Question 78 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Elsa was a single woman with a life insurance policy that pays her designated beneficiary $74,000 upon her death. She tragically died in a boating accident. Her ex-boyfriend, Anthony, was a resident of Arkansas and named as beneficiary. But her mother Mary, a resident of California, also filed a claim for the life insurance proceeds. The insurance company, a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business in California, filed an interpleader action in federal court to protect itself from potentially inconsistent and multiple claims. May the insurance company bring the interpleader action in federal court? A. No, because there is no federal court where the insurance company will be able to establish personal jurisdiction over both claimants. B. No, because the insurance company is not diverse from one of the claimants. C. No, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and there is no diversity between the insurance company and one of the claimants. D. Yes, because the amount in controversy is $500 or more, and both claimants are diverse from one another.

Tragedy strikes again in this week's #T3BE (quote skeet to play) and I don't know about you, but I'm not buying this "boating accident" story. Anthony definitely did it.

I’m gonna guess the answer is C. Some tired law person at some point decided trying to figure out the secondary and tertiary knock on effects of falling chandeliers was too hard. So they drew the line at people sat underneath, and thus chandelier-law was born. #T3BE @openargs.bsky.social

This one's a behemoth (I had to type out the alt text manually). The text of T3BE Question 77 is as follows: Winnie was on her way to meet her husband, Herb, for lunch at the restaurant adjacent to the bookstore where he worked. Winnie had just entered the building, which was owned and operated by the bookstore, when she heard the sound of breaking glass and screams. A big chandelier that was hanging in the restaurant fell into the waiting area. Winnie saw several injured people in the waiting area, including her husband who was lying in the wreckage of the chandelier. When she saw her husband, Winnie fainted and hit her foot on an umbrella stand, breaking the bones in her foot. The chandelier fell because the fastener that the bookstore used to secure it to the ceiling was loose. If Winnie sues the bookstore for her injury, is she likely to prevail? The answer choices, included by popular demand are as follows: A. Yes, because her husband was one of the people she saw lying in the wreckage. B. Yes, because the bookstore used the fastener for the chandelier. C. No, because she was not personally in the zone of danger of physical injury D. No, because she did not actually see the chandelier collapse onto the diners.

We interrupt our regular coverage of The Horrors with a #T3BE (quote skeet to play) question about The Hypothetical Horrors. I wonder if the person who came up with this debacle is a Phantom fan. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

Long time first time. My assumption here is yes: The contemporaneously written notes can be read into evidence against the passenger's oral testimony. It would be up to the other party to impeach that evidence either as not being contemporaneously written, or for being incorrect. #T3BE

Question 76 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam: A driver and a passenger were involved in a car accident. Shortly thereafter, the passenger wrote a summary of the events surrounding the accident in a journal entry. At trial three years later, the passenger is on the stand and unable to accurately recall the details of the accident, even after reviewing his written summary about the accident from his journal. Assuming a proper foundation is laid, may the summary of the accident be read into evidence?

#T3BE (quote skeet to play) is back in business with your weekly shot to be admitted to the Bluesky Bar, have at it! Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

Question 75 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Joe was a farmer who grew lettuce on his farm. He conveyed 50 acres of his property "To my sister, her heirs, and assigns, so long as the premises are used for agricultural purposes." What is Joe's interest in the 50 acres as a result of the conveyance?

Good news: #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is up and full of lettuce jokes. Bad news: It's a real property question. Try your hand at Stardew Valley law. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

I need to know what the potential civil and criminal penalties might be for this. The beekeeper did not directly attack the police. He merely released naturally occurring wild insects.

CC: @openargs.bsky.social
Was there a #T3BE about a person who nursed a wild animal to health then released it?

This week's Thomas Takes The Bar Exam question is as follows: A group of people that hijacked a truck full of bees was arrested and indicted by a grand jury. During the grand jury's investigation, the district attorney's office subpoenaed the truck driver, Tom, as a witness. He was relieved that he was not asked questions about a series of thefts of shipments of bee boxes that he was involved in, but he worries the subject might be brought up at trial by the defense attorneys. Tom is afraid that he will be fired from his job if he invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand, so he wants to avoid testifying at all at the trial, even if he is subpoenaed by the defense. As Tom's lawyer, what advice would you give him about complying with a subpoena?

I'm so glad this #T3BE (quote skeet to play) inspired me to look up "bee heists". May have to put this up for footnote consideration. Happy Juneteenth folks.

It's time for another practice bar exam question! Listen in to get the answer to last week's (how did you do?), and to hear the answer options for this one!
This week's #T3BE 73:

Honestly, I thought there was a requirement that the owner knew the property belonged to them and the neighbor was using it, but that isn’t an option. AB seem obviously wrong, C I don’t understand , so I’m going with D. #T3BE

Question 72 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: Lily owned a large piece of land next to her neighbor, Nancy. There was never a clearly marked boundary line between the two properties. Thirty years ago, Lily decided to plant a beautiful flower garden on part of the land she believed belonged to her. In actuality, the land belonged to Nancy. Since the time Lily initially planted the garden, she continued to take care of it by tending to the garden on a weekly basis. Five years ago, Nancy was convicted and imprisoned for insider trading. She recently died and her executor filed suit to eject Lily and quiet title. The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 21 years. Which of the following is the best answer regarding Lily’s claim to the land where she planted her flower garden? Listen for the answer choices in the episode!

Fake hint for #T3BE (quote skeet to play), the key word here is "beautiful" because you have no claim over the land if your flower garden sucks. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a...

Question 71 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: On a dark and stormy night, a tanker sailing on the Ohio River ran into a large underwater pipe. The pipe burst and sent millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the water. Louisville sued the ship in federal court, claiming severe damage to its historic riverfront. Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the matter?

I couldn't tell you why Question 71 of #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is formatted like a ghost story, but I kind of love it. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/y...

For #T3BE I think the answer is B. They were at a fundraiser which presumably would not provide a lot of opportunity for assumption of privacy so I don’t think the priest would be bound.

Btw the fraud fishy hates Cheetos, etc is a reference to the @jonathancoulton.bsky.social song “Code Monkey”

Question 70 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam is as follows: A seller of office chairs, Martha Sits, sued the manufacturer of the chairs, Comfort 4 U, for breach of contract, alleging that the chairs failed to conform to contract specifications. Not long before trial began, Martha suffered a serious head injury that left her unable to move or communicate. A guardian was properly substituted as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. At trial after the presentation of Martha’s case, Comfort 4 U calls as a witness Alberto, who is a priest, to question him about a conversation he had with Martha at a church fundraiser. In this conversation, Martha told Alberto in confidence that the chairs she received were fully functional but that she learned one of Comfort 4 U’s competitors offered a lower price and wanted to get out of her contract with the company. Martha’s attorney immediately objects on the basis of clergy-penitent privilege. How should the court rule on the objection?

Here's Question 70 of #T3BE (quote skeet to play). Father Alberto sounds like a petty little diva who loves to stir the pot and I'm here for it. Hear the answer choices in the episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/c...

Question 69 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam, answer choices are at the link in the skeet. The question text is as follows: Patti was walking in a crosswalk near her home when she was hit and seriously injured by a truck driven by drunk driver, Dylan. He had just left his local bar, Thomas’ Tavern, after being served many drinks by the bartender, Billy. Patti sued Billy in a jurisdiction that does not have a dram shop act. Is Billy vicariously liable for Patti’s injuries?

#T3BE players, Question 69 (haha) is live! Quote skeet to play even if this is your first time seeing the word "dram shop" because the law is weird and it's fun to learn about it. Answer choices are in the episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/g...

This is the text of Question 68 of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam, out every Thursday. Click the episode link in the skeet to play along! The question is as follows: Wendy and Hubert bought a beautiful piece of land nestled among the hills with a lovely home situated on it, taking a title as joint tenants. A few years later, they married and had a child, Kelly. Several years after that, Wendy and Hubert divorced. Wendy and Kelly continued to live on the land after the divorce, although title remained in the names of both Hubert and Wendy. Hubert moved out of state, conveying all his title and interest in the land by deed to Kelly. Shortly after, Hubert was killed one evening when a motorcycle fell on him while he was cycling by the ocean. He died without a will. Who has title to the land?

The 5/1 #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is proof that the Bar Exam Cinematic Universe exists. Question 68: The Motorcycle Strikes Back. Answer choices/episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/o...

@openargs.bsky.social @seriouspod.bsky.social this is a #T3BE plea! :)

This is a screenshot of the text of Thomas Takes The Bar Exam, question 67! The text is as follows: Marcia decided she needed more spice in her life and she purchased a brand-new, fast red motorcycle. She parked it in the garage attached to her house for safekeeping. Unfortunately, her flashy new two-wheeler caught the attention of one of her neighbors, Dylan. Dylan loved motorcycles, but fell on hard times and did not have enough money to purchase one for himself. He was an engineer and adept at creating gadgets from things around his workshop. After seeing Marcia’s new motorcycle, he created an automatic garage door opener that could open any automatic garage door. One night, he used the device to open Marcia’s garage door, hot-wire the motorcycle, and take it for a joyride. Dylan intended only to drive it around town, show off to his friends, and enjoy the wind in his hair for a few hours before returning the motorcycle to Marcia’s garage without her knowing. However, while Dylan was out cruising around, he detoured to his friend’s party at the beach. After parking Marcia’s motorcycle atop the cliffs overlooking the ocean, he felt a rush of anger at the unfairness of the world, pushed the motorcycle off the cliff, and watched it fall and crash into the water below. According to the common law, what crime is Dylan guilty of?

Last week's #T3BE (quote skeet to play) is kind of funny because Dylan might have been fine if he simply didn't PUSH MARCIA'S MOTORCYCLE INTO THE OCEAN lol but whatever. Episode: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

#T3BE #Notalawyer but I feel like B should be right, and specifically not C.
Our experienced photographer wasn’t forced to *drop* his camera. He could’ve just put it down. Its damage wasn’t inevitable nor necessary to save her. The camera was destroyed by his choice and action, separate to the aid.

Question 64 of our Wednesday segment, Thomas Takes The Bar Exam (quote skeet to play!) In 2023, Prue was shopping at Grocery Goods when a large display of fruit fell on her, crushing her under the weight of many various fruits. The incident caused injuries all over Prue’s body. She filed suit in federal district court against Grocery Goods for negligently maintaining the display and sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Grocery Goods stipulated that jurisdiction and venue were proper, and filed an answer denying all liability. After the parties held their discovery conference, Prue filed a set of 27 interrogatories upon Grocery Goods. The company objected to the interrogatories. Is Grocery Goods under a duty to respond to all 27 interrogatories? Options can be found in the episode posted above!

And today's #T3BE question, quote skeet to play! Late shoutout to @mlapchick.bsky.social for having the right answer to Question 63 last week.

@openargs.bsky.social i don't see the post for ep 1136 for #t3be, maybe i missed it, but answer is A. thomas is right for the wrong reason, you CAN lead hostile witnesses, that's why on direct you ask the judge for permission to treat as hostile to ask leading questions.

@openargs.bsky.social when @seriouspod.bsky.social said C was wrong because no one would object to that, he was right. Because no one would be lazy enough to ask that, when there's the NON-leading version: "Please state your address" Sorry, but this week's #T3BE Thomas Take The Bar Exam is C

Which of the following questions is most likely to be disallowed in response to an objection that it is leading?

It feels super insane to come on here just to drop the #T3BE thread so I'll refer everyone to Substack for my thoughts on Mahmoud Khalil before Friday's OA. TLDR, this case is worth its weight in outrage.

Words: deportnation.substack.com

T3BE + SAVE Act: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

I agree with Thomas for this week’s #T3BE. I think there’s a way we could get to no win for Oscar but the options here are just dumb. Seems like it would have to be “No because Oscar is just a big baby” but in legalese. And it really feels like something has to happen for negligence. So D it is.

Lagers and logging equipment may be a risky business but not as risky as deadly pranks. I'm going with D. You use axes to wedge through wood, it's not great to use them as a wedge issue on safety. #t3be

@openargs.bsky.social FWIW I did quote the previous #t3be about Corn Law. Maybe you can see all the quotes?

I really hope the answer is A. When you buy a house you also buy whatever garbage the previous occupants decided to "gift" you, so if cleaning up is the buyer's responsibility, then so should reaping the popcorn popping up from the ground. #T3BE #IANAL

Question 60: Wendy owned a 50-acre farm. For many years, she grew corn on a 20-acre parcel located in the southwestern portion of the property. In May, Wendy planted her annual crop of corn, which she usually harvested in September. In August, Wendy sold her farm to a corn grower, Gerry, for $500,000. At the time Wendy sold her farm, the crop of corn was mature and growing well. When Wendy and Gerry entered into the sale of the farm, there was no mention of the corn crop. In late September, after Gerry took possession of the farm, Wendy contacted him and asked permission to harvest the crop of corn. Gerry refused to allow Wendy to re-enter the property and pick the corn. Wendy brings suit against Gerry seeking to re-enter the farm and remove the crop of corn that she planted. Which of the following is correct regarding the respective rights of the parties?

Last but not least, quote skeet this to play #T3BE! Answer confidently bearing in mind the absolute cinder blocks who have fully passed the Bar and are working for the DOJ *right now*

Question 59: Ben and Sabrina were living in different states when they entered into a valid agreement stating that Ben would buy and Sabrina would sell a painting. The contract claimed that the painting was an original by Georgia O'Keefe reportedly worth $3 million, and Ben agreed to pay that amount. In a separate valid contract, Ben agreed to purchase a beachfront home in California from Sabrina worth $10 million. The purchase of the painting was completed on July 1. Before Ben brought the home, he resold the painting but only received $500 because it turned out to be a forgery. Ben promptly told Sabrina of his intent to sue her for $3 million in damages. Sabrina then informed him that she would not move forward with the sale of the home. Ben filed suit against Sabrina in federal court in California. Ben claimed fraud as to the painting and sought $3 million in damages. Ben also claimed breach of contract as to the home, and sought specific performance. He demanded a jury trial on all issues. Is Ben entitled to a jury trial?

Also starting the #T3BE thread here, you know the drill podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

Also here's Wednesday's #T3BE question! As always, the options are in the episode, respond to this thread to play: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/d...