Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

Media => Podcasts => Topic started by: HighPockets on March 13, 2018, 08:18:53 PM

Title: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on March 13, 2018, 08:18:53 PM
I don't know if this would be better in Games than here. Would anyone be interested in discussing the bar exam questions, and taking a guess before the answers are revealed?

For People that don't listen, the host presents a question from a bar exam ( I don't know which state, come to think of it) on the Wednesday show, and then the answer is discussed the following Monday.

#TTTBE is "Thomas Takes the Bar Exam" The other host of the show that is not a lawyer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 14, 2018, 08:36:33 AM
I would.  I find that part of the show fascinating.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on March 16, 2018, 11:35:53 AM
I don't know if this will be sustainable, I thought that there would be a way to copy and paste the questions, but I don't find that anywhere and my transcribing skills a lacking. here's a summary and if you want to hear the question in it's entirety it starts at 01:04:23.

https://openargs.com/oa156-conor-lamb-pennsylvania-recounts/

Quote
Summary: A gang leader throws a party and stabs an informant in front of the other members, watching as he bleeds out, they are found guilty of murder and they appeal.
 
Should the appellate court uphold the convictions?

A- No, the mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to make a person an accomplice.

B- No, murder is a specific intent crime, and there is insufficient evidence that the other gang members intended to kill.

C –Yes, b/c the gang members made no effort to save the released gang member after he had been stabbed.

D – Yes, b/c voluntary intoxication does not negate criminal responsibility.

I'm going with B, I think that the act of murder is intent, and that you can't really convict a crowd of people under that one umbrella.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 16, 2018, 01:19:34 PM
Quote
Summary: A gang leader throws a party and stabs an informant in front of the other members, watching as he bleeds out, they are found guilty of murder and they appeal.
 
Should the appellate court uphold the convictions?

A- No, the mere presence at the scene of a crime is insufficient to make a person an accomplice.

B- No, murder is a specific intent crime, and there is insufficient evidence that the other gang members intended to kill.

C –Yes, b/c the gang members made no effort to save the released gang member after he had been stabbed.

D – Yes, b/c voluntary intoxication does not negate criminal responsibility.

Using Thomas's strategy I

Rule out A as I'm pretty sure that can't be true.
Rule out D as that looks like a distraction answer
And I think C would allow for a defense of "well he would've killed me too"... which ought to be valid.  I'm a little concerned that this is an appeals case though so that means the first court didn't think so.

I choose B too.


Sidenote - I guess these are realistic bar exam questions, but they're nothing like what I imagined the bar exam would be like.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 16, 2018, 02:51:41 PM
I think that B has to be wrong.  You can be convicted of murder even if you didn't intend to murder.  As an example, you and your friend plan to rob a bank, in the process your friend shoots a person, killing them.  You had zero intent to murder, but you can and should be convicted of murder.  Put simply, I do not think you need to have the specific intent to kill someone to be charged with murder.

I'm also going to say that D has to be wrong.  While D is correct, I don't think that the fact that they were drunk has anything to do with the question at hand.

This turns on whether or not their inaction can be considered murder.  So either they were legally required to take action, or they were not, thus A and C are the opposite sides of this coin.  We now only need to decide if the defendants were required to take some action.

I'm going to come down on the side of A.  I think in most jurisdictions you aren't required to intervene to save a life, especially if it would put your own life in danger.  (If one of them intervened, they'd most likely be killed too) so I'm going with A.


Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 16, 2018, 03:01:18 PM
There also is such a thing as depraved indifference murder.  Meaning that you can take an action such as firing a gun into the air, with no intent to murder, and still be charged with murder.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 16, 2018, 03:13:21 PM
I will go with A too.  I am hinging this on the clause of "mere presence is insufficient"
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on March 16, 2018, 03:13:47 PM
You're making me rethink my answer. But I still think I'm going to stick with B. Maybe "specific intent crime" is misleading me, but I see it as one person's action killed another person, if A third person was there but didn't take part in that particular action, they might be an accessory to the murder, but they didn't actually commit the crime of murder.

but IANAL, so what do I know.  :-\

we'll find out on Monday, or Tuesday, or something.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 16, 2018, 03:22:44 PM
I think it's B.  I don't think that just being near a person when they commit a crime makes you an accomplice.  Not calling for help probably makes them horrible human beings, but I don't think it rises to the level of murder.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 16, 2018, 03:23:54 PM
I mis-read A as "sufficient" instead of "insufficient" but now I'm even more sure that B is right... because no court would have convicted them just based on their presense, so the fact that this is in appeals means that the first court convicted them thinking they should have known there was going to be a murder, therefore complicit.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 16, 2018, 04:11:17 PM
I mis-read A as "sufficient" instead of "insufficient" but now I'm even more sure that B is right... because no court would have convicted them just based on their presense, so the fact that this is in appeals means that the first court convicted them thinking they should have known there was going to be a murder, therefore complicit.

Felony Murder Law
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 16, 2018, 04:20:33 PM
I mis-read A as "sufficient" instead of "insufficient" but now I'm even more sure that B is right... because no court would have convicted them just based on their presense, so the fact that this is in appeals means that the first court convicted them thinking they should have known there was going to be a murder, therefore complicit.

Well, most likely it was a jury trial, and jury trials are notoriously fickle.

I don't think saying 'no court would...' is a good idea in these.  You need to assume that a court actually did, and now you're appealing to fix it. (Also you're reading into it.  Andrew said on the episode as part of the question that the guy who stabbed the other guy told no one before hand that he was going to do it)



Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 16, 2018, 05:06:39 PM
Can we agree to spoiler our individual answers so we can make them each independent of others' responses first?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 16, 2018, 05:12:32 PM
There is some specific information in the episode's reading that may or may not be relevant to the answer, but after listening, I have to say:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 16, 2018, 07:34:11 PM
But as I said B doesn’t correctly explain what the crime of Murder is.  Therefore it cannot be right. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 16, 2018, 07:58:01 PM
You might be right. It may be the only way to parse the ambiguity of the question (they never state which type of murder) to just rule out murder altogether.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on March 16, 2018, 09:39:57 PM
I’m going with “A”.

I recall from the Police Academy* the scenario of two people walking into a bank together. One robs it and they leave together. The bystander does nothing overt.

To charge the bystander, you must show he or she actually did something in furtherance of the crime - drove the car, served as a lookout, carried some of the cash...something. I do recall language similar to choice A - mere presence at the scene is not a crime in and of itself.


*That Police Academy was 9 months long, and a serious portion was on the law. Did not make me a lawyer (thank God) but it did give me a fair understanding of basic legal concepts.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 17, 2018, 05:32:02 PM
Remember, Belg, that this is testing common law, not statute.

I think it’s A or B, and I lean toward A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: SkeptiQueer on March 18, 2018, 06:05:18 AM
My brain is screaming RICO but I'm not sure the single murder is enough to have charged them under RICO, which would have made them all complicit in the murder.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on March 20, 2018, 06:27:28 PM
Ok, all you smarty pants. The answer is up.

https://openargs.com/oa157-are-originalist-judges-qualified-w-guest-david-michael/

Discussion starts at 01:17:08

TLDL
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 20, 2018, 07:40:44 PM
Ok, all you smarty pants. The answer is up.

https://openargs.com/oa157-are-originalist-judges-qualified-w-guest-david-michael/

Discussion starts at 01:17:08

TLDL
(click to show/hide)

I see the logic now - makes sense.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 20, 2018, 08:22:43 PM
I'd like to say I had eveey confidence that I had the right answer, but I'd be Trumping.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 21, 2018, 09:04:40 AM
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 21, 2018, 09:31:15 AM
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.

I'm a layman myself, but this guy seemed relatively well-researched though clearly not an expert.  I very much enjoyed the debate, enough so that I'm going to check out his new podcast, The Quorum, which seems to be basically a debate podcast where the debaters basically flip a coin before each topic to determine which side they will be on.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 21, 2018, 09:32:03 AM
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.

This one was actually much better.  Not sure if it will pass everyone's listenable threshold, but it did mine.  Maybe because the other guy wanted to listen to Andrew.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Sawyer on March 21, 2018, 11:08:23 AM
Anyone want to tell me where the ‘debate’ with David Micgaels begins and ends?  I have no desire to hear Andrew debate another layman; the last one was painful.

This one was actually much better.  Not sure if it will pass everyone's listenable threshold, but it did mine.  Maybe because the other guy wanted to listen to Andrew.

I found the premise kind of silly though.  Towards the end of the episode he reverts back to criticizing Originalism rather than defending it which undercuts the idea that he's honestly defending it.  I know that this is what people do in debate clubs, but I don't think it worked here.  It's an impossible situation though, sort of like trying to have debates with Christian fundamentalists.  The only people you could find to have a real debate about Originalism are true believers, which by Andrew's standard automatically disqualifies them from talking sensibly about how to interpret the law.

Do we have any threads on this forum about Originalism?  It's one of the fronts where I'm pretty sure the rationalist (or even the traditionalist conservative) worldview is currently losing big time and will continue to do so for decades.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 21, 2018, 01:37:10 PM
I think the fact that they hadn't really discussed this between them before made the fact one side was playing devil's advocate a bit better.  Beyond that, the fact that he avoided the truly crackpot defenses of it helped as well.  As someone who doesn't know much about legal history in this country, especially in terms of Originalism, I found the discussion very illuminating and found myself actually being able to see some of David's points and then see them fall apart with Andrew's response.  Unless someone is willing to say that there are better arguments for Originalism that people like us might be able to identify with, then I think David played his part just fine and it didn't feel like a contrived play in the vein of "Darwinist" professors being bested by the astounding logic of the brave Christian Student ending in the whole class erupting in applause.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 22, 2018, 02:36:18 PM
Agreed with all the above.  The ‘debate’ this time around was quite a bit more honest in terms of listening to the other side and acknowledging when they made a good point. 

David did better than me in the discussion by keeping Andrew from talking a LOT (most of you probably didn’t hear my discussion with him as mine was over Serial and a patron only episode)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 23, 2018, 06:59:34 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
In January, a teacher contracted with a summer camp to serve as its head counselor at a salary of $10,000 for 10 weeks from the first of June to middle of August.  In March, the camp notified the teacher that they had hired someone else as head counselor and that the teacher's services would be not be needed.  In April, the teacher spent 200 travelling to interview at the only other nearby summer camp for a position as its head counselor.  The teacher was not chosen for the job.  The teacher then took a position teaching at a local summer school at salary of $6,000 for the same 10 week period.  Now; how much is the teacher entitled to recover as damages in a breach of contract action against the camp?

A.  $4,000

B.  $4,200

C.  $10,000

D.  $10,200

FYI, I transcribed this directly so it has all the information and wording that Andrew gave on the show.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 23, 2018, 07:39:39 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on March 23, 2018, 08:39:08 AM
Thanks A lot, EL. The show still hadn't shown up in my RSS feed by last night. Nice transcription too!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 23, 2018, 08:56:29 AM
This question is going to hinge on whether or not the employee is obligated to mitigate damages or not.  Since we are not told about any specific agreement with respect to damages in the question, we need to just assume that there are none.

Therefore,

(click to show/hide)

I just hope there aren't any special weird rules around teachers or summer jobs.



Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 23, 2018, 09:09:20 AM
Why would the injured party have any obligation to mitigate the damages?  I mean, I could see an obligation to report any mitigation to the damages, but I don't get why they should have to work to make it easier for the camp to uphold their agreement. Also, what defines the timeframe for any mitigating to occur before the teacher attempts to collect what they're owed?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 23, 2018, 10:07:43 AM
purchasing a widget.  If I recall correctly, in that case the injured seller, who subsequently sold the item for a lower price, was entitled to the difference in selling price plus the reasonable cost of selling it (restocking, etc.).  The premise was that the law seeks to make the injured party whole, not to leave them better off than if they had not been injured.  Without knowledge of any specific language in the contract regarding penalties, I’m going to go with B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 23, 2018, 11:32:14 AM
I think the answer ic C.  There was a previous question like this, and my fuzzy memory says the claim is restricted to the terms in the contract, with certain caveats.  And I don't think the two extraneous items were amongst those caveats.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on March 23, 2018, 12:32:11 PM
Why would the injured party have any obligation to mitigate the damages?  I mean, I could see an obligation to report any mitigation to the damages, but I don't get why they should have to work to make it easier for the camp to uphold their agreement. Also, what defines the timeframe for any mitigating to occur before the teacher attempts to collect what they're owed?

I think under the law (unless there's a specific exception) you are required to mitigate damages always.

I'm getting a very horrible faint memory about something special with employment law that would result in you receiving full pay, but I'm not sure that applies here because being a contract employee is a different thing.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 23, 2018, 12:51:40 PM
I'm going to go ahead and say...

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 23, 2018, 12:54:30 PM

I think under the law (unless there's a specific exception) you are required to mitigate damages always.

Yeah.

(click to show/hide)
  Loss of wages plus travel expenses... that's the damage caused by the breach.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on March 23, 2018, 07:10:42 PM
Not my area, but I think it might be “C”.

The employer welched on the contract, and so I think they would owe the full amount, but nothing beyond that.

But I’m far from sure.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Sawyer on March 29, 2018, 10:17:12 AM
Not worth a "Andrew was Wrong" segment, but I noticed in the last episode he identified the wrong book in Caro's Lyndon Johnson series.  The 2nd book in the series, Means of Ascent is the one that covers the Senate race with Coke Stevenson.

Clearly an elaborate ploy to get me to join the Facebook group.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 29, 2018, 10:36:20 AM
Well, the answer was B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 29, 2018, 12:42:00 PM
Well, the answer was B.

Yes - all the make whole folks were right.  It explains a great deal.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 30, 2018, 06:02:48 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A driver returning home from a long work shift at a factory fell asleep at the wheel and lost control of his car.  As a result, his car collided with a police car being driven by an officer who was returning to the station after responding to an emergency.  The officer was injured in the accident and later sued the driver in negligence for her injuries.  The driver has moved for summary judgement, arguing that the common law firefighter's rule bars the suit.  Should the court grant the motion?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on March 30, 2018, 06:16:35 AM
I know absolutely nothing about the common law firefighter's rule, so I'm going to divide my answer into a section before I look it up and a section after look into it just enough to get the jist.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 30, 2018, 10:11:52 AM
A) No, because the firefighter’s rule does not apply to police officers.
B) No, because the police officer’s injuries were not related to any special dangers of her job.
C) Yes, because the accident would not have happened but for the emergency.
D) Yes, because the police officer was injured on the job.

I’m going to go with B, on the assumption that the firefighter’s rule is about assumption of risk.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Sawyer on March 30, 2018, 02:14:27 PM
Another off-topic question - anyone want to come forward as "SGU trickle-down" patron mentioned on the previous episode?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 30, 2018, 02:42:00 PM
Another off-topic question - anyone want to come forward as "SGU trickle-down" patron mentioned on the previous episode?

Whoever it is also trickled down to at least one other podcast I listen to.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Harry Black on March 30, 2018, 02:47:48 PM
A point that seems important- The officer was coming FROM an emergency. Not going to it.

The negligence seems entirely the fault of the driver who should be liable, however if injured at work and not at fault, shouldnt the cop already have been compensated?

Interesting question but Im less familiar with US law than my ow  countrys.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 30, 2018, 03:05:35 PM
A point that seems important- The officer was coming FROM an emergency. Not going to it.

The negligence seems entirely the fault of the driver who should be liable, however if injured at work and not at fault, shouldnt the cop already have been compensated?

Interesting question but Im less familiar with US law than my ow  countrys.

Clarification: this question is not based on U.S. law, but on Common Law.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 30, 2018, 06:28:36 PM
I am guessing D.  Mainly because of my knowledge of Workman's Comp.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on March 31, 2018, 03:42:49 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 01, 2018, 05:16:00 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on April 03, 2018, 11:33:47 AM
And the firefighter common law answer is:

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 04, 2018, 09:38:23 AM
Yay!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 06, 2018, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A lumber supplier agreed to sell to a furniture manufacturer all the lumber that the manufacturer required over a 2 year period.  The sales contract provided that the payment was due 60 days after delivery but that a 3% discount would be allowed if the manufacturer paid within 10 days of delivery.  Now, during the first year of the contract, the manufacturer regularly paid within the 10 day period and received the 3% discount.  15 days after the supplier had made its most recent lumber delivery to the manufacturer, the supplier had received no payment from the manufacturer.  At the time, the supplier became aware of rumors from a credible source that the manufacturer's financial condition was precarious.  The supplier called the manufacturer demanding assurances regarding the manufacturer's financial status.  the manufacturer immediately mailed to the supplier its latest audited financial statements as well as a satisfactory credit report prepared by the manufacturer's banker.  The rumors proved to be false, nevertheless, the supplier refused to resume deliveries. The manufacturer sued the supplier for breach of contract.  Will the manufacturer likely prevail?

A.  No, because the contract was unenforceable since the manufacturer had not committed to purchase a definite quantity of lumber.

B.  No, because the supplier had reasonable grounds for insecurity and was therefore entitled to cancel the contract and refuse to make future deliveries.

C.  Yes, because the credit report and audited financial statements provided accurate assurance of due performance under the contract.

D.  Yes, because the supplier was not entitled to condition resumption of deliveries on the receipt of financial status information

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 06, 2018, 06:22:48 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 06, 2018, 06:25:40 AM
I am guessing D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 06, 2018, 12:06:41 PM
Well my experience in the purchase of lumber leads me to say:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on April 06, 2018, 01:12:39 PM
This one actually seems pretty easy.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 10, 2018, 03:01:43 PM
Well, I officially suck at TTTBE.   :D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 10, 2018, 03:30:27 PM
Dammit.  I should know this.  I had to study the UCC and contract law for my MBA.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 11, 2018, 01:55:45 AM
Woah!  Way to go me!  I thought for sure I'd be wrong somehow.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 13, 2018, 01:52:09 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A toy manufacturer that has its headquarters and sole manufacturing plant in a particular state has developed a Martian toy that simulates the exploration of mars by a remote controlled vehicle.  It accurately depicts the Martian landscape and the unmanned exploratory vehicle traversing it.  The toy is of high quality, safe and durable, and has sold very well.  Other toy manufacturers, all located outside of the state, have developed similar toys that are lower in price.  These manufacturers have contracts to sell their Martian toys to outlets in the state.  Although these toys are safe and durable, they depict the Martian landscape less realistically than the toys manufactured in the state.  Nevertheless because the price difference sales of the cheap toys out of state knockoffs have severely cut into the sales of the Martian toys manufactured in the state.  So the state legislature has recently enacted a law to "protect the children of the state from faulty science and to protect in-state toy manufacturers from unfair competition."  The law forbids the sale in the state of any toy that purports to represent extraterrestrial objects and does not satisfy specified scientific criteria.  The Martian toy manufacturer in the state satisfies all of the criteria, none Martian toys of the competing manufacturers meet the requirement.  Is that state law constitutional?

A. No.  Because it abrogates the obligations of the contracts between the other toy manufacturers and the in-state outlets that have agreed to sell their Martian toys.

B. No.  Because it imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.

C. Yes.  Because it deals with only a local matter; the sale of toys located within the state.

D. Yes.  Because the state's interest in protecting the state's children from faulty science justifies this burden on interstate commerce.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 13, 2018, 02:10:00 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 13, 2018, 08:03:39 AM
The answer is no, but I am not sure which one.  I think B, but I am unsure about the wording of "undue burden"
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 13, 2018, 01:41:00 PM
I am going to say:

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on April 13, 2018, 02:44:56 PM


(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on April 14, 2018, 10:34:00 PM
(click to show/hide)

By analogy, could a state ban the sale of a book on Creationism? I think not, and maybe the same logic applies.

Or not.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 20, 2018, 05:17:17 AM
Sorry, didn't realize that it'd gone up a day early.

Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A landowner executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed purporting to convey his land to a friend.  The landowner handed the instrument to the friend saying, "This is yours but please do not record it until after I'm dead, otherwise it will cause me no end of trouble with my relatives."  2 days later, the landowner asked the friend to return the deed to him because he'd decided he should devise the land to the friend by will, rather than by deed.  The friend said that he would destroy the deed and so a day or so later, falsely told the landowner that the deed had been destroyed.  6 months ago, the landowner who'd never executed a will, died intestate, survived by a daughter as his sole heir.  The day after the landowner's death, the friend recorded the deed from him.  As soon as the daughter discovered this recording and the friend's claim to the land, she brought an appropriate action against the friend to quiet title to the land.  For whom should the court hold?

A.  The daughter.  Because the death of the landowner deprived the subsequent recording of any effect.

B.  The daughter.  Because the friend was dishonest in claiming he'd destroyed the deed.

C.  The friend.  Because the deed was delivered to him.

D.  The friend.  Because the deed was recorded by him.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 20, 2018, 05:28:54 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 20, 2018, 11:20:34 AM
Assuming the facts are not in dispute:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 20, 2018, 12:39:10 PM
I think the answer is

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Sawyer on April 20, 2018, 06:00:47 PM
Assuming the facts are not in dispute:
(click to show/hide)

I haven't been playing this long so maybe I don't understand what assumptions are made, but why didn't Thomas ask where this version of the story came from in the first place?  Is it just assumed in a BAR question that all parties involved agree to the version of events unless otherwise specified?  I can't imagine the person who pretended to destroy the deed is going to admit to a phony promise afterwards when the only witness is dead.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 20, 2018, 06:30:08 PM
Yes the bar exam assumes all the facts as Givens. The reason for this is because it is up to the judge and or the jury to decide on matters of fact. And since the bar exam is a test for lawyers that is a test of Law and their knowledge of it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 20, 2018, 06:56:57 PM
I think the answer is

(click to show/hide)


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 27, 2018, 02:16:40 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A landlord leased an apartment to a tenant by written lease for two years ending on the last day of a recent month.  The lease provided for $700 in monthly rent.  The tenant occupied the apartment and paid the rent for the first 15 months of the lease term until he moved to another city to take a new job.  Without consulting the landlord, the tenant moved a friend into the apartment and signed an informal writing, transfering to the friend his "lease rights" for the remaining 9 months of the lease.  The friend made the next 4 $700 rent payments to the landlord, but for the final 5 months of the lease term no rent was paid by anyone and the friend moved out with 3 months left on the term.  The landlord was on an extended trip abroad and did not learn of the default and the vacancy until the end of the lease term.  The landlord has sued the tenant and the friend, jointly and severally, for the last $3,500 for the last 5 months' rent.  What is the likely outcome of this lawsuit?

A.  Both the tenant and the friend are liable for the full $3,500 because the tenant is liable on privity of contract and the friend is liable on privity of estate as an assignee.

B.  The friend is liable for $1,400 on privity of estate, which lasted only until he vacated.  And the tenant is liable for $2,100 on privity of contract and estate for the period after the friend vacated.

C.  The friend is liable for $3,500 on privity of estate and the tenant is not liable because the landlord's failure to object to the friend's payment of rent, relieved the tenant of liability.

D.  The tenant is liable for $3,500 on privity of contract and the friend is not liable because a sub-lessee does not have personal liability to the original landlord.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on April 27, 2018, 02:26:04 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 27, 2018, 11:11:47 AM
I think I have to go with:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 28, 2018, 03:10:26 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 01, 2018, 05:10:58 AM
Woof.  Got that one completely wrong.  I had a feeling something was off when Andrew kept saying this one was really hard and I felt like it was really easy.

(click to show/hide)

The legal terms that I was completely unfamiliar with really sunk me on this one.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 04, 2018, 06:58:15 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
In a civil trial arising from a car accident at an intersection, the plaintiff testified on direct examination that he came to a full stop at the intersection.  On cross-examination, the defendant's lawyer asked whether the plaintiff claimed to have been exercising due care at the time (which is the standard for negligence), and the plaintiff replied that he had been driving carefully.  At a side bar conference, the defendant's lawyer sought permission to ask the plaintiff about 2 accidents in the previous 12 months in which he had received traffic citations for failing to stop at stop signs.  The plaintiff's lawyer has objected.  So, should the court allow defense counsel to ask the plaintiff about his 2 prior accidents? 

A.  No.  Because improperly failing to stop on the other occasions does not bear on plaintiff's veracity and does not contradict his testimony in this case.

B.  No.  Because there is no indication that failing to stop on the other occasions led to convictions.

C.  Yes.  Because improperly failing to stop on other occasions bears on plaintiff's credibility since he claims to have stopped in this case.

D.  Yes.  Because improperly failing to stop on the recent occasions, tends to contradict the plaintiff's claims that he was driving carefully at the time that he collided with the defendant. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on May 06, 2018, 12:10:50 PM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
In a civil trial arising from a car accident at an intersection, the plaintiff testified on direct examination that he came to a full stop at the intersection.  On cross-examination, the defendant's lawyer asked whether the plaintiff claimed to have been exercising due care at the time (which is the standard for negligence), and the plaintiff replied that he had been driving carefully.  At a side bar conference, the defendant's lawyer sought permission to ask the plaintiff about 2 accidents in the previous 12 months in which he had received traffic citations for failing to stop at stop signs.  The plaintiff's lawyer has objected.  So, should the court allow defense counsel to ask the plaintiff about his 2 prior accidents? 

A.  No.  Because improperly failing to stop on the other occasions does not bear on plaintiff's veracity and does not contradict his testimony in this case.

B.  No.  Because there is no indication that failing to stop on the other occasions led to convictions.

C.  Yes.  Because improperly failing to stop on other occasions bears on plaintiff's credibility since he claims to have stopped in this case.

D.  Yes.  Because improperly failing to stop on the recent occasions, tends to contradict the plaintiff's claims that he was driving carefully at the time that he collided with the defendant. 

I just listened to the episode with the answer.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 06, 2018, 12:13:08 PM
Don't think the episode with the answer is out yet. Should be out Tuesday I think.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on May 06, 2018, 12:19:38 PM
Don't think the episode with the answer is out yet. Should be out Tuesday I think.

Well, I just listened to it.

Maybe I got it early as a Patron subscriber.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 06, 2018, 12:28:15 PM
Don't think the episode with the answer is out yet. Should be out Tuesday I think.

Well, I just listened to it.

Maybe I got it early as a Patron subscriber.

Interesting. The more you know. I thought they didn't even record until Monday.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on May 06, 2018, 12:29:01 PM

Interesting. The more you know. I thought they didn't even record until Monday.

Or...I have a time machine!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 06, 2018, 12:30:49 PM

Interesting. The more you know. I thought they didn't even record until Monday.

Or...I have a time machine!

*limited use time machine!

But seriously though, I just patreon and it's on 171 while my podcatcher is stil at 170.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 06, 2018, 05:03:18 PM
I guess A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 06, 2018, 05:28:26 PM
I guess A

Same here. B and D seem to both be referencing his prior wrongdoings which seems wrong considering 2 does not equal a pattern. For C, I don't see why his credibility would be impacted if he never lied about the other accidents.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on May 08, 2018, 05:29:41 AM
I haven't listened yet, but i'm going to GWT and say C.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 08, 2018, 11:17:26 AM
Hmm.  Well, this is a poser.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on May 15, 2018, 07:06:29 AM
Got the honorable mention for my answer this week
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 19, 2018, 02:49:13 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A defendant was charged with burglary.  At trial, a police officer testified that after the defendant had been arrested and had agreed to answer questions the officer had interrogated him with a stenographer present, but that the officer could not recall what the defendant had said.  The prosecutor presented the officer with a photocopy of the stenographic transcript of the interrogation.  After looking at it the officer began to testify that he recalled that the defendant had admitted to being in the area of the burglary.  The defendant had objected to the officer's testimony on the grounds that it violates the Original Document Rule, also known as the Best Evidence Rule.  Should the officer's testimony concerning the defendant's recorded confession be admitted?

A.  No.  Because a photocopy cannot be used without showing that the original is unavailable.

B.  No.  Because the stenographer has not testified to the accuracy of the transcript.

C.  Yes.  Because a photocopy is a duplicate of the original.

D.  Yes.  Because the prosecutor is not attempting to prove the contents of the document.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 19, 2018, 03:10:58 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on May 19, 2018, 04:41:08 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 19, 2018, 08:45:52 AM
I would go with D.  I agree that you need to go with the best source, but what is tripping me up is how that is determined according to the rules of evidence.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 21, 2018, 06:55:35 PM
I guess I will agree that
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Fast Eddie B on May 21, 2018, 09:19:41 PM
Officers often have to testify on traffic tickets they may not specifically recall. It is permissible for the officer to refresh his memory from notes he wrote on the ticket, which conscientious officers are trained to do.

Since they write hundreds of tickets, it’s not reasonable to expect them to remember the details of each one without notes.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 21, 2018, 10:53:45 PM
I don't think the question comes down to whether police can refresh their memories with written documents while testifying. I think it comes down to whether or not the best evidence rule applies to what they are using. Do their notes have to be properly entered into evidence in order to read them while on the stand? If so, then the rule may apply and a copy may not be appropriate.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 25, 2018, 05:24:22 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A state legislature passed a statute providing that juries in criminal trials were to consist of six jurors rather than twelve and that jury verdicts did not have to be unanimous but could be based on five votes out of six jurors.  A defendant was tried for murder.  Over his objection he was tried by a jury composed of six jurors.  The jurors found him guilty by a vote of five to one and over the defendant's objection, the court entered a judgement of conviction which was affirmed on appeal by the state's highest court.  The defendant seeks to overturn his conviction in a Habeas Corpus proceeding in federal court, claiming that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by allowing both a non-unanimous jury verdict and a jury composed of fewer than twelve members.  How is the federal court likely to rule in this action?

A.  It will set aside the conviction because the jury was composed of fewer than twelve members.

B.  It will set aside the conviction because the six person jury verdict was not unanimous.

C.  It will set aside the conviction both because the jury was comprised of fewer than twelve members and because the six person jury verdict was not unanimous.

D.  It will uphold the conviction.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 25, 2018, 05:29:19 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 25, 2018, 05:34:16 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 25, 2018, 08:11:29 AM
Constitutional law eh?  I think the answer is B.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 29, 2018, 10:16:13 AM
The answer was B, but not for the reasons I thought.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 29, 2018, 01:14:58 PM
I would have said C.  Interesting.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 01, 2018, 05:44:38 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
In a civil trial for professional malpractice, the plaintiff sought to show that the defendant, an engineer, had designed the plaintiff's flower mill with inadequate power.  The plaintiff called an expert witness who based his testimony solely on his own professional experience but also asserted when asked, that the book Smith on Milling Systems, was a reliable treatise in the field and consistent with his views.  On cross examination, the defendant asked the witness whether he and Smith were ever wrong.  The witness answered, "Well, nobody's perfect."  The defendant asked (*sic?*, "No further questions."  The defendant later called his own expert witness and asked, "Do you accept the Smith book as reliable?"  The witness said, "It once was, but it is now badly out of date."  The plaintiff requested that the jury be allowed to examine the book and judge for itself, the book's reliability.  Should the court allow the jury to examine the book?

A.  No.  Because the jury may consider only passages read to it by counsel or by a witness.

B.  No.  Because the plaintiff's expert did not rely on the treatise in his testimony but on his own experience.

C.  Yes.  Because an expert has testified that the treatise is reliable.

D.  Yes.  Because the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility to be accorded both written and oral evidence.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 01, 2018, 06:11:43 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 05, 2018, 03:51:24 PM
Sweet! Not only did I get it right, I got the shout out :).

By the way, is anyone still interested in playing along? I don't mind transcribing each week, but if no one want to play, I probably won't bother. No biggie either way, just let me know.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 05, 2018, 05:33:56 PM
Well I don't always listen in time to put in an answer, but I enjoy about reading it.   
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on June 05, 2018, 06:09:51 PM
Yeah, keep doing it. Congratulations, that was a good answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: HighPockets on June 06, 2018, 12:53:24 PM
I really appreciate you picking it up. I threw this out there and then promptly abandoned it after I got way behind on listening. I'm still a week behind on everything, I really need to cull my podcast list.

I think they are actually printing out the questions now. I don't remember if it is on facebook or where, I don't follow on the facebook, and I've been avoiding twitter cus, well, it's twitter, and @dogRates can only buoy me so far.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 06, 2018, 06:38:01 PM
OK.  Cool.  Thanks for letting me know.  I'll keep at it.  Honestly helps me organize my thoughts anyway.  As for where they are publishing the questions, they said that it's now a benefit of being a Patron at any level.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on June 06, 2018, 07:10:59 PM
I am a Patron, but I don't feel quite right about posting the text elsewhere on the internet.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 06, 2018, 07:35:13 PM
I am a Patron, but I don't feel quite right about posting the text elsewhere on the internet.

Honestly, since they started doing it, I felt bad about transcribing here, but I figure I was doing it well before so it's grandfathered in.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 09, 2018, 06:12:35 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A grantor executed an instrument in the proper form of a warranty deed, purporting to convey a tract of land to his church.  The granting clause of the instrument, granted the church "and its successors forever, so long as the premises are used for church purposes."  The church took possession of the land and used it as a site of worship for many years.  Subsequently, the church decided to relocate and entered into a valid, written contract to sell the land to a buyer for a substantial price.  The buyer wanted to use the land as a site for business activities and objected to the church's title; the contract contained no provision related to the quality of the title the church was bound to convey.  There is no applicable statute.  When the buyer refused to close, the church sued the buyer for specific performance and properly joined the grantor as a party. Is the church likely to prevail?

A.  No.  Because the grantor's interest prevents the church's title from being marketable.

B.  No.  Because the quoted provision is a valid restrictive covenant.

C.  Yes.  Because a charitable trust to support religion is attached to the sale.

D.  Yes.  Because the grantor cannot derogate from his warranty to ___

FYI, it seems like the audio cuts out at the end of the D so I don't know how it ends.  If anyone else's recording doesn't cut out or they have access to the written question on Patreon, let me know and I'll change it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 09, 2018, 07:12:40 AM
I just started listening to this podcast and I really like it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 09, 2018, 08:52:12 AM
I guess A, but who knows.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 16, 2018, 05:38:24 AM
Quote from: New TTTBE Question
A car owner washed her car while it was parked on a public street in violation of a local ordinance that prohibits the washing of vehicles on public streets during specified hours.  The statute was enacted only to expedite the flow of automobile traffic.  Due to sudden and unexpected cold weather, the car owner's waste water formed a puddle that froze in a crosswalk.  A pedestrian slipped on the frozen puddle and broke her leg.  The pedestrian sued the car owner to recover for her injury.  At trial, the only evidence the pedestrian offered as to negligence was the car owner's admission that she had violated the ordinance.  At the conclusion of the evidence, both parties moved for a directed verdict.  How should the trial judge proceed?

A.  Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because on the facts the jury may infer that the car owner was negligent.

B.  Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury, because the jury may consider the ordinance violation as evidence that the car owner was negligent

C.  Grant the car owner's motion, because the pedestrian has failed to offer adequate evidence that the car owner was negligent.

D.  Grant the pedestrian's motion, because of the car owner's admitted ordinance violation.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 16, 2018, 06:03:41 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 16, 2018, 12:01:53 PM
I think it is up to the jury to decide if it amounts to negligence.  It a pretty tenuous chain, and by no means should a judenrulebthat as fact.  I think.  So that leaves B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 16, 2018, 12:13:01 PM
Had to look up directed verdict. I would go with A because it is up to the jury to decide if the car washing was a direct result of the injury.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 18, 2018, 05:41:15 PM
(click to show/hide)
 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 19, 2018, 04:47:21 PM
(click to show/hide)


And we are both wrong..
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 24, 2018, 10:45:46 AM
I’m a bit behind, but I’m going with C. The ordinance violation can’t establish negligence, and with no other case made there’s nothing for the jury to consider.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on June 24, 2018, 11:32:40 AM
I went with A because I think this is a bill of attainder and thus is unconstitutional. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 24, 2018, 12:05:58 PM
On Friday's question, I will go with A because the legislators wrote a law specifically identifying who it will criminalize, and iirc this is unconstitutional as it violates due process.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 25, 2018, 12:06:20 PM
Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of you guys.  A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Sawyer on July 01, 2018, 12:17:39 PM
I know I keep sidetracking this thread from its primary purpose, but this weekend I made the mistake of telling my parents we should listen to Opening Arguments while driving up to a family picnic together.  "Even if the show is dry, at least they do a fun bar exam question at the end".

Thanks a lot, Anthony Kennedy.  You can add a super awkward car ride to your list of accomplishments.   :P
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 01, 2018, 03:02:06 PM
I think I am going with Thomas on this one.  Seems right to me.  That was A wasn't it?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Desert Fox on July 03, 2018, 06:23:55 AM
If I was to start listening, how many episodes are there and where would one be best to start?
Sounds like starting from the beginning could be insane?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 03, 2018, 07:11:08 AM
If I was to start listening, how many episodes are there and where would one be best to start?
Sounds like starting from the beginning could be insane?

I would look back about a week or so. Most of the topics are current events. You might want to cherry pick some older ones on topic that you are interested in.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: SkeptiQueer on July 03, 2018, 07:39:16 AM
If I was to start listening, how many episodes are there and where would one be best to start?
Sounds like starting from the beginning could be insane?
I would run down the list and look for topics that interest you. Usually there's a main topic (the history of abortion laws, the 2md amendment, can Trump do ____), some shorter Q&A, and TTTBE. I started with Roe v Wade and the 2A, and largely just listen to something interesting or when I have to sit and stare for a long period of time.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 03, 2018, 12:05:52 PM
What I do is try to go back and listen to the episodes that they reference during the current show.  They all are pretty good, though.  Make sure you listen to the one about the Korean war from a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 03, 2018, 12:14:11 PM
I think I am going with Thomas on this one.  Seems right to me.  That was A wasn't it?

Turns out it was B, but Thomas did get it right.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 06, 2018, 01:11:55 PM
On vacation and catching up: for last week (heroin search) I’m going to say B. Everything outside of the woman being a resident and inviting them in is irrelevant distraction.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on July 07, 2018, 09:46:09 AM
https://twitter.com/JeffreySkarski/status/1015550098502107137?s=09
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 07, 2018, 11:10:56 AM
This week I go with "D", she committed assault by the mere fact she waved a revolver.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 07, 2018, 11:36:15 AM
It all comes down to like they said what the legal definition of assault is. I'm going with D too
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 07, 2018, 09:10:48 PM
Yeah, assault is the act of threatening physical harm; I don’t think the victim’s state of kind is at all relevant.  This is one of those where the simple answer is right.  D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on July 07, 2018, 10:58:31 PM
We'll see, but I don't think the law treats objects that way. We have to treat the facts as described in the question as if they were found to be true at trial. Imagine the inverse situation, in which someone argues they should not be convicted of assault because they threatened someone with something that's not traditionally considered a weapon.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 09, 2018, 11:59:30 AM
I think it's probably D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 09, 2018, 05:07:56 PM
Thinking some more, I would guess it depends on whether an assault must actually create fear of physical harm, or whether the intent to create that fear is adequate.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Friendly Angel on July 09, 2018, 05:22:11 PM
Thinking some more, I would guess it depends on whether an assault must actually create fear of physical harm, or whether the intent to create that fear is adequate.

I think I remember reading that the assaulted person must have a legitimate fear.  That's why the bit about knowing the gun was unloaded kind of buggers up the reasoning. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on July 09, 2018, 09:15:19 PM
The scenario as described could be someone joking around. Someone who's at least somewhat of an asshole, but if we took those facts in evidence as assault, we'd have to take a lot of jokers, too.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: SkeptiQueer on July 09, 2018, 11:41:55 PM
The scenario as described could be someone joking around. Someone who's at least somewhat of an asshole, but if we took those facts in evidence as assault, we'd have to take a lot of jokers, too.
"I was just joking" is not a defense against the crime of assault.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Redamare on July 10, 2018, 04:48:06 AM
That's not quite what I'm saying.

The facts as presented fit a scenario in which it is clear to everyone that it was a joke from the outset, and the guest decides to press charges for some unrelated malicious reason. The law just isn't meant to be used that way, and it looks like the correct answer bears that out.

If the guest doesn't know the information that's stipulated in this bar question, then it's true that "I was joking" is no defense.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 10, 2018, 12:37:09 PM
I guess the trick to these questions is that you don't assume anything that is not mentioned in the question itself.  I think it's reasonable and prudent to assume that if someone points a gun at you, it's loaded.  I mean you can buy a box of bullets at any freakin' Wal Mart - you don't have to use the bullets that have been put away.  How many people are killed by "empty" guns?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 14, 2018, 09:55:34 AM
This week's answer is A I think.  Grand juries don't attach jeopardy.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 15, 2018, 07:04:04 AM
Could someone post the question? I can't find my email.
If I remember right I think it is B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 16, 2018, 12:05:51 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/21399595/24cb8ef99f1c49c99cf4ec8c63035f15/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=yP6oKyjdfgGVikjw95D7ZErjZ-NV5H1LkF68LMpsXng%3D)

I hope this works. I'm going with B because it was never brought to trial so no jeopardy.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 17, 2018, 11:18:58 AM
I'm going with A.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 17, 2018, 01:19:32 PM
A.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 24, 2018, 02:37:23 PM
I went with B in Question 36

Answer below:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 24, 2018, 02:39:38 PM
I will try to post the questions and answers when the come up. I am looking for the Question 36 without the answer so I can post it. Right now all I have is the Answer to the question in the above post.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 24, 2018, 02:41:41 PM
Here is the answer to question 35. I picked B in this one

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 24, 2018, 02:43:43 PM
Here is question #36 without the answers. Sorry for getting this out of order.

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/21539179/12e861cbfa3544738c0037c12ef6cd93/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=lgnGjNL4Awd8VBtvfH2iTLJAiUrlBycehbM8mnscUzU%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 24, 2018, 06:28:23 PM
I said A on #36.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 24, 2018, 11:36:18 PM
A for 36
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 25, 2018, 09:08:14 AM
No, definitely B.  The executive branch only has rule-making authority insofar as that authority is delegated to it by Congress (as it was here).
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 25, 2018, 12:33:35 PM
No, definitely B.  The executive branch only has rule-making authority insofar as that authority is delegated to it by Congress (as it was here).

Ya that's the way I read it too
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 25, 2018, 12:56:51 PM
Yeah, thinking about it, you guys are probably right.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 25, 2018, 05:36:02 PM
Yeah, thinking about it, you guys are probably right.  Oh well.

The answer is one of the above posts under spoiler
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 25, 2018, 07:47:16 PM
Yeah, thinking about it, you guys are probably right.  Oh well.

The answer is one of the above posts under spoiler
I intentionally avoided looking at in until I listened to the episode earlier today.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 25, 2018, 08:42:05 PM
I saw the spoiler too but I know what I said when I heard the question the first time.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 26, 2018, 05:50:52 PM
Yeah, thinking about it, you guys are probably right.  Oh well.

The answer is one of the above posts under spoiler
I intentionally avoided looking at in until I listened to the episode earlier today.

 :waycool:
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 28, 2018, 09:58:13 PM
New question.

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/21659730/bbea1a8c8a5c4f66bf1bb9271aaefdf2/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=h0XgabHoAxvwzZys0yQo-3NkPkwaIKGm8kB0BQNok7o%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 28, 2018, 11:31:11 PM
I guessed D.  Excited Utterance.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 29, 2018, 07:13:54 AM
OK had a chance to read it and I concur pants, D it is.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 29, 2018, 11:47:08 AM
(click to show/hide)

Since that's more specific than excited utterance, I'm going with C.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 30, 2018, 07:30:55 PM
Answer to  Question #37

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on October 01, 2018, 11:37:24 AM
Interesting answer,  I thought it was
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 01, 2018, 03:04:52 PM
I did not know
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 08, 2018, 10:28:14 PM
Sorry I've been in Las Vegas over the weekend here I think is the next question
 (https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/21868964/7eb5b65b653f4acfab322b9c58ddba7a/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=CZSxySrDHW2_567eiAcyp61jeKnbiiJzxl_QEz9_To8%3D) 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 08, 2018, 10:29:53 PM
And here is the answer.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on October 09, 2018, 07:30:46 AM
I said A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 20, 2018, 10:03:06 PM
Here is TTTBE #41

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/22155454/935c160b311d419697f039ac77c87870/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=vLqOx2XwB3mD5VAKLy4JFMUXGRJlNK24vK9Oj2-mtHA%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 20, 2018, 11:36:33 PM
It all comes down to what level of scrutiny applies and why.  I don’t think felons are a suspect or quasi-suspect class, so neither strict nor intermediate scrutiny apply. That leaves D as the only rational-basis answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 21, 2018, 09:56:46 AM
Ya I'll go with D too.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on October 22, 2018, 11:43:17 AM
Yeah, D sounds pretty cromulent to me too.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 23, 2018, 07:26:59 PM
Answer to 41

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 26, 2018, 08:15:38 PM
New week new question

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/22298477/b18a257536fa4447bde9c289db5376fc/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=qMC0IMMbXKPAw0RF7dKNnBlgCowvHXQKfbwUno0AjpQ%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 26, 2018, 08:38:53 PM
I’m eliminating B and D and going with A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on October 26, 2018, 08:48:43 PM
I said C.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 27, 2018, 07:22:22 AM
I'm going with A. I ruled out C and D and was juggling between A  and B and went with A. I won't be surprised if it turns out to be B though.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on October 28, 2018, 03:25:22 PM
A also
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 28, 2018, 04:47:07 PM
I would be surprised if it were B. Police need probable cause to search a person (or their vehicle) during a traffic stop (except that, under Terry, they may pat down a person in detention if they have a reasonable suspicion that they are armed and dangerous).
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 29, 2018, 01:30:43 PM
Answer to 99

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 29, 2018, 06:18:17 PM
Well that's funny, this TTTBE is the same scenario (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50060.msg9559065.html#msg9559065) I stumbled across in real life recently.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 29, 2018, 09:36:26 PM
Well that's funny, this TTTBE is the same scenario (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50060.msg9559065.html#msg9559065) I stumbled across in real life recently.

Hmm. Whether it stands in the case you mentioned depends on details of how the drugs were found.  For instance, was the driver under arrest, or was he just being temporarily detained?  If the former, then a full search of his person is allowed; if the latter, then reasonable suspicion is required for a search (though, as I said above, a pat-down for weapons is allowed if the officer reasonably suspects the person is armed and dangerous, and I imagine drugs could be found in such a pat-down).
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on October 30, 2018, 01:13:03 AM
Well that's funny, this TTTBE is the same scenario (https://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,50060.msg9559065.html#msg9559065) I stumbled across in real life recently.

Hmm. Whether it stands in the case you mentioned depends on details of how the drugs were found.  For instance, was the driver under arrest, or was he just being temporarily detained?  If the former, then a full search of his person is allowed; if the latter, then reasonable suspicion is required for a search (though, as I said above, a pat-down for weapons is allowed if the officer reasonably suspects the person is armed and dangerous, and I imagine drugs could be found in such a pat-down).

I spoke to the troopers who were actually on the stop after I made the post and the guy was not arrested.  I'm pretty sure the drugs were either in plain view or on his person in such a way that it was obvious.  It may have even been something as simple as them asking what that thing sticking out of his pocket was and then him turning it over.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 01, 2018, 02:56:12 PM
Question #100

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/22431085/1c0e75e26d4d4d36b26819aa55ab152c/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=QvLj3lQNYc0xUoPd7zKEGWSUIfKpECtp0oj7-SbsMK0%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 04:59:26 PM
D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on November 01, 2018, 06:15:09 PM
Heh.  It's a real property one.  Thomas is probably going to plotz.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on November 01, 2018, 07:38:59 PM
I have no idea. I even tried to research it and can't make heads or tails of what I read.  Real property law sucks.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: SkeptiQueer on November 01, 2018, 08:25:27 PM
Question #100


Pretty sure it's C. The investor did not get the partner's written consent, so the entire sum becomes payable immediately. The investor can then attempt to seek payment from the neighbor as well. An easier way to think of it would be if I sold you goods on credit, you sold those goods on credit to a second party, but now you are past due on your payment to me. I don't seek payment from the person you sold them to, my suit is with the person who bought from me.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on November 01, 2018, 09:39:06 PM
Question #100


Pretty sure it's C. The investor did not get the partner's written consent, so the entire sum becomes payable immediately. The investor can then attempt to seek payment from the neighbor as well. An easier way to think of it would be if I sold you goods on credit, you sold those goods on credit to a second party, but now you are past due on your payment to me. I don't seek payment from the person you sold them to, my suit is with the person who bought from me.

Then the partner would sue the investor, I would think. Not the neighbor. I think it also makes a difference that the partner accepted payment from the neighbor. (at least that would make a difference in subletting real estate, or avoiding eviction by making a partial payment)

I think D, because by assuming the land the neighbor assumed any liens and obligations to the land, including the mortgage.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on November 02, 2018, 12:40:52 PM
I think C, just because it seems like the partner would be on the hook for the dough, but I really have no idea.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: SkeptiQueer on November 02, 2018, 01:38:26 PM
Question #100


Pretty sure it's C. The investor did not get the partner's written consent, so the entire sum becomes payable immediately. The investor can then attempt to seek payment from the neighbor as well. An easier way to think of it would be if I sold you goods on credit, you sold those goods on credit to a second party, but now you are past due on your payment to me. I don't seek payment from the person you sold them to, my suit is with the person who bought from me.

Then the partner would sue the investor, I would think. Not the neighbor. I think it also makes a difference that the partner accepted payment from the neighbor. (at least that would make a difference in subletting real estate, or avoiding eviction by making a partial payment)

I think D, because by assuming the land the neighbor assumed any liens and obligations to the land, including the mortgage.

You're right, I confused the investor and the partner. I usually diagram these things out with a A-B-C substitution to avoid confusion. Looks like it's D. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on November 02, 2018, 01:54:59 PM
I am going to switch my guess as well.  After rereading it, and reviewing the answers above, I was off base. I was confused between the neighbor & the partner.  The wording is that the mortgagee(partner) has the option of demanding payment in full.  He did not, he accepted payments, so It must be D.  The neighbor & the investor are both on the hook for the dough.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 02, 2018, 06:52:44 PM
I am going to go with B. Because the neighbor made several payments to the partner so this would be written aproval of the sale. So the partner should sue the neighbor because they are no longer in privy of contract.

I had to look up privy to figure this one out. I would not be surprised if it turns out to be D though.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 06, 2018, 12:34:31 PM
And the answer is
(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on November 06, 2018, 12:56:22 PM
That was ridiculously hard.  I still don't have all the players straight in my head.  :D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: John Albert on November 12, 2018, 11:41:26 PM
So Thomas lost the 60% on the first 100 questions.

Now Andrew's giving him a second chance by continuing on to the next 100.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 13, 2018, 10:51:48 AM
Ya I missed most of the first 100. Will be nice to see how I do on a full 100 questions.  Everyone still ok with me posting the questions?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on November 13, 2018, 11:32:12 AM
Ya I missed most of the first 100. Will be nice to see how I do on a full 100 questions.  Everyone still ok with me posting the questions?
most definitely
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Vay on November 16, 2018, 11:51:12 PM
I normally listen at 1.5 speed, but I had to slow it down to .5 for this fricking question.   ???
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on November 17, 2018, 09:28:11 AM
It came down to B or D for me me.  I guess B.  The question is does a legally expired contract count as consideration.  I don't know.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 17, 2018, 10:24:53 AM
I didn't really listen to the question because I figured I would read it when they posted the question. I guess they quit posting the questions. I might have to download the podcast again so I can give an answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 20, 2018, 03:15:14 PM
Here is the answer. I didn't get a chance to answer this one.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on November 20, 2018, 03:55:59 PM
That was practically impossible.  I went with Thomas and the consideration angle.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on November 20, 2018, 04:18:52 PM
My takeaway is that never ever admit that you are responsible for a debt. Cuz it sounds like if somebody calls you about it and you're not responsible but you would say that you would pay it back you're on the hook. Is that what I'm hearing?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on November 27, 2018, 10:18:55 AM
Answers to this weeks question

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 01, 2018, 07:48:17 PM
New question #103

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23007246/f428d5d6d624452993716503b68703ed/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=e8Nv20OonP4yVWUpQsi0PbcYxdiEgcTJLa7HExkCDCg%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 02, 2018, 08:13:53 AM
I think the answer to this one is A due to SCOTUS ruling. But you know take that for what it's worth.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 02, 2018, 09:37:44 AM
D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on December 02, 2018, 12:37:20 PM
D for me.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 02, 2018, 01:35:29 PM
I was thinking D too. But I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out to be B
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 02, 2018, 02:45:27 PM
A and B are both things that can constitute a taking, but they are not the only things. A regulation that deprived someone of the beneficial use of their property can also constitute a taking.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 05, 2018, 04:56:22 PM
Answer to #103

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 09, 2018, 09:30:11 PM

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23189301/8320ba4dc443407daf78d6291454e4dc/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=0fmABrN_aPxgqwWqdNe1py-Mm5y6YsJwAVSacYTp5N0%3D)

I'm going with C. I have no idea.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on December 10, 2018, 04:10:38 AM
My thinking is D because I don't think the fourth amendment applies to private citizens and while she may have committed a crime of her own in getting that first photograph, that wouldn't in and of itself exclude the evidence she found from being used in a case against the man. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on December 10, 2018, 09:12:26 AM
I agree with EL.  I think they can use the first photo, but the second set she essentially became an agent of the government and as such 4th amendment protections apply to her.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on December 10, 2018, 10:28:57 AM
I'll jump on the D bandwagon, because after she talked to the cops, she became their agent.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 10, 2018, 10:40:00 AM
My thinking is D because I don't think the fourth amendment applies to private citizens and while she may have committed a crime of her own in getting that first photograph, that wouldn't in and of itself exclude the evidence she found from being used in a case against the man. 

I agree with EL.  I think they can use the first photo, but the second set she essentially became an agent of the government and as such 4th amendment protections apply to her.

Signing on to both your opinions.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 10, 2018, 01:10:05 PM
Yeah, that's my opinion as well. D

I can't remember, what did Thomas say?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Eternally Learning on December 10, 2018, 02:58:38 PM
I can't remember, what did Thomas say?

He said C, but he wouldn't be surprised if it's D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on December 10, 2018, 04:44:28 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on December 10, 2018, 04:45:22 PM
I think this question is based on a real set of circumstances.  I seem to vaguely recall this.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 10, 2018, 09:29:46 PM
Hey put under a spoiler before you spill the beans. That way people can play along and not see the answers.  ;) ;D

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on December 11, 2018, 11:38:08 AM
Hey put under a spoiler before you spill the beans. That way people can play along and not see the answers.  ;) ;D

(click to show/hide)

Sorry! (without relinquishing any of my rights under the Apology exception to the Heresay rule)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 11, 2018, 12:12:24 PM
It seems to me that the woman should also be charged with possessing child pornography.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 11, 2018, 05:54:25 PM
It seems to me that the woman should also be charged with possessing child pornography.

I don't like this at all. She was basically breaking and entering. What this says is that make sure you have enough evidence and then turn everything over to the police. So I guess you can just put a program on people's computer so you can snoop around. That's ok? The guy had child porn and that is a reprehensible crime. I can see if she stumbled onto this stuff but she was actively looking for stuff. Also how do we know she didn't plant it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 12, 2018, 04:06:13 PM
I think the best balance is that the original picture be let in against him since the state had nothing to do with illegally procuring it, and that she should be prosecuted for her hacking crime as well as possession of the pornography.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 12, 2018, 04:13:06 PM
I think the best balance is that the original picture be let in against him since the state had nothing to do with illegally procuring it, and that she should be prosecuted for her hacking crime as well as possession of the pornography.

I like that idea but the state could just give a suspended sentence on her crime and drop the hammer on his.

It would be better to make his crime different then child porn. It is really hard to argue for his side. It would be better to imagine him with a banking crime or maybe some other crime.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 14, 2018, 07:41:49 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23314887/dec27d0f514a4e23a3804a455c13fc1d/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=kvquNbZbwRagbhf31QwVdJAmdnPPPhWmDZ_Cfq6F3yg%3D)   


I haven't had a chance to look at it yet
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 14, 2018, 07:58:58 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on December 14, 2018, 08:21:51 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 14, 2018, 08:44:02 PM
I guessed B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on December 14, 2018, 09:37:52 PM
(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 15, 2018, 08:22:18 AM
(click to show/hide)

I have no idea.  I'm going to have to borrow Thomas's coin on this one.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on December 15, 2018, 12:49:54 PM
I was thinking
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 17, 2018, 05:21:05 PM
Well here is the answer

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on December 17, 2018, 05:57:05 PM
Well here is the answer

(click to show/hide)

0 for 2
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 17, 2018, 06:52:45 PM
Makes sense, I guess.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 22, 2018, 08:50:34 PM
Here is question #106

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23457547/1e6f5d620e8840b28d4677773e060c9d/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=yH876HNr1OISBlqsajE_XKKkMjk-5XJXYUOqRt-z2DY%3D)


I'll go with the dice roll of D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 22, 2018, 08:50:56 PM
I think B
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 22, 2018, 08:56:39 PM
I think B

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 25, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
I think A.  I would’ve expected it to say something more like “...you should find that the substance was sold in an interstate transaction,” but the effect is the same, I think. The judge rules on the law; the jury only needs to determine the facts.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on December 25, 2018, 10:45:57 AM
A.  I’m guessing that where it was purchased and sold is all that’s needed to determine if it’s interstate commerce. All the other answers suggest there is some other factor required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 25, 2018, 12:12:13 PM
Juries don't rule on facts.  And if both parties agree something happened then it is a fact in the case.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on December 26, 2018, 04:02:54 PM
PANTS!, I don’t think that’s the case: that juries are the trier of facts is the basis of the jury system.  Judges decide law, juries decide facts.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 27, 2018, 12:16:03 PM
PANTS!, I don’t think that’s the case: that juries are the trier of facts is the basis of the jury system.  Judges decide law, juries decide facts.

(click to show/hide)

Yeah.  I think I reversed that.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on December 27, 2018, 12:25:42 PM
That was a tough one.  I thought D, but I never had a chance to post.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 27, 2018, 03:50:17 PM
I missed this one. I had no idea how to go about answering this one

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 27, 2018, 03:52:19 PM
Here is the next one.  Answer to #107
(click to show/hide)

I didn't see that. Must have released the answers before the question
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on December 27, 2018, 04:58:12 PM
(click to show/hide)

Hmm weird, I haven't seen the episode that contains that question yet.  I wonder if they released it by accident.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on December 27, 2018, 05:49:03 PM
SPOILER ALERT, IT INCLUDES THE ANSWER!

(click to show/hide)


I think I may finally get one right!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 28, 2018, 10:18:25 PM
Ok here is the question without the ..ehem answers

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23582401/0a2c3c8e792240deb937c6a1602f5dec/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=JIKP0z0IcuZ64HVOqvlaH-vGLZLHspM9Vp56QIRyWuM%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on December 29, 2018, 12:12:04 PM
It has to be B right?  Although, I do think there are better answers.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on December 29, 2018, 02:52:37 PM
It has to be B right?  Although, I do think there are better answers.

That's what I picked

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 06, 2019, 07:33:25 PM
Here is #108

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23737440/69ed64ebf2aa48e5a0521562b68a454e/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=4-sZxA6qqEaSbEBCAETh2Vl3w_GwMZY-mCSBJYpJR_c%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 06, 2019, 07:34:37 PM
And the answer to #108

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 06, 2019, 07:35:38 PM
I picked A. I'm thinking that since it went out of state that it will fall to the Feds then
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on January 06, 2019, 09:41:27 PM
C. The facts have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, and they can't subsequently be relitigated by another state.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on January 06, 2019, 09:46:09 PM
I agree. I think C is right.  I believe that this has been discussed in the podcast before.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on January 06, 2019, 10:26:06 PM
C. The facts have been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, and they can't subsequently be relitigated by another state.
Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 11, 2019, 01:27:09 PM
Next question

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/23889356/c2a5bca957194223b78e5225f69d62f2/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=DA9gHyIkX9B6QnTnb4NWgXjygTVIyzaOw0Vg1vksZCg%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on January 11, 2019, 01:47:13 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on January 11, 2019, 01:50:56 PM
I haven't had a chance to answer lately, but...
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on January 11, 2019, 03:14:06 PM
A. under common law, sale of real property includes an implied warranty of fitness, which for a residential property means habitability.  When I purchased my house from Fannie Mae (it was a foreclosed property) the sale was as-is, the seller specifically disclaimed all warranties, and I assumed responsibility for any and all repairs.  That made it especially important that I have a thorough inspection and understand exactly what would be involved in making the house habitable.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 11, 2019, 03:26:47 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on January 13, 2019, 07:17:59 AM
It's for sure between A and C. The question becomes is there a lemon law for houses. Now I know that real estate lawyers require home inspections when you buy a house, which would lead me to believe that C is the answer. But I also want to think that somebody buying a house for residents can I be completely uninhabitable. Which would imply A. So I'm going to guess A and hopes that we are better at consumer protection then C what imply.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 13, 2019, 09:16:38 PM
And the answer is!

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on January 13, 2019, 09:44:55 PM
I want Andrew to explain further why there is no implied warranty of habitability.  My understanding was that there was always one when conveying or leasing residential property unless it was expressly disclaimed.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on January 13, 2019, 11:25:29 PM
Yeah, me too - very weird.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 18, 2019, 08:08:01 PM
New question and it's a short one.

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24049326/85e475e2240e42ea845e1de90f794e07/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=Eurz8NDKY1aqCjFQ_aAjEJcBKcVsBD2wH-3FOAlIwj0%3D)

I'm picking C. I can't see the Doc being liable for something that he had no control over. This should be a product liability issue.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on January 18, 2019, 11:34:24 PM
New question and it's a short one.

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24049326/85e475e2240e42ea845e1de90f794e07/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=Eurz8NDKY1aqCjFQ_aAjEJcBKcVsBD2wH-3FOAlIwj0%3D)

I'm picking C. I can't see the Doc being liable for something that he had no control over. This should be a product liability issue.
I’m picking A. The dentist was not negligent and wasn’t the products manufacturer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 19, 2019, 08:46:27 AM
Ya that's a good point. I'm not sure if you have to sue the doctor and the manufacturer together or if you have to sue the doctored and then the doctor would sue the manufacturer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on January 19, 2019, 11:41:38 AM
I think C as well. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on January 19, 2019, 12:08:41 PM
Ya that's a good point. I'm not sure if you have to sue the doctor and the manufacturer together or if you have to sue the doctored and then the doctor would sue the manufacturer.

I believe you have the option of suing either or both, and that the two will have to work out responsibility between themselves (which might mean another court case between the two).  In this case, the doctor's liability insurance would attempt to subrogate the manufacturer who was actually responsible for the defect.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 19, 2019, 03:02:38 PM
Ya that's a good point. I'm not sure if you have to sue the doctor and the manufacturer together or if you have to sue the doctored and then the doctor would sue the manufacturer.

I believe you have the option of suing either or both, and that the two will have to work out responsibility between themselves (which might mean another court case between the two).  In this case, the doctor's liability insurance would attempt to subrogate the manufacturer who was actually responsible for the defect.

I saw a court case once where a dry cleaning place was sued by  customer. They both really liked each other and the dry cleaners needed a judgment so he could file an insurance claim.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 21, 2019, 09:44:36 PM
And the answer to #110

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on January 21, 2019, 10:54:16 PM
Wooo hooo! Two in a row! (after choking the first three I tried)  ;D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 25, 2019, 04:21:08 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24200999/08ad9b85c7834af58aa8bd65fde76df6/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=aoHiQPhZl-L26BJG9_qvJK4uq68p94RHeJwYqXj7SAw%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on January 25, 2019, 04:34:22 PM
I thought C
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on January 25, 2019, 05:38:10 PM
I was thinking C or D leaning toward D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on January 25, 2019, 06:06:12 PM
I’ll go with D here. They can’t change the terms of the sale after the fact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on January 25, 2019, 08:53:40 PM
D. By accepting the purchase order and supplying the bottles the supplier entered into a contract that did not include the waiver of consequential damages.  They can't subsequently unilaterally add it to the contract. If they wanted to include terms not included in the buyer's PO, they needed to insist on a signed contract containing those terms.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 26, 2019, 05:08:26 PM
I'm picking B, because of the no provisional clause in the contract.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on January 26, 2019, 07:19:32 PM
I'm going with C. I believe surprise is one of the elements that defines unconscionable. The seller surprised the buyer with that element by disclosing it well after the contract's performance elements were met.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on January 27, 2019, 10:02:07 PM
I really suck at this
Answer for #111

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on January 27, 2019, 10:20:11 PM
Wow, three straight! I think I'm 50/50 now!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 01, 2019, 05:03:58 PM
Here is an interesting one.

TTTBE #112

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24362687/3636dff10b57431ca79b4a77ecc16f05/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=bIxJvy_z4U1OHMdJJQUhs5c4k0_vdhazkxMg_L6j8ps%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 01, 2019, 05:04:53 PM
I'm going to go with D. So with my track record I would think twice before you pick D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on February 01, 2019, 05:09:04 PM
I'm going to go with D. So with my track record I would think twice before you pick D.

I'm leaning D, also, but I feel pretty rickety.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2019, 05:18:11 PM
I'm going to go with D. So with my track record I would think twice before you pick D.

I'm leaning D, also, but I feel pretty rickety.

I'm saying A, but leaning D.

Guns, it seems, are not the best way to express one's emotions.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on February 01, 2019, 05:39:51 PM
It's not Man's Laughter, so I will join the pack and say "D".
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on February 01, 2019, 06:24:03 PM
Unfortunately I need to break with the group.  I think he's going to get First Degree Murder because of B.

I'm sure I'm wrong though.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 04, 2019, 10:49:34 PM
Answer to #112

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 09, 2019, 04:45:27 PM
Ok next question and this one is different.


(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24545193/e9f054dd250f4eb5a973df4b1b301939/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=t88pc25sjuCOEaj4qXFELuwHAyR2mHwm2B_pmcoWM10%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 09, 2019, 04:46:12 PM
I think this one is D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on February 09, 2019, 04:53:31 PM
I’m saying B but leaning D. There are times when parental rights are overruled but this law doesn’t allow for that. If there were exceptions provided for then definitely D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on February 09, 2019, 06:23:22 PM
B  This is based off specific case law.  Now if I only were more sure I remember the outcome correctly.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on February 10, 2019, 09:48:32 AM
I’m pretty sure it’s B based, as PANTS says, on specific case law. If I recall, a minor has to have the ability to bypass parental consent if she can show she possesses the maturity to make the decision on her own or that the procedure is in her best interest.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 10, 2019, 09:37:34 PM
Answer #113

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on February 11, 2019, 11:26:21 AM
My guess is B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 15, 2019, 11:23:02 AM
Here is another question for me to get wrong

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24706320/08808f254a014cc1a3ba19c4c862da6e/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=-qN8VUumYGRU8h25RzlWpBPeVoS_jFVJSIQdZh2BQx8%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on February 15, 2019, 11:59:01 AM
I believe this is C.  The bank had first position, but was made whole.  The mortgage company had a secondary position, so one the bank is made whole the rest goes to them.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on February 15, 2019, 12:24:14 PM
Here is another question for me to get wrong

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24706320/08808f254a014cc1a3ba19c4c862da6e/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=-qN8VUumYGRU8h25RzlWpBPeVoS_jFVJSIQdZh2BQx8%3D)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on February 16, 2019, 12:08:36 AM
The financing company only gets made whole; it does not get to keep any surplus from the sale of the parking garage. Normally that $200,000 surplus would go to the businessman, but since the bank has a valid lien on the parking garage due its  $200,000 outstanding judgment against the businessman, the surplus proceeds from the sale go to the bank.

I believe this is C.  The bank had first position, but was made whole.  The mortgage company had a secondary position, so one the bank is made whole the rest goes to them.

The bank wasn't made whole; the sale of the hotel left $200,000 outstanding on its judgment against the businessman.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on February 16, 2019, 11:28:08 AM
The financing company only gets made whole; it does not get to keep any surplus from the sale of the parking garage. Normally that $200,000 surplus would go to the businessman, but since the bank has a valid lien on the parking garage due its  $200,000 outstanding judgment against the businessman, the surplus proceeds from the sale go to the bank.

I believe this is C.  The bank had first position, but was made whole.  The mortgage company had a secondary position, so one the bank is made whole the rest goes to them.

The bank wasn't made whole; the sale of the hotel left $200,000 outstanding on its judgment against the businessman.

Yeah, this sounds pretty cromulent.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on February 16, 2019, 01:08:28 PM
Here is another question for me to get wrong
 

I'm changing my answer (Can I do that?)
Quote
Latinist is right. The bank lawsuit entitles it to the property owned by the borrower. After the foreclosure sale the Finance company get its part then the surplus goes to the borrower, but the bank gets that.

So A

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 19, 2019, 03:40:27 PM
Answer to Question #114
After they give the answer it always seems so simple

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 22, 2019, 02:37:05 PM

I am going with A.  I can't believe that when  negotiating a settlement that the conversation would be admissible

 (https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/24880943/ed9cfccc31a24e078db9120bcc76caea/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=Uyk4UdfTOdmnpzo63EaXBKC50Ocdv7eubpaNBVhn-pI%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on February 22, 2019, 03:34:48 PM
A?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on February 22, 2019, 03:42:43 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on February 24, 2019, 08:23:20 PM
And the answer to#115

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 02, 2019, 07:36:41 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/25031679/8dd971d51bc0407ba05023f4cd4ed27d/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=nH7n27hX1SHRU5GBvklAk_WQup9JQAs9qisfixQpHS0%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 02, 2019, 07:38:02 PM
I'm going to go with D. I think its sad that they would sue for that reason but I'm going with the letter of the law. I think getting a jury to convict might be tough.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 02, 2019, 10:42:59 PM
I think D as well.  I  am not sure thought, and I would have thought it depended on the state law. IIRC, negligence does not determine if you pay damages.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 03, 2019, 11:06:38 AM
D also, it seems pretty straightforward to me.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 05, 2019, 07:24:06 PM
The dead man isn’t capable of committing a traffic offense; he’s dead.  Since the plaintiff based his case for liability on the commission of the traffic offense and did not rebut evidence that the decedent was dead (as well as unaware of any danger and obeying traffic laws while alive), there is no basis for a claim of liability.

A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 05, 2019, 07:54:15 PM
I'll say C, because the laws pretty much depend on precedence, and because no one else picked C and it would be cool to be the only one with the right answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 06, 2019, 08:22:09 PM
Answer to #116
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 07, 2019, 10:22:03 AM
Wow, that is surprising.  I always thought that the vehicle at fault carried insurance for this type of thing.  I realize that the guy was dead and all, but the other car was wrecked, and presumably there were injuries.  That really seems very unfair to me.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 07, 2019, 10:46:09 AM
Wow, that is surprising.  I always thought that the vehicle at fault carried insurance for this type of thing.  I realize that the guy was dead and all, but the other car was wrecked, and presumably there were injuries.  That really seems very unfair to me.

I thought so too, but if you listen to the ep, Andrew states that this is a question of negligence.  In the absence of negligence, the survivor's insurance will probably pay for any issues in a no-fault decision.  Not sure if the deceased's estate can recover from their insurance company.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 07, 2019, 01:48:58 PM
I missed it too. Like andrew said it was a question dealing with a definition of the law. I can see where this can trip test takers up. Tying to remember a lecture you took 2years ago that talked about this one question. I'm doing poorly in this.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 08, 2019, 06:40:15 PM
New week new question. I have no idea on this one. I'm going to think about it

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/25189429/4d470ed78a3d4d9282190884a3e6363f/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=vCS0EgXhZVBBXf6_zXcw-945yO1ixeyiDlGJjZjEo1E%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 08, 2019, 07:03:30 PM
Wow, that is surprising.  I always thought that the vehicle at fault carried insurance for this type of thing.  I realize that the guy was dead and all, but the other car was wrecked, and presumably there were injuries.  That really seems very unfair to me.

A vehicle cannot be at fault; only a person can. As the decedent was dead, he was incapable of liability.  There is therefore no fault in the accident, and the plaintiff’s insurance will have to pay for any damages to him or his vehicle. The decedent’s insurance will pay for damage to his.  That’s why we have insurance, after all.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 08, 2019, 07:07:44 PM
As for the newest one, the standard in free speech cases is compelling state interest and preserving morale doesn’t cut it.  A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 08, 2019, 07:25:17 PM
Ya I'm not sure where to go on this one. I would think that it is a freedom of speech issue but then there is an issue on protecting the populace that I am not sure what has more pull.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 08, 2019, 08:25:23 PM
Ya I'm not sure where to go on this one. I would think that it is a freedom of speech issue but then there is an issue on protecting the populace that I am not sure what has more pull.

You really think it can be constitutional for a state actor to impose restrictions on speech in order to preserve morale? I'm flabbergasted.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2019, 08:57:21 PM
Ya I'm not sure where to go on this one. I would think that it is a freedom of speech issue but then there is an issue on protecting the populace that I am not sure what has more pull.

You really think it can be constitutional for a state actor to impose restrictions on speech in order to preserve morale? I'm flabbergasted.

C.  And, yes there are instances where it is not just constitutional, but just and appropriate for a state official to limit speech in particular settings.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 08, 2019, 09:26:18 PM
In furtherance if a compelling governmental interest. That’s the standard. This is absolutely crazy.

And I would point out that this is not restrictions on time, place and manner; they are completely banning the holding of any event which debates affirmative action.

This is just bizarre.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 08, 2019, 09:59:12 PM
In furtherance if a compelling governmental interest. That’s the standard. This is absolutely crazy.

And I would point out that this is not restrictions on time, place and manner; they are completely banning the holding of any event which debates affirmative action.

This is just bizarre.

I think that's the standard for free speech in the wild. In a school setting it's different. The school is there for a purpose and everything they do at the school is for that purpose, including use of facilities for meetings, etc. And it would be up to school officials to decide if the proposed event was consistent with the school's purpose.

Suppose that rather than debating affirmative action, they wanted to host a white supremacist neo-nazi speaker? Would that be different in your estimation?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 08, 2019, 10:55:22 PM
As for the newest one, the standard in free speech cases is compelling state interest and preserving morale doesn’t cut it.  A.

Yeah I think it's A also.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 09, 2019, 07:58:18 AM
In furtherance if a compelling governmental interest. That’s the standard. This is absolutely crazy.

And I would point out that this is not restrictions on time, place and manner; they are completely banning the holding of any event which debates affirmative action.

This is just bizarre.

I think that's the standard for free speech in the wild. In a school setting it's different. The school is there for a purpose and everything they do at the school is for that purpose, including use of facilities for meetings, etc. And it would be up to school officials to decide if the proposed event was consistent with the school's purpose.

Suppose that rather than debating affirmative action, they wanted to host a white supremacist neo-nazi speaker? Would that be different in your estimation?

No.  If they provide facilities for student groups to host speakers, they must do so on a viewpoint-neutral basis. They can place time, place, and manner restrictions on the speech provided that they are narrowly-tailored, content-neutral, serve a compelling government interest, and allow ample alternative venues. It's the strict scrutiny test.

ETA: It should be noted that because it is a limited public forum, the school can restrict the use of the facility to certain groups (in this case, students).  But that does not mean it can place restrictions on the content of their speech.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 09, 2019, 03:36:36 PM
Again, suppose it was bro Nazis. Or the tiki torch guys. Or the Klan. And the were students.

Would the school have to allow them to use their facility for their meeting?

I think we’ll find out that if the school administration found those to be in compatible with their mission they would be allowed to ban them. Same with this debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 09, 2019, 05:11:57 PM
It doesn't matter how abhorrent their views, the government cannot create a limited public forum and then exclude on that basis.  They can impose time, place, and manner restrictions; they can provide an alternative venue if they have, for instance, security concerns; they can even require (in a viewpoint-neutral way) the organizers of the event to bear the cost of added security, etc. But they can't prohibit the event because they don't like what's going to be talked about.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 09, 2019, 06:05:46 PM
Ya I'm not sure where to go on this one. I would think that it is a freedom of speech issue but then there is an issue on protecting the populace that I am not sure what has more pull.

You really think it can be constitutional for a state actor to impose restrictions on speech in order to preserve morale? I'm flabbergasted.

I was thinking along the lines of yelling fire in a movie theater. I thought the courts ruled on something like this. Also not so much morale but more along the lines of safty. I know it's a slippery slope for the state to say what can constitute public safty and is ripe for abuse. This would be for the courts to act as referee on each situation.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 09, 2019, 07:18:46 PM
It doesn't matter how abhorrent their views, the government cannot create a limited public forum and then exclude on that basis.  They can impose time, place, and manner restrictions; they can provide an alternative venue if they have, for instance, security concerns; they can even require (in a viewpoint-neutral way) the organizers of the event to bear the cost of added security, etc. But they can't prohibit the event because they don't like what's going to be talked about.

Well, there's a difference between a public facility, like a park or a community center or a city street, and a school that has a mission and a purpose and is set up to perform a specific function.

The courts have given wide latitude to schools, even public schools, at limiting various rights of students in order to perform their mission.

It will be interesting to see what the answer is.

(Keep in mind this will tell us only what the actually is, not what it should be)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 11, 2019, 06:28:03 PM
Answer to #117

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 11, 2019, 08:16:09 PM
Answer to #117

(click to show/hide)

Well done, guys!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 11, 2019, 10:31:53 PM
It’s basic First Amendment jurisprudence.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 17, 2019, 09:40:58 AM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/25373078/a8a6e6d1e1864c0cbda62e95b89cc3fe/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=h1Z7WIv6VQYFZi46WOitWPWmWqwhDTpiCNMsRt2cs7g%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 17, 2019, 10:14:50 AM
A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 17, 2019, 11:51:44 AM
I am guessing A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 17, 2019, 02:38:07 PM
B and C are clearly wrong. I want the answer to be A, but I hesitate to eliminate D.  I think it will turn on what the understanding between the developer and the purchaser of Lot 1 was at the time of sale; if the understanding between the two was that it would be residential-only under the existing zoning laws, it might be that the the restriction will be enforced upon Lot 1.

But I’m going to go with A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 17, 2019, 07:31:07 PM
A seems, to me, to be the fairest answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 17, 2019, 08:25:05 PM
A seems, to me, to be the fairest answer.

Indeed it does, at least to the libertarian-minded.  I fear that this may be a case, though, where the law does not exactly seem fair.  I hope you’re wrong, though.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 17, 2019, 09:35:45 PM
B and C are clearly wrong. I want the answer to be A, but I hesitate to eliminate D.  I think it will turn on what the understanding between the developer and the purchaser of Lot 1 was at the time of sale; if the understanding between the two was that it would be residential-only under the existing zoning laws, it might be that the the restriction will be enforced upon Lot 1.

But I’m going to go with A.

It seems so easy I'm worried it's a trick question.

The thing is in real estate, an understanding doesn't carry much weight. It needs to be in writing.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 18, 2019, 12:36:55 PM
I think it will be a or b. It just comes down to what has more weight. Contract law or zoning law.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 18, 2019, 07:14:38 PM
Answer to #118


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 18, 2019, 08:00:29 PM
Indeed, doing research it seems that if the lots were sold at roughly the same time and with the understanding that they would be restricted to residential use but the covenant were inadvertently left off the contract and deed for one lot, a common scheme argument might be made to enforce the restriction upon the owner of the lot.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 23, 2019, 05:15:48 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/25534149/0e072d5480d44034bee282ea4a84f6bb/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=bNphPUZIjmeQtgKyKL_PCRZ2YTbHDEfHSdP_n4mLF8c%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 23, 2019, 05:24:21 PM
I have no idea because I am not familiar with some of the reasons given in the answers. I would have to look all of them up and I'm not sure that is within the spirit of the test. (If you were taking the test you would not be able to research the answer.) Now just looking at it logically, if the terms of the sale were changed from the past then I would think that they should have been brought up before the transaction took place. I do not know if a sale must follow with past instances. If the sale is not tied with past practices then I do not know what "Parole evidence rule" is. So it would be a toss up among those two.

What do you all think?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 23, 2019, 05:51:10 PM
B.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 24, 2019, 09:30:43 AM
I'm going with A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 24, 2019, 01:08:10 PM
I think it’s either B or D. I come back to what Andrew has always said about contracts depending upon the understanding of the parties, and it seems to me reasonable that the past conduct in relation to contracts with identical written terms could be used as evidence of the parties’ understanding at the time of contract. If the seller wanted the contract to be under different terms, he would have to have explicitly disclaimed discounts in the original contract.

B
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 24, 2019, 02:08:41 PM
O want to say C but idunno
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 24, 2019, 04:29:33 PM
I'm going to say C, but I am far from sure or confident.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 24, 2019, 04:48:32 PM
C can’t be right.  You can’t change the terms of the contract after the fact like that.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 24, 2019, 04:57:02 PM
Oh yeah I see what you're saying now the Lat. So I guess I'm going to go with A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 25, 2019, 09:35:59 PM
Answer to #119

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 27, 2019, 12:19:45 PM
C can’t be right.  You can’t change the terms of the contract after the fact like that.

Yep!

Also, 5% discount is huge.  Take that all day, if you can.  We try to take our 2%/10 days discount whenever we can.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 28, 2019, 09:21:23 PM
This one is different

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/25699340/b72cf6d873f544a8b7bf27eceff228c0/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=6GGi0AlfXIW1QCPx5i_zL_gSxDjYmC8DPY0CRPesEmk%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 28, 2019, 09:22:32 PM
It's got to be A or B. I'm going with A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on March 28, 2019, 10:37:25 PM
A.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 29, 2019, 09:45:57 AM
I think it is B.  My guess is that there is no such legal standard as outlined in A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on March 29, 2019, 11:18:07 AM
Yeah, I'm going go with Pants! on this one B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on March 29, 2019, 06:53:31 PM
Pants is usually correct but I really want it to be A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on March 29, 2019, 06:59:58 PM
Pants is usually correct but I really want it to be A.

While I appreciate the vote of confidence, it is completely unwarranted.  I am terrible at this game.  Look to the Lat for a significantly better track record.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on March 29, 2019, 09:02:08 PM
A it is. Tapping someone to get their attention isn’t battery, which is essentially what this question is asking. I’ve never heard of the presumption that one consents to the “ordinary contacts of daily life,” but that’s the only No answer that works.  B is clearly wrong because apprehension is part of the standard for assault, which I don’t think is relevant here.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 01, 2019, 05:21:51 PM
Answer to #120

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 05, 2019, 02:43:59 PM
Here we go #121

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/25874638/a80f2fdc31c84f139a4a1b3eb9665604/1?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=zNBGRGvPpBcRRG6M16UPbxWHuglrW34Wp2rePT1ikHM%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 05, 2019, 02:48:39 PM
Here is my answer

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on April 05, 2019, 03:02:35 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 05, 2019, 03:13:42 PM
It's A or C.

Imma say A.  Although when I was an on air DJ they did control what we said and did, but it was through fines.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on April 05, 2019, 05:00:24 PM
It's A or C.

Imma say A.  Although when I was an on air DJ they did control what we said and did, but it was through fines.

Yeah, but "they" was the FCC under their authority, not an executive order from POTUS.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 05, 2019, 08:58:48 PM
Section 1 is clearly constitutional.  I don’t think Section 2 is (though Inthink Congress could probably give the FCC the power to do so).

A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 08, 2019, 11:41:51 AM
Okay, I'm going with
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on April 08, 2019, 11:48:38 AM
Section 1 is clearly constitutional.  I don’t think Section 2 is (though Inthink Congress could probably give the FCC the power to do so).

A
So now, I’m having second thoughts.

I went with B, but looking at the question again it’s not asking if it was legal to do the executive order but if it’s constitutional.

If Congress could give the FCC the power to do so, then it’s constitutional. But it could be overturned  for other reasons, like the President didn’t follow the law.

So I’m going with C, both are constitutional.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 10, 2019, 05:39:15 PM
Answer to #121

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 11, 2019, 10:25:59 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/26039612/8c798df84ee14150857571683be78588/1.jpg?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=yEfCMx29NpRag6xkld4xL8DKiz34Uww0AuEjyOCAOKQ%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 11, 2019, 10:28:39 PM
My guess to#122

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 12, 2019, 11:18:45 AM
Intersting question, I think I will go with
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on April 12, 2019, 12:37:05 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 13, 2019, 09:13:04 AM
It's A or D.  I think that if a certified copy of the license can be admitted (as it can as a self-authenticating public record), then a certification that no license exists can be, so I'll go with D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 14, 2019, 08:50:33 AM
Like Thomas, I hope the answer is yes.  Therefore it's C or D.

I guess D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 14, 2019, 01:16:00 PM
Like Thomas, I hope the answer is yes.  Therefore it's C or D.

I guess D.

In my opinion, that's the wrong way to go about this game; when there are two yes and two no answers, there is almost always one of each that's easy to eliminate.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 15, 2019, 09:41:39 PM
Answer #122
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 27, 2019, 03:01:47 PM
The new one is a real property question.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 27, 2019, 04:48:38 PM
I also noticed that
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 27, 2019, 07:13:45 PM
Sorry all meant to post this yesterday



(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/26358802/622cf15a208d481bab32a3a1abb3d4e2/1.jpg?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=WLF6bU3tewpdHQNBtJEGD1BgLNzg4-LtMF2JMKWYzDc%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 27, 2019, 07:20:21 PM
I think this one will come down to what a "warranty deed" and what is meant by the term "Marketable" is. I have no idea what that is so....

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on April 27, 2019, 07:21:35 PM
I guess it would be cheating to google warrantee deed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 27, 2019, 07:28:54 PM
I guess it would be cheating to google warrantee deed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya I think you are right
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 27, 2019, 08:01:30 PM
Interesting that they both missed the central issue; the guest came closest when she mentioned quit-claim deeds. Do they see the text, or do they have to rely upon Andrew’s reading?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on April 27, 2019, 09:17:28 PM
I guess A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 28, 2019, 09:17:22 PM
Answer to #123

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on April 29, 2019, 11:44:51 AM
Wow, I really whiffed on this one.  I guess I misunderstood the question, though Andrew did say that there was a contract issue involved.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on April 29, 2019, 11:59:31 AM
Uggh.  So it’s not “these types of contracts”, but these types of deeds. Don’t really like the technicality, but I guess that’s what law is.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on April 29, 2019, 05:42:21 PM
Ya this is where you can't get the answer unless you have gone to law school, or else studied a little bit of law. This seems a lot like the CPA test. You have to know a lot about accounting but you might only work on a small part of it. That is what you will get good at.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on April 29, 2019, 06:08:21 PM
Ya this is where you can't get the answer unless you have gone to law school, or else studied a little bit of law. This seems a lot like the CPA test. You have to know a lot about accounting but you might only work on a small part of it. That is what you will get good at.
Google is your friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 03, 2019, 08:34:49 PM
New Question

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/26542657/59761c0e281a47b39fe46432aa4cb101/1.jpg?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=LzLnQTljwrVfJwoy5MvvoE4l0w7Skv9-iyuOXS1uZm4%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 03, 2019, 08:35:57 PM
I am not sure about the law on this one but I would like it to be this:

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 03, 2019, 09:02:31 PM
(click to show/hide)

Or so I seem to recall; but I might be completely wrong.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 03, 2019, 09:39:54 PM
I think it is C or D, because of the UCC.

I guess C
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on May 03, 2019, 09:51:17 PM
hmm....
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 04, 2019, 01:09:41 PM
This one seems easy, but
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 07, 2019, 08:19:43 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/26542684/f14efc7acb184c479b959b56fe6fa759/1.jpg?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=xHjRcsX0VkONG89Yi7r8ha7C7Uu0NDg8xjDQTdQh7EA%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 07, 2019, 08:22:57 PM
I don't know if I am just reading the question wrong or what. I was trying to remember how the Tylenol poisoning case went and who got sued. I thought that just Tylenol got sued and not the stored that sold it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 07, 2019, 09:54:19 PM
I don't know if I am just reading the question wrong or what. I was trying to remember how the Tylenol poisoning case went and who got sued. I thought that just Tylenol got sued and not the stored that sold it.

Andrew's been through this before. Under the UCC, the manufacturer and retailer are jointly and severally liable for defective products.  A consumer injured by such a product can sue the retailer, the manufacturer, or both at her discretion. If she chooses to sue just the retailer and wins a judgment against it, the retailer can then sue the manufacturer to force it to pay its portion of the responsibility.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 08, 2019, 01:21:24 PM
Yeah, I was stuck on B at first, but then after thinking about it a while, C is the fairer choice - especially in the modern insurance environment.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 10, 2019, 04:15:57 PM
Question 125

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/26740050/51f4c97482b34b0dac3da2758c5e968e/1.jpg?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=eKpKaFu2qLlycaCRXl6IxyrKXtUblI7ANwihbZfqzFM%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on May 10, 2019, 04:43:24 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 10, 2019, 05:50:03 PM
I haven't listened to the episode yet, so no benefit from Thomas's ruminations.  I will have to say
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 10, 2019, 06:12:45 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Belgarath on May 11, 2019, 08:57:40 AM
(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 13, 2019, 05:59:28 PM
Answer to #125

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 13, 2019, 06:10:46 PM
I guess I'm not surprised, even though I got it wrong, it's reasonable enough.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 14, 2019, 08:09:42 AM
Ya I missed this one too. I might be mixing up my TV lawering and reality.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 14, 2019, 10:48:55 AM
I actually looked this up after I posted my response and discovered the true answer.  It can be used, as I said, to establish a pattern and therefore to prove guilt.  But it can also be used to impeach because the previous convictions were for crimes (fraud) that involved dishonesty, and therefore are admissible to show that the witness is a liar. I believe that if the previous conviction had been for a drug offense or something that did not involve dishonesty it would not be admissible. The mere fact that a person has been guilty of a crime is not necessarily admissible for impeachment unless it goes to the truthfulness of the witness.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 17, 2019, 03:58:15 PM
New question for me to get wrong

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/26909657/2d74875bc52149238ff980efbf9d45c5/1.jpg?token-time=2145916800&token-hash=L6QLCCfLCxOnMxOiedu82m1bBfjgB9WIgcaH-lUfY0k%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 17, 2019, 04:00:42 PM
Wow this is a different question

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on May 17, 2019, 04:58:03 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 17, 2019, 05:35:37 PM
I guess
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 17, 2019, 05:58:39 PM
C.  It’s a question of whether he formed the intent to murder, and that’s for the jury to decide.  Legally, it’s possible to form an intent to commit murder in an instant; if the jury believes that he intended to kill her and did so with malice aforethought, it’s second degree murder; if they believe that he intended to kill her but that he acted in a moment of heightened emotion following the attack/provocation, they can find that he committed manslaughter.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 17, 2019, 06:46:47 PM
I guessed C as well.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 20, 2019, 06:01:22 PM
Answer to #126

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 25, 2019, 06:59:40 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/27077320/45ec77aa7a3c4111af9be06235be1647/1.jpg?token-time=1559952000&token-hash=IEN4M1YQSoWUi4NIZmwvQ8N9PBUqBJzZrQ-3w5Mp89Q%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on May 25, 2019, 07:20:09 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 25, 2019, 09:57:02 PM
The issue is that the nephew did not know about the deed until after he returned from his deployment.  For a deed to be delivered, there must be evidence that the grantee accepted it; an agent may receive a deed, but there must be evidence that the grantee knew about it and accepted it. I think, therefore, that A and B, though they make sense intuitively, are straight out because a person can't just unilaterally deed a property to another.

I don't think that D can be correct either, since it was in the form of a deed rather than a will.  I've never heard of a gift causa mortis before, but it sounds like a gift made in the expectation of imminent death.  Since the homeowner was ill and his actions suggested his intent for his nephew to have the house on his death, I'm going to go with C as the correct answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 26, 2019, 08:42:28 AM
I said B.

Although I do like the latinists explination.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 26, 2019, 10:52:59 AM
I'm going with B. All the answers sound good in their own right but I think B is better. I'm not sure when a deed becomes legal though. Is it legal when he signs the deed over to the nephew or when he records it?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 26, 2019, 02:40:03 PM
I'm going with B. All the answers sound good in their own right but I think B is better. I'm not sure when a deed becomes legal though. Is it legal when he signs the deed over to the nephew or when he records it?

Neither; it becomes legal when it is delivered. That requires that both the owner and the recipient intend for the transfer to be effective immediately. In this case, neither seems to have been the case, since the owner seems to have intended the transfer to occur on his death and the nephew didn’t even know about the deed until after both the death and the recording, so the document is not a valid deed at all.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 26, 2019, 09:00:04 PM
Answer to #127

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on May 26, 2019, 09:27:31 PM
Answer to #127

(click to show/hide)

Wow, three in a row, and I think I was all alone on this one  :)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 26, 2019, 11:23:18 PM
Ya I missed this one......like usual.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 27, 2019, 08:08:36 AM
It was actually also about agency law. That's interesting.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on May 27, 2019, 09:29:06 AM
Hmm.  It has always been my understanding that acceptance of a deed could not be assumed and that there had to be evidence that it was accepted by the grantee.  I also did not interpret the homeowner's words as intending immediate effect, which would make the deed an illegal attempt to avoid probate. It was my opinion that the daughter should have received the land; I was just guessing at the cause mortis thing because the question required us to assume that the court ruled for the nephew. On further reading, that appears to require much more immediacy than was the case here.

I still think a strong case could be made by the daughter's attorney's that the deed was not intended to have immediate effect, and that it was therefore invalid.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 27, 2019, 10:46:11 AM
I read it as the sale was immediate because it was a gift and not apart of any kind of inheritance. Now if it was a tax dodge then maybe the daughter had a case if the state went after the estate for back taxes. My only question was, what league argument applied in this case. I got that part wrong.

This is where law school would make a difference. It might have been one class or one comment in class that you have to study for, but it might have made a difference in this case.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 28, 2019, 12:17:13 PM
Damn, I spoilered myself on this one.  Oh well.  I think I would have picked A or B, but I accidentally read Carbshark's post.  I'm giving myself credit for a win.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 28, 2019, 01:23:50 PM
Damn, I spoilered myself on this one.  Oh well.  I think I would have picked A or B, but I accidentally read Carbshark's post.  I'm giving myself credit for a win.  :laugh:

As many times as I win I would too  ;)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 31, 2019, 02:23:54 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/27249097/29946dfb041042e3b73df90baa3c270a/1.jpg?token-time=1560470400&token-hash=kz-2YuJemhrxMKikMy2cduVn6edkZJHlSa0fhldpWOw%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on May 31, 2019, 02:26:31 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on May 31, 2019, 02:51:36 PM
I guess D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on May 31, 2019, 04:21:59 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on May 31, 2019, 05:42:15 PM
I'm gonna
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 02, 2019, 07:50:32 PM
Answer to #128

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 02, 2019, 08:43:16 PM
Answer to #128

(click to show/hide)
What?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 02, 2019, 09:13:09 PM
Before I look, I’ll guess C.  Robbery is taking by force or threat of force, and larceny is actually taking it.  Both apply here. The only question is whether a person can only be charged with one of them.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 02, 2019, 09:14:43 PM
Answer to #128

(click to show/hide)

Your spoiler tag is empty...
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 02, 2019, 09:49:36 PM
Lets try this again

Answer to #128

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 02, 2019, 09:50:11 PM
 I'm getting a double post, self induced
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 03, 2019, 07:53:06 AM
Ugh.  I thought it said charged, not convicted. If I’d read more carefully, I’d have gone for D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 03, 2019, 10:09:46 AM
Missed it by that much!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 08, 2019, 09:30:04 AM
I have no idea and this point would be just guessing

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/e30%3D/patreon-media/p/post/27440026/2edb7859accf44e38db5f5fe317dcdf6/1.jpg?token-time=1561161600&token-hash=50cQLGsIkIGfDsD1SwOaHNOnBlpNNV7AY6MqCUY24f4%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 08, 2019, 09:53:15 AM
I think almost all of that is distraction, and that the only important part is the joint and several liability.  The child’s representative can collect everything from any of the defendants at his/her discretion, and it is then up to the party collected from to get the other at-fault parties to cough up.

C
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 08, 2019, 10:43:49 AM
I think almost all of that is distraction, and that the only important part is the joint and several liability.  The child’s representative can collect everything from any of the defendants at his/her discretion, and it is then up to the party collected from to get the other at-fault parties to cough up.

C
C


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 08, 2019, 01:00:13 PM
C - Joint and severable liability makes C true for all of the liable defendants.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 09, 2019, 11:50:15 AM
Yeah, I'll go along, C is my guess as well.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 12, 2019, 05:11:57 PM
Answer to #72

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 12, 2019, 06:32:53 PM
Ha ha! We swept them!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 13, 2019, 01:47:08 PM
Ha ha! We swept them!

Good thing I didn't answer then. I had no idea which way to go on this one.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 13, 2019, 03:06:15 PM
How’s that any more court cases than the victim having to enforce three separate judgments against the at fault parties? It’s not—it just shifts the burden from the victim to those at fault. The point of joint and several liability is to prioritize making the victim whole and place the burden of collecting on those responsible.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 13, 2019, 05:46:45 PM
How’s that any more court cases than the victim having to enforce three separate judgments against the at fault parties? It’s not—it just shifts the burden from the victim to those at fault. The point of joint and several liability is to prioritize making the victim whole and place the burden of collecting on those responsible.

I was thinking that all are on trial at the same time with the verdict that they handed down. Maybe I am reading to much into the question. If that is the case then I can see it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 15, 2019, 02:02:57 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/27608471/2070fca18162498082449cf02c05fb8d/1.jpg?token-time=1561766400&token-hash=ELFi_41cn6GyELdRVgRQ8iyH34tt4X3gwHrIXqp1980%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 15, 2019, 02:05:59 PM
I don't remember if the Fed pays state tax or not. In any case I'm going to go with:
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 15, 2019, 03:35:09 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 15, 2019, 04:18:40 PM
I guess A.  The collector is being charged a commission, which means that he is performing a service.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 15, 2019, 05:54:28 PM
I have no idea.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 15, 2019, 06:02:51 PM
I have no idea.

I'm with you, but I seem to be saying that a lot of late.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 15, 2019, 09:04:28 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 16, 2019, 11:11:30 AM
I am guessing
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 16, 2019, 01:28:41 PM
The only tax we are talking about, I think, is on the sale between the Park Service and the collector.

I do not think this understanding of the question is correct.  The taxes in question are on the purchase of the item by the collector.  For one thing, it is settled that the federal government pays no state sales taxes directly; the question is whether it pays them indirectly through its agents.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 17, 2019, 12:17:00 PM
The only tax we are talking about, I think, is on the sale between the Park Service and the collector.

I do not think this understanding of the question is correct.  The taxes in question are on the purchase of the item by the collector.  For one thing, it is settled that the federal government pays no state sales taxes directly; the question is whether it pays them indirectly through its agents.

Yeah, I am out in left field on this one.   ;D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 17, 2019, 01:23:01 PM
The only tax we are talking about, I think, is on the sale between the Park Service and the collector.

I do not think this understanding of the question is correct.  The taxes in question are on the purchase of the item by the collector.  For one thing, it is settled that the federal government pays no state sales taxes directly; the question is whether it pays them indirectly through its agents.

In some states the Federal Government does pay sales tax.

I think you're right that the sales tax in question is the tax paid by the collector when the items were purchased.

If I go to home depot and buy drywall for myself, I have to pay sales tax. But if I buy it to sell to someone else I don't, but the purchaser does.

The collector should not have to pay those taxes because the items are being resold to the federal government.

But, that's not what the grounds for the suit are. The grounds are that the tax is unconstitutional.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 17, 2019, 04:56:59 PM
The only tax we are talking about, I think, is on the sale between the Park Service and the collector.

I do not think this understanding of the question is correct.  The taxes in question are on the purchase of the item by the collector.  For one thing, it is settled that the federal government pays no state sales taxes directly; the question is whether it pays them indirectly through its agents.

In some states the Federal Government does pay sales tax.

I think you're right that the sales tax in question is the tax paid by the collector when the items were purchased.

If I go to home depot and buy drywall for myself, I have to pay sales tax. But if I buy it to sell to someone else I don't, but the purchaser does.

The collector should not have to pay those taxes because the items are being resold to the federal government.

But, that's not what the grounds for the suit are. The grounds are that the tax is unconstitutional.

My answer was probably influenced by the fact that I do a sales tax return every month for the business.  Though I never take the deduction, there is a code for "Sales to Federal Government."  The way our system works is if I sell something directly to a business for their use, we are responsible for collecting the tax from the buyer and paying it to the state and city.  Our subcontracting work is generally exempt from sales tax, but we are responsible for getting documentation from the General Contractor that they are handling the sales taxes in the contract.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 17, 2019, 11:52:56 PM
And here is the answer to #130

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 22, 2019, 06:48:07 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/27778633/5bfb35aac5a441da9cb231df5c403042/1.jpg?token-time=1562371200&token-hash=VRG5Tl9u4pRSrOdkCrNNSoF2ODY--Lh3a9MXT7Ru3lY%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 22, 2019, 06:54:11 PM
I am not sure and the reasons that they give could work. C and D are close just a bit different.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 22, 2019, 07:17:05 PM
I hate hearsay questions.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 22, 2019, 08:31:01 PM
I hate hearsay questions.
That’s what she said


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 22, 2019, 09:31:52 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 23, 2019, 07:52:22 AM
I think A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 23, 2019, 05:29:20 PM
(click to show/hide)

D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on June 24, 2019, 12:06:54 PM
I saw the answer.
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 24, 2019, 12:24:44 PM
That really seems like it is the lawyer introducing evidence, and should not be allowed.  But IANAL.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 24, 2019, 12:35:21 PM
The defense opened the door for it by having the witness testify to the defendant’s reputation for honesty. They don’t get to do that without the opposing side having a chance to impeach the witness.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on June 24, 2019, 12:40:21 PM
The defense opened the door for it by having the witness testify to the defendant’s reputation for honesty. They don’t get to do that without the opposing side having a chance to impeach the witness.

I see.  That makes sense, I guess.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 25, 2019, 07:18:12 PM
Answer to #133

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 28, 2019, 06:43:00 PM
Next question is up

(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/27925200/5bfe60769ae741c9926d929a5972bd95/1.jpg?token-time=1562889600&token-hash=s1MkEZe3aIZ5rlLCWzxJ1nUYGlCVU24LMkIM79pDKrY%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on June 28, 2019, 06:46:13 PM
Man I'm stuck between A and D. I don't like either of these answers and I ditched my tort class (I never went to law school so same difference).

What the hell I'll go with....
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on June 28, 2019, 07:27:37 PM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on June 28, 2019, 08:06:26 PM
(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 01, 2019, 11:46:21 AM
Because of the
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 01, 2019, 03:55:50 PM
Answer to #132

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 08, 2019, 08:52:22 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28135850/853a2a91edfa4f3bae6ecb95525d9cf4/1.jpg?token-time=1563840000&token-hash=EapBWVYpcsCakpkj-ZL1onP8PHQNjkrkL-5L9w9rBEE%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 08, 2019, 09:34:30 PM
I think it is D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 09, 2019, 08:13:19 AM
I have no idea what equitable conversion is. In reality it would be the sellers property until closing.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on July 09, 2019, 11:20:49 AM
(click to show/hide)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 09, 2019, 01:11:28 PM
I think it’s D. If it is, then I hope that my lawyer had something written into my contract about it because I did not have insurance until closing.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 09, 2019, 01:14:11 PM
I have no idea what equitable conversion is. In reality it would be the sellers property until closing.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 10, 2019, 06:16:05 PM
Answer to #133.

(click to show/hide)

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 10, 2019, 06:17:10 PM
The show even ripped on this question a little bit. I didn't answer this one because I saw the answer.

Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 10, 2019, 06:48:58 PM
The show even ripped on this question a little bit. I didn't answer this one because I saw the answer.

Me too (neither?)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 10, 2019, 11:20:49 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 11, 2019, 01:36:27 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 11, 2019, 02:19:13 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.

There is a difference between taking possession and being the equitable owner in common law.  In the common law, once under a contract that requires the delivery of title, you are the owner of the property and the seller now has not a real interest in the property, but a personal one in the fulfillment of the contract. At that point (barring statutory or contract provisions to the contrary), the risks of loss is yours.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 11, 2019, 05:55:56 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.

There is a difference between taking possession and being the equitable owner in common law.  In the common law, once under a contract that requires the delivery of title, you are the owner of the property and the seller now has not a real interest in the property, but a personal one in the fulfillment of the contract. At that point (barring statutory or contract provisions to the contrary), the risks of loss is yours.

That's kind of what happens at a closing. That is when you sign the papers for the loan and transfer the deed of sale. Before that it is just an agreement of sale. Am I right on that?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 11, 2019, 06:09:25 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.

There is a difference between taking possession and being the equitable owner in common law.  In the common law, once under a contract that requires the delivery of title, you are the owner of the property and the seller now has not a real interest in the property, but a personal one in the fulfillment of the contract. At that point (barring statutory or contract provisions to the contrary), the risks of loss is yours.

That's kind of what happens at a closing. That is when you sign the papers for the loan and transfer the deed of sale. Before that it is just an agreement of sale. Am I right on that?

It’s a contract.  You’ve already traded something if value (the deposit) for the obligation of the seller to deliver the property at closing, and under the common law it makes you the equitable owner of the property even if you don’t yet have it in your possession.  If someone damages the property, you are the injured party, not the seller.  And if the property is damaged by a natural disaster or fire, you’ve assumed the risk.  Again, under common law and in the absence of contractual terms (as was the case in this question).
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 11, 2019, 06:16:10 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.

There is a difference between taking possession and being the equitable owner in common law.  In the common law, once under a contract that requires the delivery of title, you are the owner of the property and the seller now has not a real interest in the property, but a personal one in the fulfillment of the contract. At that point (barring statutory or contract provisions to the contrary), the risks of loss is yours.

That's kind of what happens at a closing. That is when you sign the papers for the loan and transfer the deed of sale. Before that it is just an agreement of sale. Am I right on that?

It’s a contract.  You’ve already traded something if value (the deposit) for the obligation of the seller to deliver the property at closing, and under the common law it makes you the equitable owner of the property even if you don’t yet have it in your possession.  If someone damages the property, you are the injured party, not the seller.  And if the property is damaged by a natural disaster or fire, you’ve assumed the risk.  Again, under common law and in the absence of contractual terms (as was the case in this question).

Every house I've purchased, I think we always had insurance lined up before signing the papers. I suspect that the mortgage company would not leave something like that to chance in any case.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 11, 2019, 06:27:20 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.

There is a difference between taking possession and being the equitable owner in common law.  In the common law, once under a contract that requires the delivery of title, you are the owner of the property and the seller now has not a real interest in the property, but a personal one in the fulfillment of the contract. At that point (barring statutory or contract provisions to the contrary), the risks of loss is yours.

That's kind of what happens at a closing. That is when you sign the papers for the loan and transfer the deed of sale. Before that it is just an agreement of sale. Am I right on that?

It’s a contract.  You’ve already traded something if value (the deposit) for the obligation of the seller to deliver the property at closing, and under the common law it makes you the equitable owner of the property even if you don’t yet have it in your possession.  If someone damages the property, you are the injured party, not the seller.  And if the property is damaged by a natural disaster or fire, you’ve assumed the risk.  Again, under common law and in the absence of contractual terms (as was the case in this question).

Every house I've purchased, I think we always had insurance lined up before signing the papers. I suspect that the mortgage company would not leave something like that to chance in any case.

You had insurance before closing? Between the time your offer was accepted and the time you closed?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 11, 2019, 06:34:36 PM
Just pulled out the sales agreement from when we purchased our condominium in 2008 (the house papers are stored elsewhere).  Section 12 reads as follows:

Quote
12. RISK OF LOSS:
The seller will assume all risk of loss or damage to the property by fire or other cause until after the transfer of title.

That clause is in there to address this very issue.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 11, 2019, 06:53:49 PM
After I answered I looked it up.  It seems some jurisdictions have done away with equitable conversion (NY) or otherwise shifted the liability (MA). I hope there was something in the contract we signed with our offer that put the risk of loss on the seller until closing.  I should dig out that paperwork the check.

That's how I always thought it was supposed to go. The day of the closing is the day you take possession  of the house/property.

There is a difference between taking possession and being the equitable owner in common law.  In the common law, once under a contract that requires the delivery of title, you are the owner of the property and the seller now has not a real interest in the property, but a personal one in the fulfillment of the contract. At that point (barring statutory or contract provisions to the contrary), the risks of loss is yours.

That's kind of what happens at a closing. That is when you sign the papers for the loan and transfer the deed of sale. Before that it is just an agreement of sale. Am I right on that?

It’s a contract.  You’ve already traded something if value (the deposit) for the obligation of the seller to deliver the property at closing, and under the common law it makes you the equitable owner of the property even if you don’t yet have it in your possession.  If someone damages the property, you are the injured party, not the seller.  And if the property is damaged by a natural disaster or fire, you’ve assumed the risk.  Again, under common law and in the absence of contractual terms (as was the case in this question).

Every house I've purchased, I think we always had insurance lined up before signing the papers. I suspect that the mortgage company would not leave something like that to chance in any case.

You had insurance before closing? Between the time your offer was accepted and the time you closed?

I guess I couldn't say for sure, but I would assume that that the title company and the mortgage companies would make sure the property is covered.  I guess I've never bought any property that didn't already have a mortgage on it, so I can't make any statements about that, but I can't imagine that a mortgage company would leave something like that hanging.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 14, 2019, 11:05:39 AM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28307145/561ee505f69a451aabc8917c39e7e549/1.jpg?token-time=1564272000&token-hash=8i0uQghbBDw6iunifLB3W17D5jXagY0nllFvbyi2Toc%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 14, 2019, 11:13:07 AM
So I really hope I can get this one correct. I have been on a slump for awhile now.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 14, 2019, 11:49:34 AM
I guess A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on July 14, 2019, 08:18:43 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28307145/561ee505f69a451aabc8917c39e7e549/1.jpg?token-time=1564272000&token-hash=8i0uQghbBDw6iunifLB3W17D5jXagY0nllFvbyi2Toc%3D)



(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 15, 2019, 12:15:30 AM
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 16, 2019, 05:52:44 PM
Answer to #134

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 16, 2019, 07:11:57 PM
Woo!
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on July 16, 2019, 08:51:25 PM
Woo!

Well done
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 17, 2019, 11:10:26 AM
Woo!

I forgot to put in my answer again, but I was on Team Thomas.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 17, 2019, 12:07:10 PM
Woo!

I forgot to put in my answer again, but I was on Team Thomas.  :laugh:

I'm a couple of weeks behind. What did Thomas say?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 17, 2019, 12:37:44 PM
Woo!

I forgot to put in my answer again, but I was on Team Thomas.  :laugh:

I'm a couple of weeks behind. What did Thomas say?

He was of the opinion that the thief escalated the crime to robbery when he threatened the clerk by hissing "You'll be sorry if you mess with me."  The answer was, of course, that it does not constitute a threat of physical violence and therefore does not elevate the crime to robbery.  Andrew then said he would put a poll on patreon and if a majority voted that it was a threat, he would give Thomas the win.

I overthought it, like Thomas.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 17, 2019, 01:24:03 PM
I thought the same way. I like Thomas think the answer was wrong.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 17, 2019, 02:13:19 PM
The issue is not whether it was a threat. The issue is that the threat was not made in order to obtain the item; he already had it, and had obtained it by pretense. In order for it to be robbery, he has to use force or threat of force to remove it from the clerk’s possession.

I disapprove of Andrew giving pints based on a poll; that’s not how the bar exam works.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 17, 2019, 02:53:35 PM
The issue is not whether it was a threat. The issue is that the threat was not made in order to obtain the item; he already had it, and had obtained it by pretense. In order for it to be robbery, he has to use force or threat of force to remove it from the clerk’s possession.

I disapprove of Andrew giving pints based on a poll; that’s not how the bar exam works.

You'll have to listen to it.  It was kind of "faux outrage" by Thomas, I think.  No one was too serious about it.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 21, 2019, 08:09:34 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28475609/4b3d9328e41f4ac4ac39cde718e697da/1.jpg?token-time=1564963200&token-hash=aH-Xsb72OwDrk1xE9ONbgBplj1Z-q_1QhPcg-Cpjv1A%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 21, 2019, 08:10:31 PM
Sorry for the delay I got busy. I will post the answer in a day or two
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 21, 2019, 08:20:41 PM
No clue, but I’ll guess B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 21, 2019, 08:43:19 PM
I want to say A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 21, 2019, 10:34:15 PM
I'm thinking A or D.

I'm going with D

and like Latinist said I have no clue
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 22, 2019, 01:14:37 PM
It seems to me that it should be D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 22, 2019, 04:52:00 PM
My problem with A, C and D is that they seem to imply that no piece of evidence is admissible unless it, by itself, is able to prove the case.  And that’s just not how evidence works.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on July 22, 2019, 06:44:51 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28475609/4b3d9328e41f4ac4ac39cde718e697da/1.jpg?token-time=1564963200&token-hash=aH-Xsb72OwDrk1xE9ONbgBplj1Z-q_1QhPcg-Cpjv1A%3D)

B
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 23, 2019, 12:42:22 PM
Answer for #135

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 23, 2019, 01:56:48 PM
That was a tough one.  You really had to dissect those answers.  They all seemed pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 23, 2019, 02:21:03 PM
You have to think about how evidence and proof works. It’s rarely if ever a single “gotcha” but of evidence that, by itself, proves the case.  If you required any more stringent standard than the one expressed in B, then it would be almost impossible to prove anything.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 23, 2019, 05:34:38 PM
That was a tough one.  You really had to dissect those answers.  They all seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Ya me too. They all seemed to have small nuances that I couldn't parse out. Hence my wrong answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 28, 2019, 07:53:25 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28619844/1b8f3c6a8d6048ae9b07a0e8a2d855a2/1.jpg?token-time=1565481600&token-hash=M6PNbQPZ8fZ5pNWSbxvljSdCJm1IiUrZm_XIXknDL2Q%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on July 28, 2019, 08:37:27 PM
I guessed  A
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on July 28, 2019, 09:31:17 PM
I’ll say D. If they had hired a $6k tutor they would have gotten $1k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 28, 2019, 10:36:49 PM
 I accedentally saw the answer so I'm out. It's not the choice I would have picked.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on July 29, 2019, 09:00:15 AM
I don't see how it's even a contract if there was no consideration.  But the question seems to assume that there was.  If that's the case, she had a duty to mitigate damages and the answer is A.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on July 29, 2019, 12:01:57 PM
Yep, I "accidentally" peeked as well.  I went with Thomas, at the  time I listened. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on July 30, 2019, 09:57:45 PM
Answer to #136

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 05, 2019, 09:49:07 AM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/28834410/bc2c349c7a6848dbaed2b0beeab1b481/1.jpg?token-time=1566172800&token-hash=vk3a0rprgo6be_Zqi3Zj4mt32Q4G7s_1sBPprMyMUXs%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 05, 2019, 09:57:35 AM
Well the first 2 are out that leaves C or D. I think both of those are a lot alike but different. It just comes down to what the law says to do. The judge can't rule on a rumor and needs to rule on actual action. C says I am not going to rule until the NBS comes up with a standard. D says there is no standard so there is not ruling needed.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on August 05, 2019, 10:15:09 AM
D.  Dismissed without prejudice.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on August 05, 2019, 11:08:27 AM
I guessed D, because they don't have standing, right?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on August 05, 2019, 11:15:44 AM
C. Because the regulations will be subject to judicial review


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on August 05, 2019, 11:27:36 AM
C. Because the regulations will be subject to judicial review

Why?  They could rule a million different ways that would make the suit moot.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on August 05, 2019, 11:40:07 AM
C. Because the regulations will be subject to judicial review

Why?  They could rule a million different ways that would make the suit moot.
I don’t understand your question. Who is “they”? The courts or the bureau?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on August 05, 2019, 11:41:46 AM
I'm going with
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 06, 2019, 10:08:33 PM
Answer to #137

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 11, 2019, 09:25:02 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29019466/7b9697d6b8f04790b117fa9c1eb0eda3/1.jpg?token-time=1566777600&token-hash=W_aXXgIF0Q72_qk-ocoFtjorQZCieDMfHfuQPzAAH5o%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 11, 2019, 09:25:42 PM
I have no idea and would be just guessing at this point.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on August 11, 2019, 09:37:49 PM
Moi Aussi, but I guess D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on August 11, 2019, 10:44:23 PM
D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on August 11, 2019, 11:09:30 PM
C.  The builder completed a distinct portion of the contract which created legal obligations on each party, so completion of one part requires payment. The landowner has a claim for failure to complete the other two buildings, but he can’t just deduct damages without actually suing for breach of contract and getting an award. His counterclaim could be handled as part of the same proceedings, maybe, but it is a separate claim.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on August 12, 2019, 11:27:02 AM
Being in the construction business, I've had to deal with similar crap.  I think it's
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 12, 2019, 02:30:13 PM
I'm going to go with D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 13, 2019, 02:17:50 PM
Answer to #138

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 16, 2019, 05:35:13 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29191734/4ca9b3cb39dc4fb9b8540902b30cb8fd/1.jpg?token-time=1567123200&token-hash=HL641OgR-afPpZryMsv1eD8HjYqGghdSAdrdKBLi6RU%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on August 16, 2019, 07:10:39 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29191734/4ca9b3cb39dc4fb9b8540902b30cb8fd/1.jpg?token-time=1567123200&token-hash=HL641OgR-afPpZryMsv1eD8HjYqGghdSAdrdKBLi6RU%3D)

C
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 16, 2019, 07:34:19 PM
Well I do not know what a warranty deed is. I think this is the key to the answer. Now under normal circumstances the land would go to the nephew because he did not have title to the land when he sold it. This would require the woman to sue the nephew for fraud(?). I am going to go with B. Because you can't sell something that you do not own.
I am ok if I am wrong because I have no idea what warranty deed means. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on August 16, 2019, 09:09:55 PM
We saw warranty deed before:
(click to show/hide)

A and D are definitely wrong; if there's one thing that I've picked up on about real property law from these questions, it's that what's recorded in the books usually has nothing to do with who owns it.  Recording is just a way of certifying and preserving the records; it's the contract itself that decides.  I don't like B for reasons discussed above.

So I'm going with C.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on August 16, 2019, 09:55:05 PM
C?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on August 19, 2019, 12:03:08 PM
I have to bow out this week  :(  I accidentally saw the answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 21, 2019, 04:16:30 PM
Answer to #139

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 23, 2019, 07:16:52 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29366112/57ec4d9c240848c7ad3fd4312a88a04f/1.jpg?token-time=1567728000&token-hash=W0MnsIgL2YV0VSY2IvQOHt-DlpWWO6a2ZljfIvVd20o%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on August 23, 2019, 07:35:50 PM
B?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on August 23, 2019, 07:37:34 PM
Yeah, I gotta day B.  But I may be wrong.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on August 23, 2019, 08:54:52 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29366112/57ec4d9c240848c7ad3fd4312a88a04f/1.jpg?token-time=1567728000&token-hash=W0MnsIgL2YV0VSY2IvQOHt-DlpWWO6a2ZljfIvVd20o%3D)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: bachfiend on August 23, 2019, 10:32:16 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29366112/57ec4d9c240848c7ad3fd4312a88a04f/1.jpg?token-time=1567728000&token-hash=W0MnsIgL2YV0VSY2IvQOHt-DlpWWO6a2ZljfIvVd20o%3D)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 24, 2019, 09:36:52 PM
I'm going to go with C
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on August 26, 2019, 12:18:48 PM
I'm thinking it must be
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 27, 2019, 12:11:34 PM
Answer to #140

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 27, 2019, 12:13:14 PM
Some of are good at this while I am not so good at this. Note to self, hire a lawyer and don't represent myself.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on August 27, 2019, 01:14:59 PM
Some of are good at this while I am not so good at this. Note to self, hire a lawyer and don't represent myself.

Yeah, wow, I am a shitty amateur lawyer.  I would think that that would be a matter for the jury to figure out. 
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 31, 2019, 07:47:21 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29547041/1cb8d07775fc44b6a2b96075d2110612/1.jpg?token-time=1568419200&token-hash=K9qHx_vUaaztLc2ZeuHtmH8wSS-6J_kx5dqzF_8nXRg%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on August 31, 2019, 07:50:27 PM
I'm going with D because I want it to happen
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on August 31, 2019, 11:09:58 PM
I'm going to go with D.  A landlord can enter only for specific purposes, and, except in the case of emergency, must give advance notice.

Unless, of course, those rights are all state laws and under the common law things were different.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on August 31, 2019, 11:31:15 PM
This is tricky because I think the student has a case but I’m not sure it’s trespass.

But that’s what I’m going with. D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on August 31, 2019, 11:42:11 PM
Pretty sure its D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 01, 2019, 08:43:32 PM
Answer #142

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: stands2reason on September 02, 2019, 01:50:27 PM
Purely a hypothetical, because who would try that with law students?
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 02, 2019, 10:37:35 PM
Purely a hypothetical, because who would try that with law students?

You might be surprised at the arrogance of lessors.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 03, 2019, 01:18:35 PM
Dammit, missed my chance again.  That was a pretty egregious violation of a tenant's rights.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 10, 2019, 11:31:53 AM
Sorry got behind on this one



(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29737509/822a4f36776f4effb6731622d7476c1b/1.jpg?token-time=1569283200&token-hash=2muk-49iA0zScJ05TwKmDuugHAhFT8I-6ZSe90tlGGk%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 10, 2019, 11:33:52 AM
I'm going with C
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 10, 2019, 11:34:38 AM
Answer #143

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on September 10, 2019, 11:58:22 AM
Sorry got behind on this one



(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29737509/822a4f36776f4effb6731622d7476c1b/1.jpg?token-time=1569283200&token-hash=2muk-49iA0zScJ05TwKmDuugHAhFT8I-6ZSe90tlGGk%3D)
C? As soon as he mailed his agreement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on September 10, 2019, 02:24:08 PM
Listening now, and Andrew was wrong about something.

In the Devin Nunez segment he concluded by saying that Nunez will probably get re-elected, "thanks, Gerrymandering."

Congressional districts in California are not gerrymandered. They're assigned by a non-partisan panel not based on politics.

Andrew is right, Nunez will probably be re-elected, but it's because that part of Central California is heavily Republican and Nunez won't have a serious primary challenger.

It's not Gerrymandering.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 17, 2019, 06:58:11 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/29915847/159d7f4134ce494b8033435dc962a855/1.jpg?token-time=1569888000&token-hash=UGLvldaDuMpPlhHfPExFQ4lg3qMlVuj9C33iP3Pq9MI%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 17, 2019, 06:59:37 PM
Answer to #144.
No looking No cheating


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 17, 2019, 07:01:06 PM
I listened last night after work.  This was a toughie, I think the
(click to show/hide)

ETA: I was typing my answer when you posted THE answer.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on September 17, 2019, 08:48:12 PM


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 17, 2019, 09:24:55 PM
143: C
 144: B
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 21, 2019, 09:29:39 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJ3Ijo2MjB9/patreon-media/p/post/30093356/f5108afb0f6f45ee8dba4f5db0f6e842/1.jpg?token-time=1570320000&token-hash=-Elvuk4UUMJac2aW9qhnkb4Dbr97RIx2jHe63Xt2_Yc%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 21, 2019, 09:30:54 PM
I'm going with
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 21, 2019, 09:33:57 PM
B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 22, 2019, 06:43:44 AM
I said B too.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on September 22, 2019, 10:20:15 AM
While I think B is true I’m going with A, because that is reason enough and covers all defense scenarios.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 23, 2019, 11:55:51 AM
I'm on B; it seems the most cromulent.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 26, 2019, 06:08:03 PM
Answer to #145

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 26, 2019, 11:50:00 PM
On a roll, which doubtless means a real property question is up next.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 27, 2019, 08:00:22 AM
On a roll, which doubtless means a real property question is up next.

Ya me too. I've been here before and start to think that the bar exam isn't so bad..........then reality sets in and I miss the next 5 or 6  :D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on September 27, 2019, 06:47:49 PM
Speaking of.  For #146, I guessed B or D, but I went with D.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 28, 2019, 07:53:15 AM
Speaking of.  For #146, I guessed B or D, but I went with D.

I'll post the question later today
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 29, 2019, 07:29:15 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/30266361/fb934de4b1f54ea194c28a9d95cbda0d/1.jpg?token-time=1570924800&token-hash=L7SqMAqx8fs7x_n_uDPbdAztrMgO-P84hxRAqe8iZ9c%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on September 29, 2019, 07:31:02 PM
I'm going with B.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on September 30, 2019, 06:54:27 AM
D

Also: I told you it’d be real property next.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on September 30, 2019, 10:46:05 AM
D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on September 30, 2019, 11:30:41 AM
I will join in the opinion: D
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 04, 2019, 06:16:24 PM
Answer #92

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 04, 2019, 06:17:16 PM
(https://c10.patreonusercontent.com/3/eyJwIjoxfQ%3D%3D/patreon-media/p/post/30473293/5706826af7dd464c9b75eee4d5ebe4a5/1.jpg?token-time=1571356800&token-hash=0L4ZcINKpSZx8MOBMbycNT9J14N7zmPviknaEHHwlSc%3D)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 04, 2019, 07:05:26 PM
I'm going to say C, but I am not sure.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on October 04, 2019, 07:31:33 PM
I am thinking, as a former 12-year-old myself, that the pond is a kid magnet, and they are lucky this is the first incident.  Therefore
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: CarbShark on October 05, 2019, 01:46:58 AM
A there should have been a fence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 05, 2019, 01:25:59 PM
I'm going to go with C. 12 year old should know better. I can't see putting a fence up on ponds and lakes. A swimming pool yes but not a pond.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: The Latinist on October 05, 2019, 01:35:20 PM
I'll add a little more detail.  Attractive nuisance wouldn't apply to a bright 12 year old capable of reading the warning and understanding the danger, and in a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction culpability on the part of the daycare wouldn't completely relieve the corporation if it were partly at fault--it would just reduce its share of the responsibility.  And I don't think one has the ability to remove all sources of danger, merely to take reasonable precautions.

I also think I remember something about attractive nuisances needing to be artificial; a natural feature like a pond might not count.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: PANTS! on October 05, 2019, 04:50:31 PM
I am thinking B.  I know pools are for sure an attractive nuisance, I am betting that a skating pond is as well.
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: xenu on October 07, 2019, 09:15:34 PM
Answer to #147


(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
Post by: Swagomatic on October 08, 2019, 11:44:31 AM
Oh well, that's why I am in the construction business.  ;D