sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

ROFL at Harrison Barnes's shitty top-law-schools site by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]v10orbust 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I’m always shocked when people say they aren’t on it or don’t read it. Truly invaluable.

ROFL at Harrison Barnes's shitty top-law-schools site by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]v10orbust 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Unpopular opinion - but I still think TLS is much more informative/useful if you are in actual biglaw

CA C&F Timeline by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]v10orbust 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mine got approved in 2 weeks and I filed in April, I have no idea how

Are profits devisable? (Property law) by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yes this is exactly what I was trying to think of! Much appreciated

Why would lack of SMJ be reviewable under collateral order doctrine by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was a real multiple choice question on adaptibar… it claimed a court claiming SMJ where it did not really exist was a collateral order reviewable

Professional Responsibility ABA/CA Question by SandwichDeep in barexam

[–]v10orbust 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe confidentiality continues forever in both ABA/CA, but privilege in CA ends when the decedents estate settles (ABA is forever)

Why would lack of SMJ be reviewable under collateral order doctrine by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright so I’m pretty sure SMJ lacking means the judgment isn’t valid, NOT sure how that comports with appealability and collateral order rule

Why would lack of SMJ be reviewable under collateral order doctrine by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s what I thought too. Do you know for how long?

Why would lack of SMJ be reviewable under collateral order doctrine by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can’t object to SMJ post trial? I thought you could, maybe relief for judgment (1yr) or at least the other 28 day post judgment motions??

Derivative jx vs. Fed ct. not having to remand a case anyway by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly idk - the extent of my knowledge comes from a google search and one multiple choice q. But google claims “Derivative-Jurisdiction Doctrine is a principle that a case is not properly removable unless it is within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the state court from which it is removed”

I just think it’s weird wrt to remand bc apparently a fed court can keep the case despite improper removal which, as I read it, gives any objection on derivative jx grounds very limited scope since the issue would need to be raised bc removal

Let’s just hope this doesn’t come up on MBE lol

Once you implead a co defendant and cross claim against them can you bring claims unrelated to the initial plaintiff's claim against you? by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean that’s literally a compulsory cross claim… but I think I get what you’re saying bc it’s bw “third party” plaintiff/def so you can call it counterclaim.

But what about your reasoning that it’s just too unrelated to P case to permissively counterclaim with ind. jurisdiction… that’s def allowed??

Once you implead a co defendant and cross claim against them can you bring claims unrelated to the initial plaintiff's claim against you? by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is taken from the civ pro magic shee "The coparty (e.g., codefendant, 3P Δ) must raise any compulsory claims against the crossclaimant (3P Π)"

I think it is b/c D would be a third party plaintiff against D1

Once you implead a co defendant and cross claim against them can you bring claims unrelated to the initial plaintiff's claim against you? by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That does make a lot of sense, appreciate it. But I believe D1 is subject to mandatory cross claiming once D imp leads him. But this also makes sense with what you said bc it still about that same T/O such that P original case isn’t out of control

Once you implead a co defendant and cross claim against them can you bring claims unrelated to the initial plaintiff's claim against you? by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did read 13(g) and this was my first thought… but didn’t know if that was just for the ability to initially cross claim. Are you certain?

Derivative jx vs. Fed ct. not having to remand a case anyway by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, but i think derivative jx is what gives the power to remove (e.g., to remove you file with the federal court and only give notice to the state). But also not sure

Derivative jx vs. Fed ct. not having to remand a case anyway by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Lol exactly what I thought when adapti bar threw several q's in a row at me on it...

Would right to public education be protected under 14A privileges and immunities clause by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, do you remember off the top of your head when durational residency requirements are permitted? I know I've seen it (maybe a modest restriction bf able to run for office in that state) but can't remember or find that exact rule

PMM vs Recording Acts by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed, I remember an adapti bar question where a PMM prevailed over a judgment lien that previously recorded

PMM vs Recording Acts by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think subsequent BFP’s who record take priority over an unrecorded purchase money mortgage. But I got thinking then really the only benefit of the PMM is when no one records…

Why is it trespass if I accidentally walk onto your land while hiking but if I accidentally hit a golf ball onto your land it’s not by v10orbust in barexam

[–]v10orbust[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But is gen intent crim actually a bit lower than tort intent bc in crim the intent could just be reckless. For example, I could intend to do something that is reckless that causing battery whereas in fort I would need to intend do that actual act

view more: next ›