Pieper Bar Review

Pieper Bar Review With more than 40 years of experience, Pieper Bar Review will prepare you for every challenge of the bar exam. #PieperPeoplePass
Pieper Bar Review is the premier bar review course for students who must pass the Uniform Bar Exam. Why do Pieper People Pass? There are no shortcuts with Pieper: - More class time than any other bar review course where Pieper TEACHES you both the New York law and generally accepted principles of law you need for New York portion of the New York bar exam, the Multistate Bar Exam (MBE) and Multistate Essay Exam (MEE) for students taking CT, NH, and DC - Emphasis on Note-Taking to maximize retention - Focus on Writing Essays (Pieper teaches and provides feedback on substance, organization, and style) - In-Class MBE Questions to improve test-taking skills and reinforce substantive law - Practice MPTs and MPT Strategies to ensure students have the right approach to organizing, writing, and emphasizing the facts and law that the bar examiners are looking for Pieper focuses solely on the New York State Bar Exam. Pieper Mnemonics assist students in rapidly recalling the minute details essential for obtaining the highest scores on each portion of the exam. Personal Attention – John, Troy, and Damian Pieper, along with their administrative staff and team of New York attorneys, guide and support you through each lecture and through every step of your exam preparation in ways that are logistically impossible for Pieper’s competitors. Size matters, and our size is one of our biggest strengths.
(15)

TORTS  After a physician performed surgery on a patient’s left ear, he performed surgery on the patient’s right ear, eve...
05/28/2020
Question of the Day 200528

TORTS

After a physician performed surgery on a patient’s left ear, he performed surgery on the patient’s right ear, even though he had received her consent only to operate on her left ear. The extension of the operation was not due to an emergency, and the applicable jurisdiction permitted the extension of operations only in emergency situations. The patient did not suffer any harm.

If the patient subsequently brings an action against the physician, will the patient recover?

No, because the operation resulted in no harm.

No, because the patient’s consent to surgery on her left ear allows the physician to extend the surgery according to his sound professional judgment.

Yes, the patient will recover at least nominal damages on a battery theory.

Yes, the patient will recover at least nominal damages on a negligence theory.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qVsKT0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

EVIDENCEThe defendant was charged with attempted murder. Prior to trial, the defendant, offered to plead guilty to assau...
05/27/2020
Question of the Day 200527

EVIDENCE

The defendant was charged with attempted murder. Prior to trial, the defendant, offered to plead guilty to assault and battery on the victim if the attempted murder charge was dropped. During the negotiation, the defendant admitted striking the victim without provocation, which statement was overheard by one of the associate’s in the prosecutor’s office. The prosecutor did not accept the offer.

Should the court allow the prosecutor introduce, through his associate, the statements made by the defendant during the negotiation?

No, the prosecutor may not introduce any of defendant’s statements made during the course of the plea negotiation.

Yes, the prosecutor may introduce the defendant’s offer to plead guilty to assault and battery.

Yes, the prosecutor may introduce the defendant’s statement that he struck the victim without provocation.

Yes, the prosecutor may introduce all of the defendant’s statements.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qS9cJ0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONTRACTS   A father with two children owned a company. The son moved away from home after college to seek his fortune a...
05/26/2020
Question of the Day 200526

CONTRACTS

A father with two children owned a company. The son moved away from home after college to seek his fortune and the daughter remained to help her father run the company. Several years later, the father liquidated the company and deposited the proceeds in a joint account in the names of himself and his daughter. When he opened the account, he told the daughter that although the money would be legally hers when he died, he wanted her to share it equally with the son. The daughter agreed and wrote to the son advising him of the liquidation and the account, but did not mention her agreement to share the funds.

The son made a fortune as the founder of an online video rental business. Since his son was financially secure, the father and daughter agreed to that she no longer had to share the joint account with her brother. Shortly thereafter, the father died and the son learned of the father-daughter agreement and its subsequent rescission.

Will the son prevail in a suit for one-half of the company’s proceeds?

(A) Yes, because his rights became vested at the time the agreement was made, and the father-daughter agreement cannot be thereafter changed without his consent.

(B) Yes, because the father-daughter agreement could only be rescinded in writing.

(C) No, because the son’s rights as a third-party beneficiary were terminated before he had materially relied upon them to his detriment.

(D) No, because the father-daughter agreement was unnecessary to secure the son’s financial security.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qQfy50

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

Look what Steven G. had to say about Pieper Bar Review!"I passed the Bar Exam!I am proud of my achievement but I would b...
05/25/2020

Look what Steven G. had to say about Pieper Bar Review!

"I passed the Bar Exam!

I am proud of my achievement but I would be remiss if I didn’t give credit where it is due. I have been trying to find the proper words over the past few days to convey my gratitude to the three of you and the rest of the Pieper team (like Dee who always answered my emails promptly). For my two years of law school at NYLS, seldom a week went by without someone from the school bringing up the Bar Exam and talking about how much work it would take to be sufficiently prepared to pass. For all the warnings, I was still in denial, and at times overwhelmed, by the sheer volume of material I had to learn and remember. Without you all, there is no way I would have stood a chance at passing the exam. You broke down complex rules into a manageable form and every mnemonic helped tremendously with remembering every major and minor rule of law. Additionally, you were never too busy after class to answer a question. You gave me the tools I needed to pass and quite simply, I couldn’t have done this without the Pieper program.

I’m eternally grateful and if you ever need something, like a testimonial or a someone to clean your garage, don’t hesitate to ask.

Rule: Pieper people pass and I’m proof!"

https://hubs.ly/H0n69lM0

TORTS   A car manufacturer equipped all of its cars with seat belts, as per a federal regulation. It purchased all the b...
05/25/2020
Question of the Day 200525

TORTS

A car manufacturer equipped all of its cars with seat belts, as per a federal regulation. It purchased all the bolts used in its seat belt assemblies from a bolt company and it tested samples from each shipment received.

A driver purchased one of the manufacturer’s cars. While operating the car, the driver collided with another vehicle. The driver had his seat belt fastened, but one of the bolts which anchored the belt to the frame broke. The driver sustained serious injuries.

Subsequent to the accident, tests of the broken bolt showed metallurgical defects. The manufacturer’s records showed that tests of samples from the shipment in which the defective bolt was received revealed no defects.

The driver brought an action, based on strict liability in tort, against the car manufacturer.

What proof is needed to establish a prima facie case?

(A) Only that the bolt was defective.

(B) That the bolt was defective and had not been inspected by the car manufacturer.

(C) That the bolt was defective, was inspected by the car manufacturer, and the defect was not discovered.

(D) That the bolt was defective and the defect was a proximate cause of the driver’s injuries.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qNDDG0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

05/22/2020

Registration fees for the NJ UBE increase from $950 to $1,200 after today (and you can find something better to do with $250).

TORTSA man was driving his car around a corner and struck a woman who was riding her bicycle in the same lane. The man s...
05/22/2020
Question of the Day 200522

TORTS

A man was driving his car around a corner and struck a woman who was riding her bicycle in the same lane. The man stopped the car spoke with the woman, whose leg was apparently broken. The man decided not to move her and told her he would go get help. He drove away and left the woman along the side of the road. After he left, he became distracted and forgot about the woman. The woman was not rescued until the following morning, when a state trooper found her. She contracted pneumonia as a result of her exposure to the elements overnight.

The woman subsequently brought an action against the man and sought to recover damages for the broken leg and the pneumonia. The jury found that the man was not negligent in his operation of his car.

What will the woman likely recover?

(A) She will recover for both the leg injury and pneumonia.

(B) She will recover for the leg injury only.

(C) She will recover for the pneumonia only.

(D) She will not recover for either the leg injury or the pneumonia.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qLsl70

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONTRACTS   On her niece’s seventeenth birthday, an aunt promised to leave her niece $25,000 in her will and told her ni...
05/21/2020
Question of the Day 200521

CONTRACTS

On her niece’s seventeenth birthday, an aunt promised to leave her niece $25,000 in her will and told her niece that she should go to college. The niece went to college the next year and graduated a month before her aunt’s death. The aunt’s will, which was dated one year before her death, contained a $1,000 bequest to the niece and left the rest of the property, valued at about $75,000, to charity.

Will the niece prevail in a suit against the aunt’s estate for $25,000?

(A) Yes, because there was an offer and acceptance.

(B) Yes, because the promise did not need to be in writing.

(C) No, because there was no consideration for the promise.

(D) No, because the promise is unenforceable because the niece was a minor when it was made.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qKmhp0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CONTRACTS   A baker entered into a contract with a restaurant to supply the restaurant with its weekly requirement of ro...
05/20/2020
Question of the Day 200520

CONTRACTS

A baker entered into a contract with a restaurant to supply the restaurant with its weekly requirement of rolls for one year. At that time, the restaurant required 1,000 rolls per week. The baker was aware of the restaurant’s roll requirement at the time the contract was executed, however, the contract did not specify any quantity. During the first month of the contract, the bakery supplied the restaurant with approximately 1,000 rolls per week. A bistro then opened across the street and the restaurant’s requirements were reduced by one-half.

Will the baker be able to enforce the contract against the restaurant?

(A) No, because the contract is not supported by consideration.

(B) No, because of the unforeseen competition, the restaurant may avoid the contract if it closes immediately.

(C) Yes, to the extent of the restaurant’s actual requirement, so long as the new requirement is not unreasonably disproportionate to the restaurant’s former requirements.

(D) Yes, to the extent of the full 1,000 rolls, because this was the amount contemplated at the time of the original agreement.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qHM0B0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

There's a good chance you'll spend a lot of time studying at home for the next bar exam. Here are some tips on how to ma...
05/19/2020
5 Tips to Maximize Studying for the Bar Exam at Home

There's a good chance you'll spend a lot of time studying at home for the next bar exam. Here are some tips on how to maximize your study sessions. https://hubs.ly/H0qBGHN0

Having a detailed schedule, sticking to a routine, removing distractions, taking mental breaks, and understanding that you're not alone will help you study for the bar exam at home.

TORTSA bicycle company sold a bicycle that it manufactured to a retail bicycle dealer, which, in turn, sold it to a cycl...
05/19/2020
Question of the Day 200519

TORTS

A bicycle company sold a bicycle that it manufactured to a retail bicycle dealer, which, in turn, sold it to a cyclist. While the cyclist was riding the bicycle along a city street, he saw a traffic light facing him turn from green to yellow. He sped up, hoping to cross the intersection before the light turned red. He quickly realized he could not do so and applied the brake, which failed. To avoid traffic, the cyclist turned sharply to his right onto the sidewalk and sustained injuries. The bicycle brake had a defect when the bicycle company sold it to the retail bicycle dealer.

If the cyclist asserts a claim against the retail bicycle dealer based on strict liability in tort, will the cyclist prevail?

(A) Yes, because of the defect present when the bicycle left the bicycle company factory.

(B) Yes, because the brake failed while the cyclist was riding the bicycle.

(C) No, because the cyclist contributed to his own injury by speeding up.

(D) No, because the retail bicycle dealer was not negligent in selling the bicycle.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qFBRt0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

05/18/2020

"Congratulations to Fordham Law's Class of 2020!"
-Professors Pieper

#FordhamLaw2020

TORTS    A factory employee was stopped at the gate of the factory by several union workers who had formed a picket line...
05/18/2020
Question of the Day 200518

TORTS

A factory employee was stopped at the gate of the factory by several union workers who had formed a picket line. During an ensuing argument, a picketer hit the hood of the employee’s automobile with a rubber hose. When the employee refused to turn back, the picketer picked up a brick and came running at the employee’s automobile while shouting threats at the employee. Quickly, the employee drove the automobile straight at the picketer, who leapt out of the way.

The employee brought an action against the picketer for assault.

Will the employee prevail?

Yes, because the picketer intended to throw the brick.

No, because no physical harm was suffered by the employee.

Yes, because the picketer intended to cause the employee apprehension of bodily harm.

No, because the employee knew that he would not be hit with the brick as long as he turned back.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qCbP20

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

CRIMINAL LAW   A bartender, who hated one of his regular customers, decided to start a fight with the customer, and, if ...
05/15/2020
Question of the Day 200515

CRIMINAL LAW

A bartender, who hated one of his regular customers, decided to start a fight with the customer, and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. The bartender approached the customer in the street outside the bar and pushed him around. A spectator, who also hated the customer, stopped to watch. The spectator told the bartender, “Kill him.” The bartender then pulled a knife, stabbed, and killed the customer.

Could the spectator properly be convicted of murder?

(A) No, because his words did not create a “clear and present danger” not already existing.

(B) No, because mere presence and oral encouragement, whether or not he has the requisite intent, will not make him guilty as an accomplice.

(C) Yes, because, with the intent to have the bartender kill the customer, he shouted encouragement to the bartender

.(D) Yes, because he aided and abetted the murder through his mere presence plus his intent to see the customer killed.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qy-040

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

TORTSA man was siphoning gasoline without consent from a neighbor’s car parked in the neighbor’s garage when the gasolin...
05/14/2020
Question of the Day 200514

TORTS

A man was siphoning gasoline without consent from a neighbor’s car parked in the neighbor’s garage when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Seeing the fire, a mailman rushed to the man’s aid, put out the fire and saved the man’s life. In doing so, the mailman was badly burned.

Will the mailman prevail in a personal injury claim against the man?

(A) Yes, because the mailman saved the man’s life.

(B) Yes, because the man was at fault in causing the fire.

(C) No, because the mailman knowingly assumed the risk of his own injury.

(D) No, because the mailman’s action was not a foreseeable consequence of the man’s conduct.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qwd0p0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

TORTSA man was driving his car with his wife in the front seat and his neighbor in the back, when the neighbor suffered ...
05/13/2020
Question of the Day 200513

TORTS

A man was driving his car with his wife in the front seat and his neighbor in the back, when the neighbor suffered a sudden, intense migraine. The neighbor leaned forward, reached for her forehead, and accidentally struck the man on his back, causing him to turn around momentarily. Consequently, the driver failed to notice a truck that had run a stop sign and was emerging from a side street. The man’s car struck the rear panel of the truck.

The man, his wife, and the driver of the truck all sustained injuries. The wife subsequently brought an action against the driver of the truck.

How will the wife be treated?

(A) She will be treated as an innocent person and recover her damages.

(B) She will be treated as a guest who assumed the risks of injury during the journey.

(C) She will be treated as a guest and be required to prove that the driver of the truck was grossly negligent.

(D) She will have the husband’s contributory negligence, if any, attributed to her.

Click Here to Answer › https://hubs.ly/H0qs6t_0

‪#barreview‬ ‪#lawschool‬ ‪#barexam‬ #UBEQotD

The Uniform Bar Exam Question of the Day. Sign up to receive a sample UBE question in your inbox every morning. #BarReview #LawSchool #UBEQotD

Address

90 Willis Avenue
Mineola, NY
11501

Telephone

(800) 635-6569

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pieper Bar Review posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Pieper Bar Review:

Videos

Nearby home improvement businesses


Other Mineola home improvement businesses

Show All

Comments

I had my swearing ceremony today as an attorney in NY State Bar. This amazing day would not have been possible without the help of Pieper Bar Review. For a foreign trained attorney with an LL.M. from an American law school as the only legal training and education, taking the Bar exam can be challenging and complicated. The comprehensive program of Pieper Bar review, the amazing professors, and excellent material, really made the difference for me. I felt prepared when taking the exam, not only that I had studied hard, but that I had studied in a right way, that I was well instructed as to how to study and practice. I am especially grateful to my tutor, Damian Pieper for showing me the way to improving my MEEs and MPTs. Thank you everyone at Pieper Bar Review, especially because it felt that for each and everyone of us, you took our success in the Bar exam personally!
Hope papa Pieper has some martinis ready 😝
For all law students looking for the secrets to increase their chances in passing the BAR exam on their first attempt!!!!
So many happy faces last night! It was an absolute pleasure hosting the Pieper Bar Review student representative mixer. Each and every one of you does such a great job representing Pieper Bar Review. Hope to see you all again at the next event! #PieperPeoplePass