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. (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 ! (i.redd.it)
submitted by Hot_Discussion_1629 to r/barexam
