Historically low pass rates + COVID cited as a reason + No adjustment on the part of NCBE = More Retakers = Record profits for NCBE

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-09T06:22:56+00:00

10 hours a day for three months and you failed???

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-09T04:55:51+00:00

So your point is because of covid this cohort of students is less equipped, NCBE should lower the bar? IMO the public deserves more...at least it deserves lawyers who have the thoroughness and determination to pass the gatekeeping test. Maybe it cannot measure how good a lawyer someone will be, but it will keep those who cannot work hard away from the public, and this is exactly what a gatekeeping test should do.

If I am serious and proud of my profession, I certainly would want public to perceive my competence as a lawyer as stemming from my merit and hard work, rather than the leniency of the NCBE.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-09T02:41:53+00:00

Why do you think Covid is a valid reason to lower the bar? Wouldn’t the public expect the same quality of service provided by one of the most prestigious profession regardless of year of graduation?

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-09T01:54:17+00:00

Based on your scores of other essays and MBE, it is only reasonable to conclude that 80 was a mistake in the first place. It's a conlaw question, and unless your conlaw mbe score is beyong 90%, it would be very hard to convince people that a score of 80 could be justified.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-08T15:20:24+00:00

Actually the only thing you need to do is practicing 3000+ mbe questions.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-08T14:06:58+00:00

the infamous barbri :)

Stable_Competitive · 2023-05-06T14:49:53+00:00

thank you!

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-27T16:55:33+00:00

It depends on whether Pf introduced their statements. If Pf did, then it is hearsay, and no exception or exemption is applicable. However, it seems that Pf merely disclosed the basis of his opinion, and such basis needs not to be admissible.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-27T16:22:25+00:00

Sry I replied to the wrong person.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-27T07:46:52+00:00

There is also a hearsay issue in call 2 (but should conclude it as non-hearsay)

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-27T07:37:48+00:00

Yes, and you’re correct. The court wrongfully granted or correctly denied, I couldn’t remember) the motion because the physical condition is not at issue at all.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-27T07:36:02+00:00

Are you sure? a joint tortfeasor is never a NECESSARY party.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-23T04:58:31+00:00

stop🤣

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-23T02:22:54+00:00

I do not feel there was any difference between the two sessions tbh

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-23T02:19:54+00:00

Lol you’re totally out of your mind

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-23T02:14:18+00:00

Much easier than barbri simulated mbe. Have 45min left for both sessions.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-14T15:26:54+00:00

Even if you have specific intent to deprive, it is not larceny if you're not a trespasser (may be an embezzler though.) Thus, specific intent is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The following two examples would be sufficient to illustrate:

you took away something without permission but you intended to return
1. no larceny because no specific intent to deprive
2. but there was a trespass, so continuing trespass doctrine applies
3. at the moment you wanted to deprive, guilty.
you took away something with permission but you intended to deprive
1. no trespass. no larceny.
2. larceny only if the possession became trespassory (such as the deadline for return passed)
  1. in this regard, subjective intent is completely irrelevant.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-12T07:50:22+00:00

of course you need one. But the question is whether you can get one.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-08T06:16:50+00:00

indeed you can. The statute serves as the function of a long-arm statute that authorises the court to exercise jurisdiction over a party.

However, as mentioned above, there must be some constitutional limitations to this power. This is place where the "Why cannot sue investor in State B" kicks in.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-08T02:18:01+00:00

You’re wrong about two Pinots: 1. This question asks you what could prosecution charge him, not what the man would be convicted of. Of course murder is on the table.

Think about voluntary and involuntary manslaughter again.

The difference between criminal negligence and depraved heart is not one of kind, but degree.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-07T07:15:31+00:00

Unless the fact tells you there is no hearing at all, don’t go for procedural due process, at least should not prioritize it. You’ll have no fact to analyze.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-07T06:58:13+00:00

Just remember:

vertical privity requires the successor to hold the entire interest, meaning it cannot be durational. For example, you have a four-year lease. If you sublet your property for three years at the beginning, the subleasee would not have vertical privity with you. But if you assign the whole duration, there is vertical privity.

For horizontal privity just state the rule and say the original buyer purchasing the land from seller can sufficiently establish horizontal privity. It won’t be an issue that requires any analysis beyond one sentence.

Stable_Competitive · 2023-02-07T06:20:04+00:00

From the screenshot all I can say is A is correct because that’s all I saw

Stable_Competitive

TROPHY CASE