Since exam day is rapidly approaching, I have added on to a prior blog post on tips, trips, mnemonics, strategies, etc. as I have been perusing materials. I have added some civil procedure, some constitutional law, some alternatives for criminal and tort law. More to come soon! Any particular area(s) you are wondering about? Leave it in the comments, contact me, or give me a shout on twitter.
OFFENDING TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY & SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE (i.e. factors to determine fairness of forum jurisdiction to D)? Find Fair CLIPPERS or “use CLIPPERS to find fairness”
- To determine fairness, cts consider: Convenience, Legitimate Interest, Plaintiff’s interest Proper, Efficiency of judicial system, Social Policies (interest in furthering)
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUIREMENTS: P must establish HIS BIG case!
Harm (Irreparable), likely to Succeed on merits, Best Interest of public, Greater harm (if not issued).
Justiciability: A SPERM is not justiciable!
No Advisory opinions, no lack of Standing, no Political questions, Eeleventh Amendment (state sovereignty), not Ripe, not Moot
Fed. Legislative Power – Police power! The federal government only has a MILD police power! (only police power over Military, Indian Reservations, Land (federal), DC
Strict Scrutiny applies to classifications that are NEAR (National origin, Ethnicity, Alienage [if made by state law], Race)
NOTE: know difference between alienage as suspect and non-suspect!
OBSCENITY TEST: average person finds PIPS – Prurient Interest, Patently offensive, AND no Serious [literary/artistic/political/scientific value] per national reasonable person standard.
For criminal law, I focused on intent because not only can you list out crimes by memorizing the different categories of intent, but you know which defenses can apply to a crime in light of its intent requirement.
SPECIFIC INTENT: Specific Intent crimes are a CATS BAFFFLER (note the extra ‘f’). Conspiracy, ATtempt, Solicitation (the inchoate crimes), and Burglary, Assault, Forgery, False pretenses, First degree murder, Larceny, Embezzlement, Robbery.
- BAM ACTS [Burglary, Assault, Murder 1, Attempts, Conspiracy, Theft crimes, Solicitation] or FIAT crimes [First degree murder, Inchoate crimes, Assault, Theft crimes) work as well.
GENERAL INTENT: “I learned General Intent Crimes in My KRIB.” Manslaughter, Kidnapping, Rape, false Imprisonment, and Battery.
This may look familiar, as my law school professor and some supplements and at least one bar prep program use it but here we go:
Hearsay EXCLUSIONS (no unavailability required) “I Learned Hearsay Exclusions on PBJ PAPERS.” Learned: learned treatise; PBJ = public records, business records, judgements of prior convictions; PAPERS: Present sense impression, Ancient documents, Past physical condition [for med diagnosis or treatment], Excited utterance, Recorded recollection and State of mind (present state of mind).
NOTE: If it works better for you just PBJ PAPERS or vice versa, but while it is not heavily tested for some reason it seemed for class and bar prep one extra one that is tacked on is learned treatise so that is why I made it into that sentence. There are other exclusions which do not require unavailability but I’m assuming/from my experience are scarcely tested like vital statistics and family records under the same provision [FRE 803].
Hearsay Exemptions: “HE Packs A Powerful Punch” (Hearsay Exemptions: Prior inconsistent statement, Admissions*, prior consistent statement, and prior statement of ID;
*on admissions: ‘admissions run on C-JAVA’ or alternatively ‘admissions run on Coffee & JAVA [Co-conspirator, Judicial, (And) Vicarious Admissions].
Non-Hearsay uses of out of court statements that are valid LIKE Me – Independent Legal significance (the order of the L and I are reversed but it never hurt me), Knowledge of listener, Effect on listener, and [state of] Mind (or Mental state).
Torts: Here I used analogies (Harry Potter, specifically the Chamber of Secrets)
Assault: Ron assaulted Draco even though Ron suffered the harm and was the initial aggressor because [Draco’s] words are inadequate provocation and thus by casting the Slug-Vomiting charm, Ron put Draco in imminent apprehension of bodily harm.
Battery: Draco could have battered and would have battered Harry but for the fact that they were in a dueling club amidst a dangerous climate in the school, so consent is implied at the very least.
Transferred Intent: One could further argue that Justin Finch-Flechy was also assaulted by Draco via the snake he conjured because there was intent which was transferred (i.e. transferred intent applies to assault) and Draco’s action put Justin in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact and thus Justin can recover nominal but in same cases punitive damages. However, a court could rule either way depending on whether they find that Justin’s presence at the dueling club constituted implied consent.
Then if you want to have some fun, pretend one of them won their claim or that instead, Justin or Draco’s parents sued Lockhart and Snape for negligence. Look to the standard/duty owed in the situation and whether it was breached, the cause of the injuries (but-for and proximate causation), and the injury at issue (damages!).
- Alternatively: TI has A FIT BAT (Transferred Intent Applies to False Imprisonment, Trespass to chattels, Battery, Assault, Trespass to land)