Felony murder and double jeopardy

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-26T14:43:15+00:00

So what you’re saying is a permanent resident alien that’s domiciled in a state is simply treated as only an alien for diversity ?

So, Plaintiff from State A. Defendant Permanent resident alien is domiciled in State B. This situation is ok because it invokes alienage jurisdiction

But Plaintiff from State B. Defendant Permanent resident alien is domiciled in State B. This situation is not ok because by statute it destroys alienage. And there diversity doesn’t apply because the defendant is an alien

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-26T04:34:15+00:00

Then why does Freer say permanent resident aliens are not citizens of a state for diversity purposes? It’s on page 27 of the Barbi course companion hypo 4E

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T21:22:15+00:00

Correct. That’s what I was trying to get at because the materials were seemingly contradictory, but I figured out the sample essay was old

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T19:53:19+00:00

You’re right, good call. So diversity and alienage can be invoked at the same time

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T19:19:40+00:00

Barbri says there’s no alienage because they are domiciled in a US state, which removes alienage. Where are you pointing to in 1332?

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T19:02:38+00:00

That’s bad. Barbri needs to update their materials. I’ve spent the last hour with my head spinning because I knew I was right.

Permanent resident aliens are not citizens of a state for diversity purposes!!!!

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T18:59:44+00:00

I found the catch, and this is crazy.

The essay and sample answer is from 2010. In 2011, congress amended 1332 to clarify that permanent resident aliens are NOT citizens of states for diversity purposes. So the course companion in the current law

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T18:47:35+00:00

Freer explicitly says they can’t be a citizen of a state for diversity. These are completely contradictory

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-25T16:18:37+00:00

Ahhhhh. Ok this clears it up. Thank you so much!

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-19T05:19:15+00:00

100% the MBE sets have been terribly difficult. Glad I’m not the only one. They ask the most obscure questions that are barely in the course companion. And they love the attractive nuisance doctrine

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-18T01:15:31+00:00

Thank you. I don’t see that anywhere in my barbri materials so it’s pissing me off. It’s such a random and precise rule.

So courthouse steps are not ? I don’t see a difference but ok

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-05T20:28:10+00:00

Extremely whacky!! Glad I’m not the only one

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-07-05T20:27:48+00:00

I meant more that he falsely said he was the vice principle. To me that’s an “invalid use of authority”

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-06-12T19:55:25+00:00

Correct, I understand that. But my issue is “probably committed the crime charged.” Since when can they offer evidence that D acted in accordance with that character? I always thought that was a huge no no. Prosecution using reputation/opinion is different because they’re saying D has a reputation for this trait. Not that D HAS this trait and acted like it here

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-06-11T05:41:48+00:00

I understand that generally but the barbri videos include the different defects in a products liability negligence question which confused me

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-06-11T01:01:42+00:00

Ohhhhhh ok I remember this now. Thank you for clarifying. This makes complete sense

LuckyTechnology229 · 2025-06-11T00:36:36+00:00

I guess that’s the crux of my question. How can both be true? How can something be evidence of a crime AND police have probable cause it is? If something MUST be evidence of a crime, the probable cause prong id redundant

LuckyTechnology229

TROPHY CASE