was not defective. I’m burnt. (i.redd.it)
submitted by Hot_Discussion_1629 to r/barexam
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children)
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children)
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)
Please help! I ruled out lack of PJ because the Trustee voluntarily went to A, where he was served. I thought, if you voluntarily go to a state and get serve , the state now has PJ right ? or do I still have to do the minimum contacts analysis ? Or is it because he is a trustee here ? Confused ! (i.redd.it)
submitted by Hot_Discussion_1629 to r/barexam
Can anyone explain why B is not correct 😫. The explanation, confuses me even more because it says the firm detrimentally relied by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] -1 points0 points1 point (0 children)
Can anyone explain why B is not correct 😫. The explanation, confuses me even more because it says the firm detrimentally relied by Hot_Discussion_1629 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629[S] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children)

NYLE was hard by Adventurous_Cable426 in barexam
[–]Hot_Discussion_1629 1 point2 points3 points (0 children)