- (Real Property) If there's a chance that it's a fixture, it's a fixture.
- (Constitutional Law) If there's a federal statute that touches on the same matter as a state law, that federal statute is a comprehensive scheme of regulation.
On some level, this sort of learning is about the application of law to facts, something that law school itself doesn't really try to teach (the "replevin for a cow" syndrome).* On another level, it's about learning which trifle's being tested.
And there's less than a week to go!
*To paraphrase, "You people could delicately argue the finest point of constitutional law, but you couldn't get replevin for a cow!" Replevin is the "give it back" action. If Farmer A steals Farmer B's cow, Farmer B's lawyer would seek replevin for the cow. The action recovers property.
7 comments:
Yeah, this is something that's very frustrating. Half the time, I'm like, I know what you're getting at, MBE question writer, and I know what the rule is. What I don't is know is whether I'm supposed to think Sandra Socialite is a public figure, or Harry Homeowner could have discovered the rusty nail on his lawn after a reasonable inspection, or William Wifekiller was adequately provoked by what he saw his wife doing, or whatever. On a law school exam you can argue both sides, but not on the MBE.
So, if you decide on any more guidelines, post them!
I have even better news. My friend who took the test in february says that the real MBE is even more vague than the barbri practice questions.
Well, that's all very reassuring. I swear that I've run through this question on 2 different occasions, and I've been told 2 different answers to the same fact pattern:
Bob walks up to Steve. Steve stands next to a vase. Bob asks, "How much for the vase?" Steve says, "$100." Bob pays and takes the vase. Steve didn't own the vase.
The question is, what did Steve commit - larceny or obtaining property by false pretenses.
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I think that my review dealie has told me both answers.
I think it's larceny for the vase but false pretenses for the money. Except that it's not from the physical presence of the owner of the vase, so that makes it just robbery. Why don't they just call everything theft and make it easier on us?
Missouri calls everything "stealing," which I kind of like because it sounds so unofficial and colloquial.
I think perma you're right about that - larceny for the vase, false pretenses for the money.
Pennsylvania does a similar thing with taking other people's stuff. It's all "theft."
Funny, I read the hypothetical and started thinking cloak of authority and agency. I guess you assume he didnt own the vase?
Post a Comment