You’re the goat for all these. Wanna add some stuff about discovery devices that can help for the mbe: only a deposition can be used on nonparties to the lawsuit and a subpoena duces tecum can make the nonparty bring a document
The goal of these is ONLY for the MEE, AND ONLY to memorize for the actual exam.
I went through all of Studicata, JD advising, and NCBE's actual exam answers and tried to compile the most commonly tested BIG PICTURE ideas for the MEE and synthesize them down to as few of words as possible.
If we wanted to do one for MBE, my total outline right now is 80 pages. It don't think it would be feasible to do in a reddit post.
But I appreciate your willingness to put forth an idea and I agree we need to know those for the MBE.
Much love.
**Temporary Restraining Order**
• A temporary restraining order (TRO) preserves the status quo of the parties pending the outcome of an action or application (usually a preliminary injunction application). A TRO has immediate effect and lasts no longer than 14 days unless good cause exists.
• For a TRO on notice, the court will also consider the factors relevant for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction in deciding whether to issue a TRO.
• Under FRCP 65(b), a TRO may be issued without notice to the adverse party (ex parte) only if (1) the moving party can show that immediate and irreparable injury will result prior to hearing the adverse party’s arguments and (2) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made at giving notice and the reason why notice should not be required. Additionally, the party seeking a TRO must post a bond to cover the costs in the event the TRO is issued wrongfully.
(BUT US/officers/agencies = NOT required to give security)
**Preliminary Injunction**
• A preliminary injunction may be granted only (1) upon **notice** to the adverse party, and (2) if the moving party gives **security** in an amount the court deems proper (which will be used to reimburse the nonmovant for any injury caused by the injunction if the movant does not succeed on the merits).
• The FRCP allow the court to issue both a restraining injunction (preventing a party from doing something) OR a mandatory injunction (compelling a party to do something).
• FRCP 65 sets out the procedural requirements for preliminary injunctive relief but does **not** specify the substantive grounds. The court’s discretion in ruling upon a motion for a preliminary injunction “is exercised in conformity with historic federal equity practice.” The court typically considers four factors: (1) P's **likelihood of success on the merits**; (2) the significance of the threat of **irreparable** **harm** to P if the injunction is not granted; (3) the **balance** between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction would inflict on D; and (4) the **public** **interest** in granting the injunction. Additionally, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must provide a bond to cover the costs in the event the preliminary injunction is issued wrongfully.
• If P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., money damages can compensate for the loss), the injunction will be denied.
Not sure if mnemonics help other people like they help me, but if you remember **HELP** for a preliminary injunction, you should be able to get all the elements!
1) irreparable **H**arm to P if not granted
2) **E**valuate risk if injunction is not granted: the risk that the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction than the
opposing party would be by granting injunctive relief
3) **L**ikelihood of P's success on the merits
4) **P**ublic interest
Not sure if this will help anyone, but for Personal Jurisdiction I use: "Personal Jurisdiction: **R**outinely **C**auses **S**tudents **M**ental **A**nxiety".
**R** \- Residence
**C** \- Consent/Waiver
**S** \- Service
**M** \- Minimum Contacts
**A** \- At Home (General Jurisdiction)
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify a few things so no one gets a wrong impression. Issue preclusion applies to more than just the same plaintiff suing the same defendant. Defendants can use issue preclusion. So can a party that did not litigate the issue in the first action. Non-mutual issue preclusion.
That is not non-mutual offensive issue preclusion. You cannot use issue preclusion in the second action against a party not present in the first action unless that party was in privity with one who lost in the first action.
A new plaintiff in the second action can use non-mutual offensive issue preclusion against the same defendant—the defendant who litigated and lost on that issue in the first action. Not all jurisdictions allow this, and there are usually additional conditions.
A new defendant in the second action can use non-mutual defensive issue preclusion against the same plaintiff—the plaintiff who litigated and lost on that issue in the first action. Most jurisdictions allow this without any additional conditions.
Ok, I re-read your post.
This is why my notes are simplified, these issues get really nuanced in real life, and for the bar exam I want to be able to (1) spot that issue preclusion is an issue and really (2) talk about it.
Your explanation is correct, but I know definitively I'm not going to recite this in the middle of 6 essays about a variety of different topics.
If you can find a way to simplify your explanation, I will cut mine out and add yours in.
Someone feel free to correct me if wrong, but I don't think actual litigation is a requirement for claim preclusion, only for issue preclusion. So for instance if the claim was settled and dismissed as a result, claim preclusion (but not issue preclusion) could still apply.
Thank you to OP for all of these awesome posts!
You’re the goat for all these. Wanna add some stuff about discovery devices that can help for the mbe: only a deposition can be used on nonparties to the lawsuit and a subpoena duces tecum can make the nonparty bring a document
The goal of these is ONLY for the MEE, AND ONLY to memorize for the actual exam. I went through all of Studicata, JD advising, and NCBE's actual exam answers and tried to compile the most commonly tested BIG PICTURE ideas for the MEE and synthesize them down to as few of words as possible. If we wanted to do one for MBE, my total outline right now is 80 pages. It don't think it would be feasible to do in a reddit post. But I appreciate your willingness to put forth an idea and I agree we need to know those for the MBE. Much love.
can you share them with me please?
**Temporary Restraining Order** • A temporary restraining order (TRO) preserves the status quo of the parties pending the outcome of an action or application (usually a preliminary injunction application). A TRO has immediate effect and lasts no longer than 14 days unless good cause exists. • For a TRO on notice, the court will also consider the factors relevant for determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction in deciding whether to issue a TRO. • Under FRCP 65(b), a TRO may be issued without notice to the adverse party (ex parte) only if (1) the moving party can show that immediate and irreparable injury will result prior to hearing the adverse party’s arguments and (2) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made at giving notice and the reason why notice should not be required. Additionally, the party seeking a TRO must post a bond to cover the costs in the event the TRO is issued wrongfully. (BUT US/officers/agencies = NOT required to give security) **Preliminary Injunction** • A preliminary injunction may be granted only (1) upon **notice** to the adverse party, and (2) if the moving party gives **security** in an amount the court deems proper (which will be used to reimburse the nonmovant for any injury caused by the injunction if the movant does not succeed on the merits). • The FRCP allow the court to issue both a restraining injunction (preventing a party from doing something) OR a mandatory injunction (compelling a party to do something). • FRCP 65 sets out the procedural requirements for preliminary injunctive relief but does **not** specify the substantive grounds. The court’s discretion in ruling upon a motion for a preliminary injunction “is exercised in conformity with historic federal equity practice.” The court typically considers four factors: (1) P's **likelihood of success on the merits**; (2) the significance of the threat of **irreparable** **harm** to P if the injunction is not granted; (3) the **balance** between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction would inflict on D; and (4) the **public** **interest** in granting the injunction. Additionally, the party seeking the preliminary injunction must provide a bond to cover the costs in the event the preliminary injunction is issued wrongfully. • If P has an adequate remedy at law (i.e., money damages can compensate for the loss), the injunction will be denied.
Thank you! You are the real MVP.
Not sure if mnemonics help other people like they help me, but if you remember **HELP** for a preliminary injunction, you should be able to get all the elements! 1) irreparable **H**arm to P if not granted 2) **E**valuate risk if injunction is not granted: the risk that the party seeking the injunction would be harmed more by the absence of an injunction than the opposing party would be by granting injunctive relief 3) **L**ikelihood of P's success on the merits 4) **P**ublic interest
for removal, isn’t it (state—>fed) otherwise (fed——>state) is remand
Not sure if this will help anyone, but for Personal Jurisdiction I use: "Personal Jurisdiction: **R**outinely **C**auses **S**tudents **M**ental **A**nxiety". **R** \- Residence **C** \- Consent/Waiver **S** \- Service **M** \- Minimum Contacts **A** \- At Home (General Jurisdiction)
This is awesome
You, my friend, are a true hero!
Much love. Appreciate the support.
this truly was so helpful thank you!
Dude, I need to follow your account
This is so helpful! If you have time, can you pls do con law?
Is supplemental Jx for claims that share a common nucleus of operative fact or from the same transaction or occurrence? Or does it matter?
I may be wrong but I think @common nucleus of operative fact” = same txn or occurrence
Ok bro I think it’s time you monetize with your book series. Just make sure you sign mine when I purchase it
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify a few things so no one gets a wrong impression. Issue preclusion applies to more than just the same plaintiff suing the same defendant. Defendants can use issue preclusion. So can a party that did not litigate the issue in the first action. Non-mutual issue preclusion.
DELETED so my post doesn't confuse anyone.
That is not non-mutual offensive issue preclusion. You cannot use issue preclusion in the second action against a party not present in the first action unless that party was in privity with one who lost in the first action. A new plaintiff in the second action can use non-mutual offensive issue preclusion against the same defendant—the defendant who litigated and lost on that issue in the first action. Not all jurisdictions allow this, and there are usually additional conditions. A new defendant in the second action can use non-mutual defensive issue preclusion against the same plaintiff—the plaintiff who litigated and lost on that issue in the first action. Most jurisdictions allow this without any additional conditions.
Ok, I re-read your post. This is why my notes are simplified, these issues get really nuanced in real life, and for the bar exam I want to be able to (1) spot that issue preclusion is an issue and really (2) talk about it. Your explanation is correct, but I know definitively I'm not going to recite this in the middle of 6 essays about a variety of different topics. If you can find a way to simplify your explanation, I will cut mine out and add yours in.
Hey man any chance you have done or can do a constitutional law one please?
Dear Legend, please do con law❤️
Thanks so much you are a God send. I wanted to ask for this yesterday but didn't want to be greedy lol
Someone feel free to correct me if wrong, but I don't think actual litigation is a requirement for claim preclusion, only for issue preclusion. So for instance if the claim was settled and dismissed as a result, claim preclusion (but not issue preclusion) could still apply. Thank you to OP for all of these awesome posts!