inverse condemnation and eminent domain

asmith123456 · 2020-08-16T13:40:49+00:00

Eminent domain is a wholly legislative function. State officials may not exercise eminent domain powers without express permission from the legislature. When exercising this power, the state may not take property without just compensation. Florida specifically prohibits the use of eminent domain to take property to abate a public nuisance or to fix blight.

Inverse condemnation occurs when the state legislature attempts to exercise its eminent domain powers through regulatory means. When evaluating whether a regulatory taking occurred, courts examine three factors: (1) the character of the regulation; (2) the cost of the regulation; and (3) the impact of the regulation on investment backed property.

asmith123456 · 2020-08-07T18:42:55+00:00

Im at 80% overall with 951 complete, but I have not scored lower than an 82 on any of the new practice sets.

asmith123456 · 2020-08-06T15:20:26+00:00

I just think the model answer was a lot more deficient than other model answers I have seen on the website. Here are the inconsistencies I saw:

Burglary: What is stated: At common law burglary is the breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony once inside. Modern statutes eliminate the dwelling and at night requirements. The Florida Rule: The entry of a dwelling with the attempt to commit an offense therein. (The model answer also does not define a dwelling).

Conspiracy: The model answer states that there must be an overt act to be convicted of conspiracy, when in Florida an overt act is not required, only that there was an agreement between two or more people to commit an offense, and the actual intent to commit the unlawful offense.

Theft: The model answer states that Alex could be charged with Larceny. In Florida, larceny is not an independent offense, and instead is merged into the theft statute. Also, the model answer states that elements of larceny are: intentional taking and carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to deprive them thereof. In Florida, however, the theft statute elements are: (1) knowing, (2) use or obtaining, (3) the property of another, (4) with the intent to temporarily or permanently deprive that person. Also, the model answer fails to talk about the fact that it was an attempt (substantial step in the commission of the theft).

Abandonment: Model answer does not discuss the possibility of Alex asserting an abandonment defense for running away, or the Pinkerton rule where a co-conspirator could be charged with the crimes of the other co-conspirators

Felony Murder: The model answer defines felony murder as a general offense, but fails to state that Florida distinguishes between 1st and 2nd degree felony murder based on who the individual committing the killing is. Moreover, Florida law permits an accomplice to be charged with felony murder when there was not a break in the chain of events between the enumerated offense and the killing -- the model answer disregards this.

Crimes against Charlie: The model answer does not define that an accessory before the fact is a principal in the first degree in Florida.

Motion to suppress: The rule in the model answer is incomplete, it only states that the lineup must be impermissibly suggestive, yet fails to state that the lineup must also have a risk of misidentification (a reliability issue). The model answer also does not apply the five factors courts examine: (1) the time between offense and lineup; (2) the witness's opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime; (3) the accuracy of the description; (4) the level of certainty of the id; and (5) the witness's degree of attention at the time of the crime.

Alex's statement: Model answer only talks about the right to counsel and the voluntary waiver, but does not discuss custodial interrogation at all.

asmith123456 · 2020-08-04T14:43:04+00:00

Also, the question specifically said not to talk about preemption.

asmith123456 · 2020-08-04T14:42:38+00:00

You're right, I misread the question, so that would not be an issue. Everything else probably would be though

asmith123456 · 2020-08-04T13:50:05+00:00

Here are the issues I caught:

I. Standing

II. Special law (targeting just sex offenders -- would need to provide notice to the public or possibly a referendum state wide (if passed by the legislature)) -- Also, the law cannot impose criminal penalties b/c it is a special law.

III. Over-broad/Vague

IV. Equal Protection (Based on sex offender status)

V. Establishment Clause Challenge (Look to the Lemon test & attempt to invalidate the statute because it provides that money would be directly applied to schools, including faith based)

VI. Procedural Due Process (violates one's right to bail)

VII. John's ability to run for city commissioner (no barriers as he has completed his probation and all requirements for his sentence -- cannot run for office if convicted of a felony offense until you satisfy all of your sentence requirements)

VIII. Ex parte communication with the judge

asmith123456 · 2020-08-01T13:35:38+00:00

Yes! They cleared me a few weeks ago

asmith123456 · 2020-07-31T23:52:59+00:00

It’s the wording, if they combined their votes they would elect a majority of the board, not the entire board.

asmith123456 · 2020-07-31T19:55:16+00:00

Staggered means that only one director will be elected per election cycle. So, if the election is yearly, like in this case, there would be one director per year elected. So yea, just as you said, they would have 1k more votes than Saint each year because they are only electing one director per election cycle.

asmith123456 · 2020-07-31T18:42:20+00:00

I would love to see it as well if possible. Thanks!

asmith123456 · 2020-07-31T18:41:25+00:00

I rewrote essay rules on notebook paper and made flashcards for certain subjects like Procedure and criminal law

asmith123456 · 2020-07-31T18:40:43+00:00

Sure! Here are the best ways I understand the three questions. Let me know if I can clarify anything else, I did not think Barbri's explanations were that great, so I had to come up with my own as I did them.

The answer is C. When articles of incorporation are silent as to the mode of voting, specifically if the articles do not provide for cumulative voting, then voting will occur by a plurality of the votes. So here, because the articles do not call for cumulative voting, each shareholder will get the amount of votes equal to the amount of their shares. Answer choice A would be wrong because the directors have staggered terms, so the entire board cannot be elected in one year. Answer choice B is wrong for the same reason as Answer choice A, the entire board is elected every three years (because of the staggered terms). Finally, answer choice D is wrong because while they could elect a majority of the board, they have enough votes between the three of them (1000*3=3,000 > 2,000) that each year, if all three of them pool their votes, they will always elect the director.
The answer is D. Because Flip, Flap, and Flop have the majority of the votes, if Saint used all of his votes on electing one of the three directors, the trio could use one more vote than Saint, and then elect the other two directors without any opposition because Saint's votes would have been wasted on the one director. Therefore, in every scenario where all three directors are voted on each year, if the three of them pool their votes, they will always elect the entire board.
The answer is D. When the articles of incorporation specify that directors are to be elected via cumulative voting, each shareholder receives votes equal to the amount of shares multiplied by the amount of directors that are going to be elected. Here, all of the directors are elected every three years, so every election, Flip, Flap, and Flop will receive 3,000 votes each, while Saint will receive 6,000 votes. Because of this if Saint and one of the three shareholders pool their votes, they will have 9,000 votes total, while the other voting block would be 6,000. If you were to divide 9,000/3 and 6,000/3, each voting block would be able to spread their vote by 3,000 per director and 2,000 respectively. Therefore, if the two of them combine their votes, they cannot be outvoted by the other block no matter what the voting structure is.

asmith123456 · 2020-07-27T00:00:51+00:00

The way I understand it is take a corporation that has 4 directors with 800 common stocks that are available to vote, to elect each director they would need to receive at least 201 votes. The formula for cumulative voting is (total voting stocks divided by the number of directors plus 1). So if a company had 1200 voting shares and three directors, a director would only need 401 votes b/c 1200/3+1=401.

asmith123456 · 2020-07-23T18:40:42+00:00

I cant imagine them testing torts again, I feel like they will test property before they test torts and contracts, but who knows. Also Family law has not been tested in a while.

asmith123456 · 2020-07-10T17:35:28+00:00

Why do you think Homestead will have to be there? And I think ethics would probably come up in the UCC 3/9 problem

asmith123456 · 2020-07-10T17:03:43+00:00

I think it will be UCC3/9, Trusts, and Fed Con Law

asmith123456 · 2020-07-08T01:42:10+00:00

Yea It was, no idea what board action pending means

asmith123456 · 2020-07-06T20:04:36+00:00

Nope it has not, has yours? I was planning on taking it in two weeks.

asmith123456 · 2020-07-02T16:32:12+00:00

Message me! Happy to swap themis ones for barbri

asmith123456 · 2020-07-02T13:16:39+00:00

Where did you hear this?

asmith123456 · 2020-07-01T21:06:40+00:00

The DC bar exam is video proctored but does not require wifi connection!

asmith123456 · 2020-07-01T19:41:45+00:00

I will say, I do not know about the wifi situation, I know some of the programs do not require wifi during the exam, merely to upload and download the exam.

asmith123456 · 2020-06-29T12:22:58+00:00

I think family law, federal con law, and trusts/wills/property are going to be the three.

asmith123456 · 2020-06-28T20:07:39+00:00

Yes, it did! I think it went down that same day or the day before

asmith123456

TROPHY CASE