instruction
stringlengths 53
4.17k
| response
stringlengths 1
3.48k
|
|---|---|
Denton was on trial in a civil torts action. He was charged with driving his car negligently and, as a result of his negligence, injuring Potts. Denton's friend, Weiner, was sitting in the passenger seat of the car driven by Denton when the accident occurred. Denton put Weiner on the stand, and Weiner testified that Denton was driving safely and well below the posted 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. Shortly before the trial began, Weiner's secretary, Sarah, telephoned Potts and told him, "You might be interested in knowing that Weiner has been understating his income to the government for years." The Internal Revenue Service has never charged Weiner with tax evasion, but Sarah's information was accurate. On cross-examination, Potts's attorney asked Weiner, "Have you ever cheated on your tax returns?" Denton's attorney objects. The objection should be:
Options:
A. Sustained, because the question is not relevant to the facts of the case at bar.
B. Sustained, because witnesses may not be impeached through the use of collateral material.
C. Overruled, because Weiner's tax evasion shows a tendency to lie.
D. Overruled, because Weiner's acts constitute a felony punishable by at least one year in prison. | C |
Orbison owned Rockacre, but was badly in need of ready cash. He conveyed Rockacre to Presley, who put the deed in his guitar case and took off for a three-week tour of the Orient. Orbison knew that Presley had left town, and Orbison still found himself strapped for money. He offered to sell Rockacre to Madonna for $ 5,000$. Although Madonna had heard Presley say he had bought Rockacre, Madonna thought $ 5,000$ was a terrific price for the property. She paid Orbison $ 5,000$ and received a deed from him, which she promptly recorded. Madonna subsequently conveyed Rockacre to Fats for $ 15,000$. Fats knew nothing about Presley's deed and Fats promptly recorded the deed from Madonna. Two weeks later, upon his return from the Orient, Presley recorded his deed to Rockacre. A month after that, Fats conveyed Rockacre to Chubby for $ 17,000$. Chubby knew that Presley held a deed to Rockacre, but paid Fats $ 17,000$ anyway. Chubby immediately recorded and filed an appropriate action against Presley and against Fats to determine ownership of Rockacre. Assume that Rockacre is situated in a state with the following statute: No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded. The court will most likely rule that:
Options:
A. Presley has superior rights to both Fats and Chubby.
B. Fats has superior rights to both Presley and Chubby.
C. Chubby has superior rights to both Presley and Fats.
D. Chubby has superior rights to Fats, but Presley has superior rights to Chubby. | C |
Parafun, Inc. manufactured and sold parachutes for use by sport skydivers. The corporation's product development committee selected a design for a parachute submitted by Silk, one of Parafun's three professional designers. The chute was placed on the market, with the warning, "This parachute should be discarded after 150 jumps." Parafun's market researchers had established that the usual practice among sport skydivers was to discard a parachute after 100 jumps. After the design had been approved and the product was successfully manufactured and marketed, Silk took several of the parachutes to an independent stress analysis laboratory. The scientists tested the chutes and concluded that there was a $1 \%$ failure rate on the chutes for jumps 100 through 150 , because the center of the parachute might tend to collapse because of a design defect. Silk did not report this problem to his superiors at Parafun, because he feared he would be fired. Several months after Silk received the testing report, Airborne, a sport skydiver, used one of the chutes designed by Silk and manufactured and sold by Parafun. Airborne's use was the 115 th jump for the chute. When Airborne leaped from the airplane, the chute opened properly, but halfway down, the center of the chute collapsed inward. Airborne hurtled to the ground to his death. An investigation established that Silk knew of the design defect. If Parafun is charged with manslaughter in a common law jurisdiction, the verdict should be:
Options:
A. Guilty, because Silk was Parafun's employee and he designed the instrumentality of death.
B. Guilty, because Airborne died as a result of the failure of a product manufactured and sold by Parafun.
C. Not guilty, because a corporation cannot be found guilty of manslaughter.
D. Not guilty, because there was only a $1 \%$ chance of parachute failure. | C |
Deborah was at work when her husband called her and said, "You lazy procrastinator, you were supposed to be working in the front yard this weekend while I did the backyard. Ned just tripped over those roots I told you to take out. He's really been badly hurt and I'll bet he sues us for all we're worth." Deborah then told her secretary, Walter, "Ned just got hurt because I forgot to do my yard work." On returning home, however, Deborah discovered that Ned had tripped over roots from his own tree in his own yard. Ned disagreed and sued Deborah and her husband. At trial, Ned called Walter to testify as to Deborah's statement to him. Walter's testimony will be:
Options:
A. Excluded, because Deborah had no firsthand information when she made her statement to Walter.
B. Excluded, because it is inadmissible lay opinion.
C. Admitted, because it is not hearsay.
D. Admitted to impeach Deborah's expected testimony as to the result of her own investigation. | C |
Harriet observed an automobile accident that took place across the street from her house. She noticed at the time that the green car, which was driven by Def, did not come to a complete stop at the stop sign and entered the intersection to strike the yellow car driven by Plee after Plee's car had already entered the intersection. Plee sued Def for damages and injuries, but the trial did not take place until almost three years after the accident. Plee wanted Harriet to testify on his behalf against Def, but Harriet's recollection of the accident was very fuzzy. The night before she was scheduled to testify, Harriet consulted her diary, in which Harriet had noted that Def's car ran the stop sign and entered the intersection after Plee's car was already in the intersection. Plee's attorney called Harriet to the stand, and she testified regarding Def's failure to observe the stop sign and Def's entrance into the intersection after Plee. On cross-examination, Def's attorney asked Harriet if she had consulted any materials to prepare for her testimony. Harriet admitted that her recollection of the accident had been fuzzy and that she had consulted her diary the night before her testimony. Def's attorney immediately moved that Harriet's testimony be stricken from the record. The court should rule that:
Options:
A. Harriet's testimony is admissible if, after reviewing her notes, she had an independent recollection of the event.
B. Harriet's testimony is admissible, because the contents of her diary are protected under the work product rule.
C. Harriet's testimony should be stricken, because her diary was not made available to the opposing party prior to trial.
D. Harriet's testimony should be stricken, because it is not the best evidence. | A |
Moss, a state legislator, was the chairman of a committee that disbursed funds to schools in the state for various projects. A portion of the funds that were used were received from the federal government as part of a federal revenue sharing plan. Moss was charged with a violation of federal law when he and his committee made a $ 10,000$ grant for textbooks to a private school for whites only. Moss's defense is that his action as chairman of this committee was in the course of his legislative duties, and thus, immune from federal interference. The best argument that would support Moss's constitutional claim is:
Options:
A. If the state law authorizes Moss's action, he cannot be prosecuted for violation of a federal law.
B. The Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from restricting the state's rights regarding the education of minor children within the state.
C. The doctrine of federalism prevents the federal government from interfering with a member of the state's legislature in the performance of his legislative duties.
D. As long as the private school is not a parochial school, federal law cannot limit a state's rights regarding the education of minor children within the state. | C |
The state of Alpine has a Fair Employment Act that provides a remedy for victims of employment discrimination. The Act requires complainants to bring charges before the Alpine Fair Employment Commission within 180 days of the occurrence of alleged unlawful employment practices. The Commission then has 120 days to convene a factfinding conference to obtain evidence, ascertain the parties' positions, and explore settlement possibilities. Larson was discharged from his job with Widget Corp. purportedly because of a physical handicap unrelated to his ability to perform his job. Larson filed a timely complaint, alleging unlawful termination of employment, as required by the statute. However, through inadvertence, the Commission scheduled the factfinding conference for a date five days after expiration of the 120 -day statutory period. At the conference, Widget moved that the charge be dismissed for lack of a timely conference. The Commission denied the motion. Widget petitioned the Alpine Supreme Court. The court held for Widget, stating that the failure to comply with the 120 day requirement deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to consider Larson's charge. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Larson argues that his right to due process will be violated if the Commission's error is allowed to extinguish his cause of action. Which of the following best describes the viability of Larson's due process claim?
Options:
A. The claim fails, because Larson had no protected property interest in his job.
B. The claim fails, because the Alpine legislature, having conferred on claimants a remedy for claims of unfair employment practices, has the prerogative to establish limiting procedures for such claims.
C. The claim succeeds, because Larson had a protected property interest in the remedy.
D. The claim succeeds, because of the fundamental unfairness of leaving Larson without a remedy. | C |
Large semi-trailer trucks ordinarily used either "Gripper" tires or "Grabber" tires. There was some difference in the design of the tires, and a number of tire manufacturers made both types of tires, which were deemed to be equally safe by independent testing labs. Most state statutes and vehicle regulations allowed the use of both types of tires on state highways. However, State Plum and State Apricot had laws on their books permitting only Grippers and banning Grabbers. State Grapefruit, on the other hand, had a statute allowing the use of Grabbers, and banning Grippers, on its state highways. The National Trucking Board, a trade association of interstate trucking firms, brought suit to have the laws of State Plum and State Apricot declared unconstitutional. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Apricot and Plum statutes as undue burdens on interstate commerce. The National Trucking Board then brought suit in federal court to have the State Grapefruit statute banning Grippers struck down. The Grapefruit attorney general argued that the Grapefruit statute did not burden interstate commerce because Grabbers were now legal in all 50 states. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. How should the Court rule on the constitutionality of the statute?
Options:
A. Constitutional, because there is no difference in safety between Grippers and Grabbers.
B. Constitutional, because the states have the power to regulate safety on their highways.
C. Unconstitutional, because it is an undue burden on interstate commerce.
D. Unconstitutional, because it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. | C |
When Uncle Izzy died, his will left Blackacre, a piece of property located in State Black, to his favorite nephew, Seymour, a resident of State White. Seymour never bothered to visit the property. Meanwhile, back in State Black, Michael noticed that Blackacre was now unoccupied. Not one to miss an opportunity, Michael leased Blackacre to Theresa. The lease was in writing and Theresa agreed to pay Michael an annual rent, which she always did promptly. Theresa had been leasing Blackacre from Michael for 15 years, when Seymour took a trip to State Black and decided to take a look at Blackacre. Upon discovering Theresa's occupancy, Seymour filed suit to quiet title, joining Michael in the action. In State Black, the statute of limitations for bringing an ejectment action for trespass to real property is set at 10 years. Whom shall the court declare to be the owner of Blackacre?
Options:
A. Seymour, because a lease to a third party does not constitute occupancy by Michael.
B. Seymour, because he was unaware that another was occupying Blackacre.
C. Michael, because Seymour abandoned Blackacre.
D. Michael, because occupancy by a tenant is sufficient possession by Michael to invoke adverse possession. | D |
Homer owned Springfield, a valuable piece of property located near the state university. Homer's son, Bart, was a student at the university, and Homer allowed Bart and Bart's classmate, Newt, to live in the large house on the property rent free, in part because he felt that the studious Newt would be a good influence on the partyloving Bart. On Bart's 20th birthday, Homer handed Bart an instrument of conveyance signed by Homer. The deed included the following language: "I give Springfield to my dearly beloved son Bart on the condition precedent that he receive a college degree before he reaches the age of 30 , and if he does not receive the degree by his 30th birthday to my beloved daughter, Lisa." Bart promptly recorded the deed. Shortly thereafter, Bart asked Newt to start paying him rent. An argument evolved out of Bart's request and an angry Bart told Newt to get off his property. Newt refused to leave and Bart filed suit to evict Newt. How will the court rule?
Options:
A. Bart wins, because he has a fee simple subject to divestment.
B. Bart loses, because Newt is Homer's tenant and not Bart's.
C. Newt wins, because Bart is attempting a retaliatory eviction.
D. Newt loses, because Homer's conveyance cuts off Newt's tenancy. | B |
Martha brought her nine-year-old son, Norton, along with her on a trip to the Modern Mall shopping center. Modern Mall was, as its name describes, a modern mall development containing many different stores. The mall was entirely enclosed to provide protection from the elements. Martha had spent about half an hour at the mall without purchasing anything. In fact, her main purpose for going to the mall was "window shopping," a pastime that Martha found extremely enjoyable. At that time Norton told Martha that he needed to use the restroom and that he was going to the nearest men's room. Martha agreed to wait for him in front of Lacy's Lingerie Boutique. Norton entered the men's room. He was followed by Barry, a convicted child molester released on parole. Barry cornered Norton in the men's room and sexually molested him. Barry then quickly left the mall and has not yet been apprehended. Martha later filed suit against Modern Mall Management Associates ("MMMA"), the owner of the mall, on Norton's behalf for the injuries suffered by him. Is MMMA likely to be found liable to Norton?
Options:
A. Yes, because MMMA owes a strict duty to its customers.
B. Yes, if MMMA had reason to know of the danger to Norton.
C. No, because a criminal act is a superseding force.
D. No, because Norton was not an invitee of MMMA. | B |
Neither the legislature nor the courts of State Yellow have abolished the common law tort defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. However, the State Yellow legislature decided it was time to take steps against all forms of drug abuse and passed the Omnibus Anti-Drug Act ("OADA"). One of the OADA provisions forbade the selling of airplane glue to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. OADA also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Primrose was a 14-year-old resident of State Yellow. Primrose had experienced the drug education program in his school, as mandated by OADA. One of the units in the program covered the dangers of glue sniffing. Primrose understood the anti-drug instruction, but he enjoyed the "high" he got from sniffing glue when he constructed model airplanes, and he wanted to experience more of it. He went to Daffodil's Hobby \& Craft Shop to purchase a large tube of airplane glue. Daffodil, sole proprietor of the hobby shop, sold the large tube of glue to Primrose. Primrose went home, hid in the garage, and sniffed the glue. His parents found Primrose in a coma on the garage floor. Although Primrose will survive, physicians have told his parents that he suffered permanent brain damage from sniffing the glue. On Primrose's behalf, the parents filed suit against Daffodil, which should result in a verdict:
Options:
A. For Daffodil, because Primrose was aware of the danger when he sniffed the glue.
B. For Daffodil, because Primrose is not a member of the class of persons meant to be protected by OADA.
C. For Primrose, because Daffodil violated OADA when he sold the glue to Primrose.
D. For Primrose, unless Primrose could reasonably have been mistaken for an 18 year-old by Daffodil. | C |
Kuegler, who had a long list of petty crimes to his credit, cased the Jaymart Department Store for a week. He noticed that a display case containing very expensive watches was near one of the store's exit doors. He planned to steal the watches by setting a diversionary fire in a trash basket, hoping that this would distract the store security personnel long enough for Kuegler to break the glass covering the watch case, grab the watches, and run out the nearby exit. Kuegler knew that the store had an automatic sprinkler system that would promptly douse the fire, but his purpose was merely to create a distraction rather than to cause any damage to the building. One afternoon at 2:30 p.m., Kuegler entered the Jaymart. He advanced to a trash barrel and poured some lighter fluid onto the trash. He threw the lighter fluid can into the barrel and tossed in a match after it. The lighter fluid immediately caused a long flame to rise. The flame quickly charred the wall next to the barrel and blistered the paint on the surrounding area. No serious damage was done to the structure, because the sprinklers operated as designed and quickly put out the fire before it could spread. Kuegler made a dash toward the case containing the watches, but just as he was breaking the glass case, one of the store's security guards apprehended Kuegler and called the police. Kuegler was read his Miranda rights and taken into police custody. A statute in the jurisdiction extends the crime of arson to buildings other than dwellings. If Kuegler is tried for the crime of arson, the court should find him:
Options:
A. Not guilty, because Kuegler did not intend to burn the building.
B. Not guilty, because Kuegler's act was sufficient only for attempted arson.
C. Guilty, because Kuegler's conduct demonstrated the requisite state of mind for the crime.
D. Guilty, because Kuegler started the fire during the act of perpetrating another felony. | B |
Alpha gratuitously conveyed his interest in Greekacre to Beta by quitclaim deed. Beta promptly recorded. Six months later, Alpha conveyed his interest in Greekacre to Gamma for $ 50,000$. Alpha gave Gamma a warranty deed, which Gamma promptly recorded. As between Beta and Gamma, who has the superior right to title to Greekacre?
Options:
A. Beta, regardless of the type of recording statute.
B. Gamma, regardless of the type of recording statute.
C. Beta, because she recorded prior to Gamma recording.
D. Gamma, because he took by warranty deed rather than quitclaim deed. | A |
The legislature of the state of Westcoast enacted a statute authorizing all state agencies having legal departments or employing lawyers to subscribe to a computerized legal research service provided by LawComp, Inc. A contract was duly entered into between the state and the corporation. Before LawComp could begin installation of the necessary equipment in state offices, it was revealed that Westcoast's state university system had exhausted its budgeted resources and would not be able to operate without additional money. The legislature then repealed the statute authorizing use of the computer legal service and allocated the funds thereby released to the university. LawComp brings an action against the state to enforce the contract. The trial court should rule that the statute repealing authorization for LawComp's services is:
Options:
A. Invalid, because it violates the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.
B. Valid, because the legislature has constitutional power to repeal its own enactments.
C. Invalid, because the state is equitably estopped to renounce a valid bid it has accepted.
D. Valid, because the sovereign may not constitutionally be sued without its own consent. | A |
In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be convicted of burglary?
Options:
A. Unreasonably mistaking Walter's briefcase for his own, Defendant removes the briefcase from Walter's office and takes it home, placing it in his hall closet.
B. Believing that it is not illegal to take a relative's property, Defendant enters his brother's home through an unlocked door while his brother is sleeping and takes his $ 2,000$ television set. Defendant later sells the set at a flea market. | B |
Cyrus and Myrtle are adjoining landowners. On Myrtle's property there is a natural freshwater spring. Cyrus asked Myrtle if it would be possible to build an irrigation ditch from the spring to his property in order to provide water for his cattle. Since the spring supplied more than enough water to meet Myrtle's needs, she agreed, provided that Cyrus construct the ditch in such a manner that it would need the least maintenance possible, because Myrtle did not wish to be continually bothered by Cyrus's coming on her land. Cyrus constructed a concrete irrigation ditch from the spring to the land. The cost of construction of the ditch was $ 25,000$. The only maintenance required on the ditch was a semiannual cleaning. Three years later, Myrtle informed Cyrus that her water needs had increased and that she could no longer allow Cyrus to take water from the spring. In addition, Myrtle did not allow Cyrus on her land to do the semiannual cleaning, resulting in the blocking of the ditch. Cyrus wishes to keep water flowing through the irrigation ditch to his land. Which of the following would be his strongest argument?
Options:
A. Cyrus owns a valid easement appurtenant to Myrtle's property.
B. Because Myrtle has allowed Cyrus to construct the irrigation ditch, Myrtle would be estopped from preventing Cyrus from coming onto her land.
C. Cyrus, although a licensee, has expended such a substantial sum of money in constructing the irrigation ditch that Myrtle may not terminate Cyrus's license now.
D. Cyrus, although a licensee, may continue to enter Myrtle's property to clean and maintain the ditch until he is able to acquire another source of water. | C |
Fat Goose Foods ("FGF") was a manufacturer of quality pates and terrines made from imported goose livers and truffles. In a written agreement between FGF and Gourmet Mart ("GM"), a retail seller of fine quality foods, FGF agreed to "sell all output of Fat Goose Foods liver pate to Gourmet Mart," and GM agreed to "sell Fat Goose Foods pates exclusively." The agreement went on to state that GM would pay $ 150$ for each 10 -loaf container of pates ordered from FGF. The agreement between GM and FGF also contained the statement, "either party may cancel this contract after two months upon giving reasonable notice to the other party." Assume that, after FGF faithfully filled GM's orders for six months, FGF determined that it was becoming too costly to operate the special oven used to roast the pate loaves. The oven had been manufactured in Belgium in 1937, but the plant that manufactured the oven was destroyed by bombing during World War II, and no more of the ovens were produced after 1940 . It would be difficult and expensive to find a suitable substitute, and when the oven malfunctioned, replacement parts were extremely difficult to find and very costly as well. FGF, therefore, decided to get out of the pate business entirely and to use its supply of goose livers to make a German-style liver sausage. FGF notified GM of its decision and the reasons for it, and shortly thereafter stopped shipping pate to GM. GM sued FGF, demanding that FGF continue to ship pate to GM or pay monetary damages to GM. Will GM prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because it was not impossible for FGF to perform.
B. Yes, because FGF assumed the risk that making pate would become expensive.
C. No, because the expense of fixing the oven provides a good faith reason for stopping production.
D. No, because the cancellation provision made the contract illusory. | C |
Andt lent his swim fins to his friend Gracehoper. Gracehoper promised to return the fins in a week, but two months had passed and, despite many reminders, Gracehoper still failed to return the fins. Andt decided to go to Gracehoper's cabin to retrieve them. Andt went to the cabin and knocked on the door, hoping to find Gracehoper at home. After knocking several times with no response, Andt tried the door and found it to be unlocked. Andt decided to look for the swim fins in Gracehoper's cabin and to retrieve them. Andt opened the door and entered Gracehoper's cabin. He looked around the cabin for $20 \mathrm{~min}$ utes, but he could not locate the swim fins. He concluded that Gracehoper was probably using them and left the cabin, taking nothing from it and closing the door behind him. If Andt is later charged and tried for burglary, Andt's best defense to the charge is which of the following?
Options:
A. Andt left the cabin without doing anything.
B. Andt took nothing from the cabin.
C. The swim fins belonged to Andt.
D. Gracehoper's door was unlocked. | C |
On an icy day, a vehicle driven by Doug struck Peter's car in the rear, smashing a taillight and denting Peter's bumper. Before Peter could say anything, Doug rushed out of his car and told Peter, "Look, if you'll take $ 500$ for the damage, I'm sure my insurance company will pay for it." Peter refused and sued Doug for damage to his car and minor personal injuries. Peter wishes to testify as to Doug's statement at the time of the accident. Doug objects. Should the court allow Doug's statement to be admitted?
Options:
A. Yes, because it is an admission of a party opponent.
B. Yes, because it is hearsay within the statement against interest exception.
C. No, because the statement took the form of a settlement negotiation.
D. No, because the statement is hearsay, not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. | A |
Augustus received an "inside tip" from his friend Drusus, a real estate developer. Acting on the tip, Augustus purchased several acres of scrub-covered land of little apparent value. Shortly thereafter, Whizny World, an international conglomerate, announced plans to develop a theme park to be called "Romeland" on a tract immediately adjacent to Augustus's scrubland. The Whizny World plan caused real estate values in the surrounding area to skyrocket. Augustus could have sold his land for a price many times greater than the purchase price, but Augustus decided that he would use the land to build a variety of tourist-oriented facilities. In order to finance his project, Augustus went to Brutus Bank ("Brubank") and took out a $ 20,000$ mortgage on his land. Brubank promptly recorded the mortgage. A few days later, Augustus went to Cassius Bank ("Casbank") and took out a $ 15,000$ mortgage on the land. Casbank had known of the Brubank mortgage, and Casbank promptly recorded its own mortgage. A few weeks after that, Augustus reviewed his plans and decided that he needed more money to make his proposed tourist facilities more "upscale." Augustus went back to Brubank and, after full disclosure of the Casbank mortgage, asked the loan officer if he could receive another advance of $ 15,000$ from the original Brubank mortgage. The loan officer readily agreed, processed the loan, and increased the amount borrowed against the mortgage from $ 20,000$ to $ 35,000$. Brubank promptly recorded the change. Augustus quickly spent most of his available funds on retainers for architects, builders, and attorneys. He was shocked to read in the paper that the County Council summarily rejected the Whizny World proposal, acceding to the arguments of community activists and environmentalists that the economic benefits from the theme park would be outweighed by the deleterious effects on the natural beauty and tranquility of the area. Augustus made no more mortgage payments to Casbank, but continued to make payments to Brubank. The value of the land plummeted, and Casbank brought a foreclosure action against Augustus and included Brubank as a party. At the foreclosure sale, the proceeds were a mere $ 18,000$ after attorneys' fees and court costs. How should the proceeds be divided?
Options:
A. $ 18,000$ to Brubank and nothing to Casbank.
B. $ 9,000$ to Brubank and $ 9,000$ to Casbank.
C. $ 3,000$ to Brubank and $ 15,000$ to Casbank.
D. Nothing to Brubank, $ 15,000$ to Casbank, and $ 3,000$ to Augustus. | C |
Soar Airlines Flight 226 was a flight from Miami to Washington, D.C., with an hour stopover in Orlando. At the Orlando Airport, Mike and Nick, holding tickets to Washington, D.C., disembarked from the plane. Each carried a rather large piece of carry-on baggage. Mike went into a telephone booth and placed a call, while Nick stood with his back to the booth, looking around in all available directions. Sam, an officer of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration assigned to watch for drug activities at the Orlando Airport, noticed Mike and Nick. As soon as Mike emerged from the phone booth, Sam approached the two men. Sam identified himself and asked Mike and Nick, "Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?" Both agreed. After asking about such matters as their destination, Sam asked, "Do you mind if we go into my office and inspect what's in your hand baggage?" Both Mike and Nick agreed. In the office, Sam searched both pieces of luggage and found nothing suspicious in either. He then proceeded to pat down Mike and Nick. He found nothing on Mike, but he felt a bulge around Nick's stomach. Further investigation revealed that Nick was wearing a pouch around his waist which proved to contain cocaine. Mike and Nick were charged with possession of cocaine. At Nick's trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce the cocaine into evidence against Nick. Nick's attorney objects. The court should rule the cocaine:
Options:
A. Admissible, because of the emergency conditions arising from the growing menace of drugs to the public.
B. Admissible, because, in consenting to the search of his luggage, Nick impliedly consented to a body search.
C. Inadmissible, because Sam had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to search Nick.
D. Inadmissible, because Sam had no right to search the luggage. | B |
The state of West Dakota has the following statute: No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded. Judy, a West Dakota resident, owned several parcels of land there, including Steppeacre. Judy conveyed Steppeacre to Keith. Keith placed the deed in a safe deposit box but did not record the instrument before departing on an extended visit to Adak, a chic resort island in the Aleutian chain. Six months after Keith departed, Judy conveyed Steppeacre to Clyde, who promptly recorded his deed. Clyde had heard from several sources that Judy had sold Steppeacre to Keith, but he was sure that Judy would not sell him property she had already sold to someone else. Six months after Clyde took possession of Steppeacre, Keith returned from Adak, tanned and rested. When he went to visit Steppeacre he found Clyde there. Keith now sues Clyde in ejectment. Who owns Steppeacre?
Options:
A. Keith, because his deed from Judy came earlier than Clyde's.
B. Clyde, because he recorded first.
C. Keith, because Clyde is not protected by the recording act.
D. Clyde, because his recording cured any possible defect of his knowing of the earlier sale. | C |
On April 1, Stan, a law student, agreed to sell his prized possession - an antique dictionaryto Betsy for $ 1,500$, so that he could pay for his bar review course. Because Stan did not have to pay for his course until April 30, the written contract between Stan and Betsy provided that the dictionary would not be delivered to Betsy until April 20, thus giving Stan a last few extra days to peruse the dictionary's pages. Late on April 15, a terrible fire swept through Stan's apartment building and the dictionary was destroyed. Firefighters determined that the blaze started when Hugh, the tenant living below Stan, fell asleep while doing his taxes and dropped his cigarette onto his paperwork. Fortunately for Stan, he had insurance that covered all of his damages, including compensation for the destroyed dictionary. On April 20, Stan told Betsy of the fire, but still demanded payment, claiming that Betsy was the equitable owner of the dictionary when it was destroyed, and explaining that she could have obtained insurance on the dictionary had she wanted to, since she had an insurable interest in the dictionary as soon as the contract was made. Betsy refused to pay. Stan brings an action against Betsy for the $ 1,500$. Who will prevail?
Options:
A. Betsy, because Stan was fully compensated for his dictionary and making Betsy pay would therefore result in unjust enrichment.
B. Betsy, because destruction of the dictionary avoids the contract and discharges her duty to pay.
C. Stan, because when he contracted with Betsy, the risk of loss passed to her.
D. Stan, because of the doctrine of equitable conversion. | B |
Dogwood was put on trial for the robbery and aggravated battery of Birch. Despite having been seriously injured in the attack, Birch took the witness stand and identified Dogwood as his attacker. The first trial ended in a hung jury on both charges, and Birch died shortly thereafter from his injuries. The district attorney then charged Dogwood with felony murder. At the trial on that charge, the prosecution offers into evidence Birch's testimony at the first trial identifying Dogwood as his assailant. Dogwood's attorney immediately objects. The objection should be:
Options:
A. Sustained, because Birch's testimony was from a prosecution for a different offense than the present trial.
B. Sustained, because the use of the former testimony of someone who has died violates the defendant's constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him in a criminal case.
C. Overruled, because Birch's testimony is nonhearsay under the Federal Rules as a statement of prior identification.
D. Overruled, because the requirements of the exception to the hearsay rule for former testimony have been satisfied. | D |
After a major merger and corporate reorganization, Gray, who had been an employee of Macho Corporation for 25 years and its public relations director for 10 years, was fired. The excuse given him was that the reorganization and merger required a trimming of personnel to make the corporation "lean and mean." Shortly after Gray's dismissal, Frogman, a member of the board of directors of Macho, who had always liked Gray and admired his competent work, told Gray, "I think what happened to you was rotten, and I want you to know I voted against it, but Cobb, as chairman of the board, took most of the directors with him when he made a point at the reorganization meeting to say, 'Now's our chance to get rid of old Gray, who just doesn't fit our corporate image of youthful vigor."' Gray, who was 60 years old, filed an age discrimination suit against Macho. It was typical practice that all directors' meetings be tape recorded, and that the corporate secretary use the tape recording to type up a formal transcript of the proceedings. The meeting at which Gray's dismissal was discussed was no exception. At the trial of Gray's case, Gray wishes to have Frogman testify as to Cobb's statement at the board meeting. If the defense objects, the court should rule that such testimony is:
Options:
A. Admissible, because it is based on Frogman's firsthand knowledge.
B. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
C. Inadmissible, because the audiotape of the directors' meeting is the best evidence.
D. Inadmissible, because the corporate secretary's transcription of the directors' meeting is the best evidence. | A |
Torrens owned Forestacre, a large tract of wooded land, in fee simple. He had always allowed hunters from the local hunting club to use his land during hunting seasons, and had often expressed the wish that they be permitted to continue to use it after he died. On his 75 th birthday, he conveyed Forestacre to his two nephews, Pelt and Dash, who were members of the local hunting club. The deed was a general warranty deed stating that the property was conveyed in fee simple absolute. A few days later, Dash had a serious dispute with Pelt and the other members of the hunting club, and he quit the club. Torrens then executed a written agreement with Pelt stating that the conveyance of Forestacre to Pelt and Dash was in trust for the benefit of the local hunting club for a period of ten years, with Pelt and Dash as trustees, and then to Pelt and Dash in fee simple. Several months later, Torrens died. When the next hunting season drew near, Pelt told Dash that members of the hunting club were once again planning to hunt on the property. Dash would not even consider it, and threatened to have anyone hunting on the property other than Pelt arrested for trespassing. Pelt did not wish to have any further confrontations with Dash, so he brought an action for appropriate legal or equitable relief to establish his rights and the rights of the hunting club. What, if any, relief should the court provide?
Options:
A. Deny Pelt any relief, because Dash has done nothing that would constitute an ouster of Pelt.
B. Partition Forestacre into two separate tracts so that Pelt may permit the hunting club to use his half of Forestacre.
C. Order Dash to permit the hunting club to hunt on Forestacre, because Torrens created an inter vivos trust with the requisite formalities for the benefit of the hunting club.
D. Order Dash to permit the hunting club to hunt on Forestacre, because Pelt is equally entitled to possession of all of it and can allow members of the hunting club to hunt on the property as his guests. | B |
When Burt purchased Sweetacre, he financed the purchase through a mortgage on the property held by First Bank. The mortgage contained a "due-on-sale clause," requiring the mortgagor to pay off the mortgage at the time the property is sold. Burt made all of his mortgage payments in a timely manner. Five years after Burt purchased Sweetacre, he sold the property to Tully. Burt told Tully that there was a mortgage on the property but he did not mention the due-on-sale clause. Tully paid Burt the asking price for Sweetacre. Burt pocketed the proceeds without paying off the First Bank mortgage. Which of the following best states the effect of the due-on-sale clause on Tully's interest in Sweetacre?
Options:
A. First Bank can foreclose on Sweetacre.
B. Tully must agree to assume the First Bank Mortgage on Sweetacre.
C. The only effect of the clause is that Tully is personally liable on the mortgage.
D. The clause has no effect, because due-on- sale clauses are generally void as contrary to public policy. | A |
Donnalou was the office cut-up and general practical jokester. She decided to pull a prank on Paul, a rather dour and staid co-worker. Knowing where Paul, a creature of habit, always kept his lunch box, she put a small quantity of mescaline, a synthetic hallucinogen, in Paul's thermos bottle of cranberry juice. She expected that strait-laced Paul would have a minor vision or two and act in a goofy and comical manner. However, when Paul drank his mescaline-laced juice at lunchtime he had a severe reaction to the mescaline and experienced wild hallucinations. Donnalou promptly drove Paul to the emergency room of nearby Hacksaw Hospital. Paul was put under observation for a couple of hours. The emergency room physician, Pillpush, was very busy and negligently released Paul prematurely. The next day, while driving, Paul had another powerful hallucination and drove his car into a bridge abutment. Paul suffered contusions, abrasions, a concussion, and several broken bones. After Paul recovered he sued Donnalou for his injuries. Who will prevail?
Options:
A. Donnalou, because the auto accident would not have occurred but for the negligence of Dr. Pillpush.
B. Donnalou, because Donnalou did not intend to harm Paul.
C. Paul, unless the automobile accident could not have reasonably been foreseen.
D. Paul, because Donnalou intended that Paul should ingest the mescaline. | D |
Jenny, a general contractor, advertised in a trade publication that she planned to bid on the construction of a new building to be located in the Civic Mall. The advertisement welcomed bids from subcontractors to perform various functions, such as plumbing, electrical work, and masonry. The lowest electrical bid was from Ohmco, who bid $ 20,000$. The lowest plumbing bid was from Plunger, who bid $ 10,000$. Jenny used Ohmco's and Plunger's bids in preparing her general bid. At 2 p.m., on June 22, Jenny submitted her general bid. At 3 p.m., Plunger called her and said, 'I'm sorry, Jenny, but I made a mistake on that bid I submitted to you; I can't possibly do that plumbing work for a dime less than $ 12,000$." Jenny told him, "I can't do anything about that because I've already submitted my general bid." Jenny was awarded the contract. Assume for purposes of this question only that after receiving the contract, Jenny hired Flusher to do the plumbing work on the building at a cost of $ 12,000$. She now sues Plunger for damages. Jenny is entitled to recover:
Options:
A. $ 10,000$.
B. $ 2,000$, which represents the difference between Plunger's bid and the amount Jenny had to pay for plumbing work.
C. Nothing, because $ 12,000$ was a reasonable amount to pay for the work performed.
D. Nothing, because Jenny did not accept Plunger's bid before it was withdrawn. | D |
Alice entered into a written agreement with Moran, whereby Moran agreed to remodel the basement of Alice's home, and Alice agreed to pay Moran $ 8,000$ upon completion of the job. The agreement contained a list of specifications as to the types of materials to be used in the remodeling. Among these specifications was a provision that Moran was to use an imported Brazilian hardwood for the paneling. Moran began the job, and then assigned his right to payment under the agreement to Nicholls. When the job was a little more than half completed, Alice sold the house to Bill. In a document separate from the deed of conveyance, Alice assigned her right to Moran's labor and delegated her duty to pay under the contract to Bill. 11. Assume for purposes of this question only that Moran completed the job on time but used Wyoming knotty pine instead of Brazilian hardwood for the paneling. The knotty pine is considered to be inferior to the Brazilian hardwood and is much less expensive, and Bill was very displeased when he saw the result. Who can Bill sue for breach? (A) Alice only. (B) Moran only. (C) Moran and Nicholls. (D) Alice, Moran, and Nicholls. If Kuegler is tried for the crime of arson, the court should find him:
Options:
A. Not guilty, because Kuegler did not intend to burn the building.
B. Not guilty, because Kuegler's act was sufficient only for attempted arson.
C. Guilty, because Kuegler's conduct demonstrated the requisite state of mind for the crime.
D. Guilty, because Kuegler started the fire during the act of perpetrating another felony. | B |
Congress enacted a law requiring all civil service employees to retire at age 75 , except when such employees are employed by the armed services. Civil service employees of the armed services are required to retire at age 65 . Portman is an employee of the Department of the Army; he is 65 years old. He files suit in the federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that would prevent the Army from requiring him to retire before age 75 . Portman's strongest argument in support of his contention that the statute's provisions regarding civil service employees of the armed services are invalid is that this provision:
Options:
A. Denies him the privileges and immunities of national citizenship.
B. Denies him a property right without just compensation.
C. Is invidious discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
D. Is not within the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, Section 8. | C |
Delbert had his laptop computer stolen from his office during a recent holiday weekend. He went to Alice's computer resale shop to find a replacement and saw what he mistakenly thought was his computer. He questioned Alice, who told him that someone had just sold her the computer a few days ago, but she refused to give him any information on the seller and would not let him inspect it more closely. That night, after the shop was closed, Delbert forced open the back door and took the computer. Alice's clerk, who lived in an apartment above the shop, heard someone breaking in and called the police. Delbert was apprehended a block away from the building. If Delbert is charged with burglary in a jurisdiction retaining the common law criminal offenses, which of the following facts will be most relevant in determining his guilt or innocence?
Options:
A. His mistake as to the identity of the computer was not reasonable.
B. He was unaware that there was an apartment above the shop and did not believe that anyone lived in the building.
C. He realized that the computer was not his before he carried it out.
D. None of the above facts are relevant. | B |
Larry was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. After making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, Larry used a pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. A short time later, Vernon climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. He fell to the ground and severely injured his back. Larry was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. A statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." Larry was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. After a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. If Larry appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule?
Options:
A. Affirm the conviction, because Larry was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury.
B. Affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that Larry acted with malice.
C. Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that Larry intended to injure anyone.
D. Reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that Larry bore any malice towards Vernon or the other workers on the roof. | B |
Owl contracted in writing to sell Birdacre to Partridge and Wren, as joint tenants, for $ 60,000$. Partridge and Wren put up $ 6,000$ as earnest money. Before the closing date, Owl died. Shortly thereafter, and also before the closing date, a garage on Birdacre burned down. The garage had a fair market value of $ 6,500$ and was a complete loss. After the fire Partridge went to see Eagle, the executor of Owl's estate. Partridge demanded that Eagle return the $ 6,000$, because Partridge and Wren were no longer interested in Birdacre. Eagle refused and told Partridge that he expected Partridge and Wren to tender the $ 54,000$ due on the property when the closing date arrived. Partridge and Wren did not do so. Partridge filed suit demanding a refund of the $ 6,000$. Eagle countersued, demanding specific performance by Partridge and Wren or, in the alternative, monetary damages. How should the court rule?
Options:
A. In favor of Eagle, by requiring specific performance of Partridge and Wren.
B. In favor of Eagle, by assessing damages against Partridge and Wren.
C. In favor of Partridge, by ordering Eagle to refund the earnest money.
D. The court should rule that Eagle is not entitled to either damages or specific performance and that Partridge is not entitled to a refund of the earnest money. | A |
Steve gave his brother-in-law, Randy, permission to use his boat for a few hours of fishing on the local lake. Randy took the boat out on the lake for a while and then decided to cruise through a system of inland waterways to a larger chain of lakes. The fishing was so good that Randy stayed overnight there and fished most of the next day. On his way back, the boat was struck and seriously damaged by a large tree that fell from the bank without warning. Randy managed to bring the boat back to his house. Just as he got in, Steve called, demanding to know why Randy had not brought it back when he was supposed to. Randy promised that he would bring it back as soon as he could, but Steve replied that he was coming over right now to pick it up. Randy did not want to be around when Steve saw the damage to the boat, so he went out to the store. It was dark when Steve arrived, and he accidently ran over a corner of Randy's garden when he backed his truck up to the boat trailer. When he saw the damage to the boat, however, he left it there and went home. Assuming that the boat was worth $ 18,000$ before it was damaged and sustained $ 9,000$ worth of damage, what is the most that Steve will be entitled to recover in an action against Randy?
Options:
A. $9,000 and damages for loss of use.
B. $ 9,000$ and damages for loss of use, offset by the damage to Randy's garden.
C. $ 18,000$ plus interest.
D. $ 18,000$ plus interest, offset by the damage to Randy's garden. | C |
Just before going on an expedition to the Amazon, Farley gave his brother, Milton, a power of attorney to sell his house, which stated: My brother, Milton, is specifically empowered to sell and convey all, or any part, of the real property owned by me as of this date. Several weeks later, Milton sold Farley's house to Glenda and conveyed to her a customary deed containing covenants of title. A year later, when Farley returned from the expedition, he was served with a complaint by Glenda, who was suing him for breach of covenant because it turned out that Farley's former wife owns onehalf the house that Milton had sold on behalf of his brother. In this suit, Glenda should:
Options:
A. Prevail, because Farley, through his attorney-in-fact, Milton, had covenanted with regard to the title of the property.
B. Prevail, if in fact Farley's former wife has filed a claim against Glenda for her interest in the house.
C. Not prevail, unless the power to "sell and convey" is construed to include the power to execute a usual form of deed used to convey real property.
D. Not prevail, because Farley did not make any specific covenants with regard to the sale of this house. | C |
Twin Falls has a city ordinance that makes it unlawful for any group of individuals or organizations in excess of 20 persons to demonstrate, march, or picket in the city's civic center without first posting a bond with the police department and receiving a permit. The permit procedure takes at least one working day, and a "parade" permit costs $ 10$. The requirement for a license is that each demonstration in excess of 20 persons have one parade marshal for each 20 persons who must be responsible for insuring that the demonstration remains on the city sidewalks, does not block traffic, and does not become noisy or unruly. The ordinance, in addition to making a violation a misdemeanor, authorizes the police department to terminate any demonstration if "any person in the demonstration, without provocation, uses, in the presence of other persons not a party to the demonstration, annoying, disturbing, opprobrious words and abusive language in such a manner as tending to cause a breach of the peace." YAAF (the Young Americans Against Fascism) brings suit in the state court to enjoin the city from preventing their scheduled demonstration on Memorial Day without a permit, and to enjoin the city from using this ordinance to require them to have a permit. YAAF's strongest contention for finding the provisions of this statute unconstitutional is that:
Options:
A. The city's civic center is a place where demonstrations of this type normally occur, and the city cannot prevent citizens from demonstrating there.
B. There is no showing by the city that YAAF's demonstrators are likely to become disruptive or unruly.
C. The ordinance is overbroad and unduly vague.
D. The First and Fourteenth Amendments ensure the right of association in public places without interference. | C |
In which of the following situations is the defendant least likely to be found guilty of an attempted crime?
Options:
A. In order to track down "fences" and other distributors of stolen goods, police officers, with permission of the owners and insurers, forward stolen jewelry they have intercepted on the way to Don, a reputed fence. Don takes the jewelry, which he believes to be stolen. Don is arrested and charged with attempted receipt of stolen goods.
B. Dewey, a 21-year-old male, believes the "age of consent" in the state to be 18 , and that sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18 constitutes statutory rape. In fact, the statute applies only to females under the age of 16 . Dewey's girlfriend, Irma, is 17 years of age. With Irma's consent, Dewey engages in sexual intercourse with Irma. Later, Dewey brags in a bar, "I just made it with some jailbait." Dewey is arrested and charged with attempted statutory rape.
C. Doreen, a community activist, is outraged that a bill to place greater restrictions on picketing is being debated in the state legislature. Doreen asks her lawyer, Lax, if she can conduct a demonstration in the state capitol building, where the legislature sits. Lax assures her that the United States Supreme Court has recently upheld a very similar case and tells Doreen she should act freely "because the First Amendment protects you." In fact, Lax did not read the case carefully. The Court allowed demonstrations on the capitol grounds, but not in the building itself. As Doreen carries her picket sign into the state capitol building, she is arrested by security guards and is charged by state police with attempting to conduct an illegal demonstration.
D. Hartigan, a police officer, disguises himself as an elderly homeowner as part of a police "sting" operation aimed at unscrupulous home repair operations. Drew, president and sole proprietor of Drew's Home Repairs, inspects the home that he believes belongs to Hartigan. Drew believes Hartigan is the homeowner and a senior citizen with failing mental powers. Drew's inspection of the home reveals the only plumbing problem to be a 25 -cent washer that needs replacing. Drew tells Hartigan that the plumbing in the house is in terrible shape, and that city building inspectors are likely to condemn the home if plumbing repairs are not made immediately. Drew offers Hartigan a contract to perform all required plumbing repairs for $ 10,000$. Drew emphasizes that this is a "rock bottom price with a $20 \%$ senior citizen discount." Drew is arrested and charged with attempted theft by false pretenses. | B |
Trent was on trial for the statutory rape of Vanessa. He denied that she was even in his company on the night of the alleged offense, when he was working as the night clerk at a convenience store. The prosecution offers to have Warren testify that, in a phone conversation on the evening in question, Vanessa said, "I have to run; Trent wants me to stop by the store tonight while he's working." The defense objects to the proposed testimony. Should the court allow Warren's testimony?
Options:
A. Yes, as a present sense impression of Vanessa's.
B. Yes, as evidence that Vanessa was in Trent's company that night.
C. No, unless Vanessa is unavailable as a witness.
D. No, because Vanessa's state of mind is not in issue. | B |
Dan, an experienced trial lawyer, traveled from his hometown, Secondville, to Capitol City, where he was hired to complete a complex antitrust case that Dan estimated would take weeks, and possibly months, to complete. During his sojourn in Capitol City, which began on a Sunday, Dan stayed at the Capitol City Ryott Hotel. The normal room charges were $ 150$ per night. Dan made a deal with the hotel management to pay $ 700$ per week for his room for an indefinite period. Dan never told the hotel management exactly how long he planned to stay, but each Sunday he would present the cashier with a check for $ 700$, plus any additional taxes and room charges, to pay for the previous week's lodging. Dan was not asked to pay in this manner, but he did it as a matter of custom. Dan did this for four weeks, and then the opposing party suddenly made a generous settlement offer which Dan's client agreed to accept. On a Thursday morning, before checkout time for that day, Dan tendered the hotel cashier a check for $ 400$ plus additional charges incurred from Sunday through Wednesday nights. The cashier promptly took the check and then told Dan, "You owe us $ 1,000$ plus taxes for 10 more days' lodging. We expect you to pay for the rest of this week as you customarily do, and then for an additional week because you didn't give us a week's notice that you planned to vacate." Dan refused to pay the additional charges. If the hotel sues Dan and the court determines that the parties created a tenancy, for how many additional days' lodging will he be required to pay?
Options:
A. None, because a tenancy at will was created.
B. Three days, because a periodic tenancy was created.
C. Seven days, because a periodic tenancy was created.
D. Ten days, because a periodic tenancy was created. | D |
Publectric Company, a utility supplying gas and electricity to West Howard, was working on some of its underground lines. Access to the underground lines was through a utility hole, which Publectric had left uncovered. Publectric installed a modern guardrail around the hole to prevent members of the public from falling into the hole. Although the rail completely surrounded the utility hole, there was an opening in one part of the railing which made it easier to pass down tools to those working below. Hound, a dog fancier, lived in a single-family home across the street from where the Publectric utility hole was located. Hound owned "Hobson's Hotspur of Trent,"' a champion springer spaniel whom Hound exhibited at dog shows. The dog was also a family pet and was known affectionately to Hound's family as "Hobby." Hound's home had a large front lawn where Hound often walked Hobby without first leashing him. One such afternoon, Hobby saw a squirrel and suddenly bolted away from Hound's lawn. Hobby dashed across the street, passed through the opening of the guardrail, and fell into the utility hole, suffering broken bones and internal injuries. Although expensive and lengthy care by veterinary specialists saved Hobby's life, the dog was no longer of "show quality" after the injuries. Assume that the jurisdiction in which West Howard is located still recognizes all the common law defenses to tort liability. Can Hound recover his economic losses resulting from the injuries to Hobby in a suit against Publectric?
Options:
A. No, unless Publectric failed to exercise reasonable care in making the dangerous condition safe.
B. No, if the guardrail used by Publectric meets typical industry standards.
C. No, because the dog escaped from Hound's yard.
D. No, unless a reasonably careful person would have been injured in the same manner. | A |
An act of Congress provides for the payment of Social Security benefits to the disabled children of deceased workers. A complex set of regulations carefully defines the meaning of the term "disabled." The benefits are payable even after the child reaches his or her age of majority, but terminate automatically when the recipient marries, unless the recipient marries a person who is also disabled, in which case the Social Security payments continue. Dorit has been disabled since birth, and her father died in a coal mine cave-in when Dorit was 14 years of age. She has received Social Security benefits since her father's death. However, at age 25, Dorit married Jack, who is not disabled, and her Social Security benefits were summarily terminated. She files suit in federal district court, seeking to compel the government to restore her benefits. She asserts, among other things, that there is no logical reason why she should be deprived of benefits when unmarried disabled persons and disabled persons who marry other disabled persons continue to receive them. Which of the following is the strongest ground to defend the constitutionality of the federal statute in question?
Options:
A. Congress's power over federal expenditures is plenary, and Congress has discretion to spend money from the Federal Treasury in whatever way it wishes.
B. Because there is no constitutional entitlement to Social Security payments, Congress is free to condition them as it sees fit.
C. The classification imposed by this statute is reasonable, inasmuch as it will save the national government a substantial amount of money.
D. Congress could rationally conclude that a disabled child of a deceased worker who is unmarried or who marries another disabled person is more likely to be needy than a disabled person who is married to a person who is not disabled. | D |
Oswald owned an old, unoccupied, and extremely run-down building in Hooverville. The walls were unstable and beginning to buckle. Oswald knew of the building's condition, but he did not want to spend the money needed to repair it and hoped that the Hooverville Redevelopment Commission would want his land to build a shopping mall. Timmy was a driver for U-Pump-It Tanker Lines, a concern that operated tanker trucks that delivered gasoline to filling stations. U-PumpIt's rules required drivers to park only in legally designated parking areas. After completing his deliveries for the day in Hooverville, Timmy stopped for a cup of coffee. He did not want to spend time trying to find a parking place on a side street, so he parked in front of Oswald's building, which was located on a through street. The area in front of Oswald's building was clearly marked, "No Parking At Any Time." Timmy walked to the Emporium Restaurant, where he ordered coffee and the daily special. Hooverville was located in an area subject to minor earthquake activity. Just as Timmy began his lunch, a quake jolted Hooverville. The quake was not strong enough to cause damage to structurally sound buildings, but was sufficient to cause the walls of Oswald's building to collapse. The building fell on top of the U-Pump-It truck, causing the truck to roll over on its side. Gasoline leaked from the truck and began streaming down the street. Elvira, a pedestrian walking two blocks away, lit a cigarette and casually tossed a match in the street. The stream of gasoline had just reached that street and the match caused the gasoline to ignite. The flames spread to a nearby commercial building. An explosion occurred, causing many windows in a neighboring apartment building to be blown inward. Flying glass was propelled into Bonnie's apartment. Bonnie suffered multiple cuts and a serious eye injury from the flying glass. Bonnie brings a negligence action against UPump-It Tanker Lines. If the court finds in favor of U-Pump-It, it will be because:
Options:
A. The court follows the Cardozo view regarding foreseeable plaintiffs.
B. Timmy was acting outside the scope of his employment when Bonnie was injured.
C. Oswald was the legal cause of Bonnie's injuries because his building was in an unreasonably dangerous condition.
D. The company had a rule against illegal parking on streets. | A |
In which of the following situations is the offered evidence most likely to be admitted?
Options:
A. In Paula's action against David for assault, David offers the testimony of Walter, a surprise witness who, it was just discovered, witnessed the altercation between Paula and David; when questioned by the judge, David's counsel agrees to permit a continuance following Walter's testimony so that Paula will have time to prepare for cross-examination of Walter.
B. In Peter's negligence action against Dolores arising from an accident in which a 1994 Camaro struck Peter while he crossed Main Street at a crosswalk, Peter offers the testimony of Winchell, the owner of a garage, who will state that Dolores arranged to have the brakes of the subject 1994 Camaro relined and adjusted the day after the accident; Dolores stipulated in her responsive pleadings that she was the owner of the 1994 Camaro.
C. In Patrick's action for personal injuries against Don arising from a collision between the two while both rode in a bicycle race, Patrick offers a videotape showing a surgeon resetting his broken leg, in which it was necessary to rebreak the leg while Patrick was anesthetized.
D. In Penelope's defamation action against Delbert, Penelope offers the testimony of Wanda, who will state that when she heard Delbert describe Penelope as "the biggest shyster in Middleville," she understood him to mean that Penelope was an incompetent lawyer; Wanda is the eleventh person Penelope has called to interpret the quoted statement. | A |
The legislature of State Red recently enacted a statute that defined first degree murder as murder with premeditation and deliberation, or a homicide in the commission of arson, rape, robbery, burglary, or kidnapping. The statute defined second degree murder as all other murder at common law. In which of the following situations is defendant most likely to be guilty of first degree murder?
Options:
A. Believing that his neighbor, Paul, had stolen his lawn mower, defendant walked over to his neighbor's house and punched him in the nose, intending to injure him. As a result of the blow, Paul fell back, hit his head, and died.
B. After leaving a bar in a highly intoxicated state, defendant attempted to drive home. While so doing, he struck Oscar, who was legally crossing the street in a marked crosswalk. Oscar died instantly.
C. Infuriated over having caught Mary having an affair with defendant's husband, defendant bought a shotgun and shot and killed Mary as she was leaving her house on her way to work.
D. Immediately after being punched by Betty, defendant in a rage took a knife and stabbed and killed Betty. | C |
Owens owned Goldacre in fee simple. In 1985, Owens executed a deed conveying Goldacre "to Private School for the life of my wife Wilma, and then to my children, their heirs and assigns, in equal share, provided, however, that School shall use the premises for educational purposes only." School then erected a temporary building on Goldacre and conducted certain classes within the building. In 2000 , one of School's former students informed the principal of School that a geological survey of the area had indicated that there were valuable minerals beneath the surface of Goldacre. School, badly in need of money, granted to Mine Co. a right to remove the minerals from a one-acre portion of Goldacre upon the payment of a percentage of the value of the minerals removed. From 2000 to 2004, Mine Co. conducted mining operations on the one-acre portion of Goldacre. School had continued to conduct classes in the temporary building located on Goldacre. In 2004, while Owens and Wilma were still alive, both of Owens's children filed suit against School and Mine Co. seeking damages for the removal of minerals since 2000 , an injunction preventing further acts of removal, and all other appropriate remedies. Which of the following would be the most likely result?
Options:
A. School and Mine Co. should be enjoined, and damages should be recovered, but impounded for future distribution.
B. The children should succeed, because the interest of School terminated with the first removal of minerals from Goldacre.
C. The injunction should be granted, but damages should be denied because Owens and Wilma are not parties to the action.
D. Damages should be awarded, but the injunction should be denied. | A |
Olman expected the value of property near Middletown to increase substantially. To buy a tract known as Blueacre, Olman secured a $ 10,000$ mortgage on Blueacre from Exbank. After completing the purchase, Olman wished to make certain improvements on Blueacre. To finance them, Olman took out a $ 2,000$ second mortgage on Blueacre from Wybank. Both mortgages were promptly and properly recorded. Before Olman made a payment on either mortgage, the federal government announced that it would begin storing nuclear waste products in the Middletown area. The value of property, including Blueacre, plummeted. Olman did not pay either Exbank or Wybank. Exbank brought a proper action to foreclose, notifying both Olman and Wybank. Purch bought Blueacre at the foreclosure sale for $ 6,000$, the property's fair market value. Assuming there are no special statutes in the jurisdiction regarding deficiency judgments, Olman owes:
Options:
A. $ 5,000$ to Exbank and $ 1,000$ to Wybank.
B. $ 4,000$ to Exbank and $ 2,000$ to Wybank.
C. Nothing to Exbank and $ 2,000$ to Wybank.
D. $4,000 to Exbank and nothing to Wybank. | B |
On Halloween night, Darryl, who is 12 years old, dressed up as a bandit by wearing dark clothes and a pair of panty hose over his head and went trick or treating. Darryl carried a toy gun that looked like a real firearm. Darryl's method of operation was to go up to a house and ring the bell. When the person answered, he pointed his toy gun at the person's face and said, "Your money or your life," and then shouted, "Trick or treat!" At the fifth house he went to, Darryl began his routine, but before he could say "trick or treat," Patty, the elderly homeowner, screamed and slammed the door in Darryl's face. Still shaken by the experience, Patty suffered a heart attack five minutes later. Has Patty a cause of action against Darryl?
Options:
A. Yes, for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
B. Yes, for assault.
C. No, because Darryl is only 12 years old.
D. No, because Patty should have known that the gun was a toy since it was Halloween. | D |
Manfred recently moved from an apartment to a house with a large yard. Fortunately, Manfred worked as a checkout clerk at Gardenshop, a nursery and garden supply concern, and was eligible for a discount on a lawn mower. Lately, he had been eyeing a fancy new model of power mower, but even with his discount, it was out of reach. When Manfred's neighbors began complaining about his yard, Manfred decided that he would simply take his dream mower. Gardenshop had so many, they would never miss it, he reasoned. The next day, he took a mower from the Garden Equipment Department and hid it behind some crates on the loading dock. He planned to take the mower home with him that night because he was scheduled to close the business for that day. At the end of the day, however, Manfred became afraid that he would be caught. He returned the mower to the Garden Equipment Department and went home as usual. Manfred has most likely committed:
Options:
A. Larceny.
B. Attempted larceny.
C. Embezzlement.
D. No crime. | A |
Which of the following would the court be least likely to take judicial notice of?
Options:
A. The birthdate of the plaintiff's son is June $14,1974$.
B. The defendant has filed 25 frivolous lawsuits in the same court in which the case is being tried.
C. It rained in the city in which the parties reside on March 28, 1987.
D. Independence Day is July 4, and it is a state holiday. | A |
Paul sues Daniel for personal injuries that Paul suffered as a result of a battery committed on Paul by Daniel. Daniel's defense is that it is all a case of mistaken identity. Daniel admits that Paul was beaten up, but claims he had nothing to do with Paul's injuries. At trial, Daniel testified in his own behalf that on the date that Paul suffered his injuries, Daniel was on an extended vacation in England, 2,000 miles away from the place where the battery occurred. Paul's attorney did not cross-examine Daniel regarding that testimony. In rebuttal, Paul's attorney calls Walter, who is willing to testify that one week after Paul suffered his injuries, Daniel said to Walter, "I haven't been out of the country in five years." Walter's testimony is:
Options:
A. Admissible as a statement against interest by Daniel.
B. Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement of Daniel.
C. Admissible as an admission by Daniel.
D. Inadmissible, because Daniel was not given an opportunity to comment on the statement prior to Walter's testimony. | C |
Which of the following plaintiffs has/have standing to sue in federal court? I. Jane Pease files suit on behalf of herself and taxpayers nationwide to challenge the federal government's spending so much money on military weaponry instead of using the funds for social programs. II. The "Save Our Wildlife" group files suit to block further oil drilling in the nation because such drilling is contrary to the public's interest in preserving wildlife. III. The "End Nuclear Power Now Society" files suit challenging a state law that requires disclosure of the Society's membership, alleging that the law infringes on its members' freedom of association. IV. Luigi Vercotti files suit to challenge exclusionary zoning practices by Carson City, alleging that the challenged zoning made it too expensive for him to buy a home in Carson City.
Options:
A. I. only.
B. II. and III. only.
C. III. only.
D. III. and IV. only. | C |
Strobe, the owner of Goldacre, decided to sell her property and move to another state. She told her friends to "spread the word" that she wished to sell. After one week, Strobe received in the mail a written offer, signed by Briggs, to purchase Goldacre for $ 50,000$. The written offer was legally sufficient to form a written contract for the sale of Goldacre. Strobe called Briggs and said that the offer was acceptable, but that she did not want to sign it at that time because she wanted to "make sure the paper was legal." The next day Strobe visited her attorney, gave him the written offer from Briggs, and asked him to prepare a formal contract for the sale of Goldacre on the same terms and conditions as those in the written offer. When the attorney had finished, Strobe signed the contract prepared by her attorney and mailed it to Briggs. Later that day, before Briggs had received the contract, Norris called Strobe and offered to buy Goldacre for $ 60,000$, which Strobe accepted immediately over the phone. Strobe called Briggs and told him that she had received a higher offer from Norris that she had accepted. Strobe then signed a written contract to sell Goldacre to Norris. When Norris received the contract he signed it and then promptly and properly recorded it, and sent Strobe the specified down payment. Briggs received the written contract from Strobe the next day. The recording statute in the jurisdiction provides: Any conveyance of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, shall not be valid against a subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, whose conveyance is first recorded. In an appropriate action brought by Briggs against Strobe and Norris for specific performance and to quiet title, Briggs will:
Options:
A. Win, because the written offer satisfies the Statute of Frauds.
B. Win, because the contract of sale satisfied the Statute of Frauds.
C. Lose, because he never entered into a binding contract with Strobe.
D. Lose, because the recording statute protects Norris. | D |
The state of North Pacific contains major deposits of natural gas. In an effort to support this industry, and at the same time save its citizens substantial sums for the cost of heating their homes and businesses, the legislature enacted a substantial tax on out-of-state suppliers of natural gas. In addition, the state required state licensed public utilities to buy no less than $75 \%$ of their natural gas needs from sources within the state as long as their needs could be met. Muni-Power, an out-of-state supplier, brought suit against North Pacific challenging this statute. The best constitutional argument Muni-Power could make is that the statute violates:
Options:
A. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
D. The Commerce Clause. | D |
In 1951, Owner conveyed Blackacre to Brian for "so long as Blackacre is used solely for residential purposes. Should Brian ever use Blackacre for any other purpose, the interest in Blackacre shall revert to Owner and his heirs." Brian used Blackacre as his personal residence for 20 years, but in 1971, he began operating a bar on Blackacre. Owner knew that Brian was operating a bar on Blackacre, but he took no action. In 2000, the aged Brian decided to get out of the saloon business. Brian closed his business and once again began to use Blackacre solely as his personal residence. Also in 2000, Owner died, survived by his son and only heir, Stephen. In 2002, Stephen laid claim to Blackacre. The jurisdiction in which Blackacre is located has a seven-year adverse possession statute and another statute that bars enforcement of possibilities of reverter 55 years after their creation. May Stephen validly claim title to Blackacre?
Options:
A. Yes, because less than 55 years has elapsed since the creation of the possibility of reverter.
B. Yes, because the adverse possession period began to run when Brian returned the property to residential status, and Brian has not held for the requisite seven years.
C. No, because the adverse possession period began to run in 1971, and Brian has held the property for more than the requisite seven years.
D. No, because Owner did not assert his possibility of reverter; thus, no cause of action arose in Owner or his heirs. | C |
A federal statute provided for federal grants to cities that desired to reclaim and rebuild inner-city areas for multi-family residential housing. The city of Owenoak applied for funding to build housing and received a grant of $ 2.5$ million. After the area was prepared for construction, however, the city council decided it would greatly benefit the inner-city dwellers if, in addition to housing, commercial property was built. Thus, the Council decided to use $ 1.5$ million for housing and to "borrow" the remaining $ 1$ million from the housing fund to build a commercial mall. The city resolution provided that $30 \%$ of the rental from the mall each year would go to a fund for maintenance of the housing and for funds to build additional housing. Construction had started on two high-rise residential buildings and the commercial mall when the federal court, at the request of the federal government, froze the construction accounts containing the proceeds from the grant. In a motion by the city to release the funds, the court would most likely:
Options:
A. Grant the motion, because the city's plan for a fund to build more residential housing substantially complies with the terms of the grant.
B. Grant the motion, because the doctrine of preservation of state sovereignty prevents the federal government from interfering with the state's discretion in this situation.
C. Deny the motion, because the federal government can control the expenditure of the funds since it provided the funds.
D. Deny the motion, since the doctrine of state sovereignty has no application in this situation since the action was by the city council and not the state legislature. | C |
Opal owned a large tract of land in fee simple and subdivided 100 acres into 250 lots. She obtained all the necessary governmental approvals, and between 1991 and 2003 sold 175 of the lots. Preston, who purchased one of the lots to build a house, received a deed containing the following provision, which was in all the deeds to these 175 lots: It is agreed and covenanted by Opal that the property conveyed herein shall be used for a single-family dwelling only and that no structure, other than a single-family dwelling, shall be erected or maintained; further, that occupancy in any dwelling built on this property shall be by a single family for residential purposes only. This agreement is specifically made binding on the grantee and grantee's heirs, their assigns and successors. In 2004, Opal contracted with Fun Spa to sell an additional 100 acres that she owned contiguous to these lots. As part of this agreement, Opal conveyed to Fun Spa the 75 lots she had not previously sold. Nothing in the deeds for these 75 lots restricted their use to single-family residences, and in fact, Fun Spa was planning to use all the property purchased from Opal for a resort and for multi-family dwellings. If Preston brought suit against Opal to establish that all the original 250 lots, including the 75 she had agreed to sell to Fun Spa, had to be used only for single-family dwellings in a proper proceeding, what would be the most likely result?
Options:
A. Opal will prevail, because the provision in the deed only binds the grantee.
B. Opal will prevail, because the remaining 75 deeds did not contain this provision.
C. Preston will prevail, if he can show that a common development scheme had been established for the entire subdivision.
D. Preston will prevail, unless the evidence shows that Fun Spa was not aware of this provision at the time of its agreement with Opal. | C |
Moms operated a corner drugstore. One afternoon she heard a screeching of brakes and Moms immediately rushed out of the store. She saw a car speeding off into the distance and found a badly injured Victor lying in the street. Victor gasped to Moms, "I'm going to die. The car that hit me had license number DD666!" Victor then lapsed into unconsciousness. Moms gave her information to the police, including a description of the car and Victor's comment on the license plate. Police traced the registration to Dick Devilish. Victor recovered from his injuries but now suffers permanent disabilities. Victor filed suit against Devilish for his injuries. At the trial, Victor wants to have Moms testify as to Victor's statement regarding Devilish's license number. The court should rule that such testimony by Moms is:
Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is more prejudicial than probative.
B. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
C. Admissible, as a declaration made in belief of impending death.
D. Admissible, as an excited utterance. | D |
Stone operated a newsstand on leased space in an office building. On March 15, Quinn purchased the office building and told Stone that he wanted to negotiate a new lease. During the negotiations, Stone and Quinn orally agreed that Stone would have the exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. Quinn prepared a written lease outlining the Stone-Quinn agreement, but forgot to include the agreement that Stone would have exclusive rights in the office building. Stone was given a copy of the lease to read, but Stone merely glanced over the lease because he assumed it reflected his agreement with Quinn. Stone then signed the lease, which included a merger and integration clause. On March 30, Quinn leased space to Jacobs for the establishment of a drug store to be run by Jacobs. The Quinn-Jacobs lease did not prevent Jacobs from selling newspapers or magazines. As a result of the competition, Stone lost substantial profits in his business. Stone brings suit to reform the contract to reflect his exclusive right to sell newspapers and magazines in the office building. The most likely result of this suit is that:
Options:
A. Stone will prevail.
B. Stone will prevail only if he can prove a mutual mistake.
C. Stone will not prevail because of the application of the parol evidence rule.
D. Stone will not prevail because the mistake on his part was unilateral. | B |
Walter purchased a new power boat with an inboard engine from City Marine. The boat was manufactured by Watersports, Inc. Later that summer, Walter was using his boat on the lake to tow some of his friends while they waterskied when he found himself near the end of the lake where the large dam that had formed the lake was located. Several hundred feet from the dam were large pylons bearing signs warning boaters to stay at least 50 yards away. Between the pylons and the dam, about 100 feet from the pylons, was a partially submerged chain link fence covering the underwater pipes that drew water to run the hydroelectric generating turbines. Walter decided to show off by weaving his boat in and out of the warning pylons. As he rounded the last of them, the steering mechanism of his boat jammed, and it and Walter were propelled into the chain link fence. Tom, who was skiing behind the boat, was pulled into one of the pylons. Both Walter and Tom were severely injured. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Tom brings a negligence action against Watersports, Inc., and it is found that the steering failure resulted from a manufacturing defect in the boat, will he recover for his injuries?
Options:
A. No, because he did not purchase the boat.
B. No, if Walter is found to have been negligent in weaving in and out of the pylons.
C. Yes, if the defect in the steering mechanism could have been discovered by Watersports, Inc. in the exercise of reasonable care.
D. Yes, unless the defect in the steering mechanism could have been discovered by City Marine in the exercise of reasonable care. | C |
Cheryl is on trial for fraud, it having been alleged that she participated in an illegal scheme in which her victims were invited to become local distributors for a supposed cosmetics manufacturer. The victims were given bonus payments, after they had made a large initial "investment," for additional distributors who they would bring to the manufacturer. Cheryl's defense is that she knew nothing of the scheme. She claims she was brought into the scheme by the purported head of the manufacturer's sales department and was just following instructions to bring additional distributors into the sales force. The prosecution intends to call Darryl, who will testify that Cheryl had talked him into making an investment in a similar scheme involving household products, rather than cosmetics, five years ago. Should the trial court admit this evidence over Cheryl's objection?
Options:
A. No, because evidence of other acts or wrongs is not admissible to prove character and action in conformity therewith.
B. No, because it is irrelevant.
C. Yes, because it is evidence of Cheryl's character for dishonesty.
D. Yes, because it is evidence of Cheryl's state of mind. | D |
Cheryl is on trial for fraud, it having been alleged that she participated in an illegal scheme in which her victims were invited to become local distributors for a supposed cosmetics manufacturer. The victims were given bonus payments, after they had made a large initial "investment," for additional distributors who they would bring to the manufacturer. Cheryl's defense is that she knew nothing of the scheme. She claims she was brought into the scheme by the purported head of the manufacturer's sales department and was just following instructions to bring additional distributors into the sales force. The prosecution calls Zeke as a witness. Zeke is a former business associate of Cheryl's, and he testifies that her reputation in the community is for frequently participating in very questionable transactions, usually resulting in heavy losses for her investors. He testifies further that he thinks she is dishonest. Should the trial court admit this evidence over Cheryl's objection?
Options:
A. No, because the prosecution cannot initiate evidence of the accused's character.
B. No, because use of Zeke's opinion is improper.
C. Yes, because it is evidence of Cheryl's character for dishonesty.
D. Yes, because it is evidence of habit. | A |
Alice owned Red Acre, a tract of land with a one-story house on it. Alice leased Red Acre to Betty for a term of three years. Betty and her teenage son, Norm, planned to live in the house for this period. Norm was a star baseball player for the local high school team. To provide Norm with an adequate place to practice, Betty installed a fully operational batting cage in the backyard located on Red Acre. In addition to the batting cage, Betty installed an automatic pitching machine and electric lights so that Norm could practice at night. Six months after Alice leased the premises to Betty, Alice mortgaged Red Acre to State Bank to secure a loan. Betty was not notified directly of the mortgage but the mortgage was recorded. Six months before the three-year term was to end, Alice defaulted on her mortgage payments, and State Bank began foreclosure proceedings, as it was entitled to do on the terms of the mortgage. Although unaware of the mortgage proceedings, Betty knew that her lease with Alice was about to end; she therefore began to remove all of the equipment she had installed in the backyard. State Bank brought an action to enjoin the removal of the equipment, naming both Betty and Alice as defendants in the suit. If the equipment concerned had been installed by Alice, but the facts were otherwise unchanged, the effect of the State Bank's prayer for an injunction would be that the:
Options:
A. Likelihood of the State Bank's succeeding would be lessened.
B. Likelihood of the State Bank's succeeding would be improved.
C. Likelihood of the State Bank's succeeding would be unaffected.
D. Outcome of the litigation would depend on whether the mortgage expressly mentioned personal property located on the premises. | B |
Joey escaped from prison and stole a car. He picked up a young woman hitchhiker, Jenny, and told her what he had done. Jenny was emotionally disturbed and of borderline mental retardation, but understood that the police were after Joey, and because she hated the police, she told Joey she would do anything she could to help him. To avoid the police, they drove to the mountains with Jenny doing much of the driving. The following day, they were both very hungry. Toward evening, Joey saw Fisher camped by a stream nearby, and told Jenny, "Go down there and steal some food from his ice chest; he'll never even see you, but if he does, hit him with something heavy." When she hesitated, Joey became angry and said, "Go on, or I'll just leave you here to starve!" Jenny went down to Fisher's campsite, and had just grabbed a sandwich out of his ice chest and taken a bite out of it, when Fisher, who was 6'6" tall and weighed 250 pounds, ran back from the stream and grabbed her arm. Jenny was terrified and picked up a heavy frying pan and hit Fisher on the head; he slumped to the ground apparently dead. Joey then ran up and said, "He's dead. We'd better put him in the stream so it will look like he drowned after slipping and falling." They thereupon put Fisher in the stream without attempting to determine if he was alive or dead. Later, a medical examination showed conclusively that the blow only knocked Fisher out; he died of suffocation due to water in the lungs. If Jenny is charged with petit theft of Fisher's food, a misdemeanor, the court should rule that:
Options:
A. Jenny is not guilty because she was acting under the direction of Joey.
B. Jenny is guilty because an otherwise criminal act cannot be justified by threats of starvation.
C. Jenny is not guilty because there was no "carrying away" of Fisher's food, and hence no completed theft crime was committed.
D. Jenny is not guilty if a reasonable person would have regarded the theft as essential to avoid starvation. | D |
Dirk broke into Vera's house one night. As he started to stuff silverware into a sack, he was surprised by Vera, who had arrived home earlier than usual. Dirk struck Vera on the head with a candlestick and tied her up. He finished filling his sack and left. The police discovered Vera several hours later and rushed her to the hospital. Dirk was apprehended by the police early the following morning with the loot still in his possession. He was taken to police headquarters, given Miranda warnings, and asked if he wished to make a statement about the prior evening's events. The police did not mention that Vera had been seriously injured and was in the hospital. Dirk said he understood his rights and was willing to talk. He then admitted that he committed the burglary of Vera's house. The following day, Vera died from injuries caused by the blow to her head. If, at Dirk's trial for murder, Dirk moves to prevent introduction of the confession into evidence, his motion should most probably be:
Options:
A. Denied, because failure of the police to advise Dirk of Vera's condition was harmless error since felony murder does not require intent to kill or injure.
B. Denied, because Dirk's waiver of his rights did not depend upon the nature of the charges that were later filed against him.
C. Granted, because Dirk could not make a knowing and intelligent waiver unless he had information concerning Vera's condition.
D. Granted, because the use of a confession to burglary in a prosecution for murder violates due process where the police withheld information about the potential seriousness of the offense. | B |
Walter purchased a new power boat with an inboard engine from City Marine. The boat was manufactured by Watersports, Inc. Later that summer, Walter was using his boat on the lake to tow some of his friends while they waterskied when he found himself near the end of the lake where the large dam that had formed the lake was located. Several hundred feet from the dam were large pylons bearing signs warning boaters to stay at least 50 yards away. Between the pylons and the dam, about 100 feet from the pylons, was a partially submerged chain link fence covering the underwater pipes that drew water to run the hydroelectric generating turbines. Walter decided to show off by weaving his boat in and out of the warning pylons. As he rounded the last of them, the steering mechanism of his boat jammed, and it and Walter were propelled into the chain link fence. Tom, who was skiing behind the boat, was pulled into one of the pylons. Both Walter and Tom were severely injured. The jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. Walter brings an action for damages against City Marine on a theory of strict liability in tort. Who will prevail?
Options:
A. City Marine, if it properly inspected the boat before selling it to Walter.
B. City Marine, if Walter is found to have been negligent in weaving in and out of the pylons.
C. Walter, if he can show that the steering failed due to a defect present when the boat left the manufacturer.
D. Walter, because the steering mechanism failed while he was operating the boat. | C |
There is high and persistent unemployment in the industrialized state of Green. Its legislature therefore enacted a statute requiring every business with annual sales in Green of over $ 1$ million to purchase each year goods and/or services in Green equal in value to at least half of its sales in Green. Which of the following parties most clearly has standing to contest the constitutionality of this statute of Green in federal court?
Options:
A. A business in another state that supplies from that other state $95 \%$ of the goods and services bought by a corporation that has annual sales in Green of $ 20$ million.
B. A corporation selling $ 300,000$ worth of goods in Green but presently purchasing only $ 10,000$ in goods and services in Green.
C. The governor of an adjacent state on behalf of the state and its residents.
D. The owner of high-grade, secured bonds issued by a corporation with sales in Green of $ 10$ million that currently purchases only $ 1$ million in goods and services in Green. | A |
Simmons and Boyd entered into a written contract for the sale and purchase of Wideacre. The contract provided that "Simmons agrees to convey a good and marketable title to Boyd 60 days from the date of this contract."' The purchase price was stated as $ 60,000$. At the time set for closing, Simmons tendered a deed in the form agreed to in the contract. Boyd's examination of the record prior to the date of closing had disclosed, however, that the owner of record was not Simmons, but Olson. Further investigation by Boyd revealed that, notwithstanding the state of the record, Simmons had been in what Boyd concedes is adverse possession for 15 years. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Boyd refuses to pay the purchase price or to take possession "because of the inability of Simmons to transfer a marketable title." In an appropriate action by Simmons against Boyd for specific performance, Simmons will:
Options:
A. Prevail, because he has obtained a "good and marketable title" by adverse possession.
B. Prevail, because Simmons's action for specific performance is an action in rem even though Olson is not a party.
C. Not prevail, because Boyd cannot be required to buy a lawsuit even if the probability is great that Boyd would prevail against Olson.
D. Not prevail, because Simmons's failure to disclose his lack of record title constitutes fraud. | C |
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be not guilty of the charge made?
Options:
A. Believing that state law made it a crime to purchase Valium without a prescription, Defendant purchased without a prescription a certain quantity of Valium. Unknown to Defendant, the state legislature had repealed the statute, and Valium could be legally purchased without a prescription. Defendant is charged with attempting to purchase Valium without a prescription.
B. While in the course of a fight, Defendant, intending to kill Stan, ran up and stabbed Stan from behind. Unknown to Defendant, Stan had been stabbed through the chest only seconds before by another participant in the fight, killing him instantly. Defendant is charged with attempted murder.
C. Defendant misrepresented his identity to a garage in order to take possession of an automobile that had been left with the garage for repairs earlier that week. The owner of the garage was not deceived and refused to turn over possession. Defendant is charged with attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
D. Police arrested Robber as he was leaving a house where he had stolen a good deal of property. As part of a plea-bargain arrangement, Robber took the property to Defendant and offered to sell it. Defendant, believing the property to be stolen, purchased it. Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen property. | A |
Jane, an architectural historian, bought a house in 1979 from William. She paid him $ 50,000$ in cash, and the balance of the $ 150,000$ sale price came from the proceeds of a mortgage she took out with State National Bank. The mortgage was recorded. In 1987, Jane borrowed $ 5,000$ from the Home Finance Company, using her house as security. Home Finance recorded its mortgage on the property. In 1996, Jane had an architect friend design an addition to her house. She borrowed $ 40,000$ from Property Equity Lenders, Inc. to pay for this construction. Property Equity did not record the mortgage Jane gave it to secure this debt. In 2003, Jane lost her job and was unable to make payments on some of her obligations. She made the payments on the State National mortgage, but was unable to make any payments on either the Home Finance or Property Equity Lenders mortgages. Home Finance filed foreclosure of its mortgage. At the foreclosure sale, Susan bought the property. After acquiring the property at the sale, what is Susan's obligation toward the holders of the other two mortgages, State National Bank and Property Equity Lenders, Inc.?
Options:
A. She takes the property subject to both mortgages.
B. She takes the property subject to neither mortgage.
C. She takes the property subject to Property Equity Lenders's mortgage, but not subject to State National Bank's mortgage.
D. She takes the property subject to State National Bank's mortgage, but not subject to Property Equity Lenders's mortgage. | D |
Paula's friend Roberto told her that she could use his lakeside cabin for the weekend. Roberto gave Paula instructions on how to find his cabin, but once Paula arrived at the lake, she found that all the cabins looked very similar. Paula rechecked Roberto's instructions and then entered the cabin that she thought belonged to Roberto. In fact, the cabin belonged to Otto. After Paula unpacked her luggage, she realized that the cabin was quite cold. Thus, she gathered some wood from the woodpile and started a fire in the fireplace. Unbeknownst to Paula, the fireplace flue was blocked and so an explosion ensued; Paula was injured by the explosion. Otto had known that the flue was blocked, but he had not gotten around to having the problem fixed. If Paula sues Otto for her injuries, who will prevail?
Options:
A. Paula, because Otto knew that the flue was defective.
B. Paula, because Otto had a duty to warn of the defect.
C. Otto, but only if he had no reason to anticipate that anyone would be in the cabin.
D. Otto, because he owed no duty to Paula. | C |
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of common law murder?
Options:
A. As a joke, Defendant trips Tom as he walks by. As a result of the fall, Tom hits his head on the corner of a desk and dies immediately.
B. During a heated argument, Ed punches Defendant in the stomach. Angered, Defendant responds by stabbing Ed with a knife and killing him instantly.
C. While driving home from work late one night, Defendant falls asleep behind the wheel of his automobile. His car drifts across the middle of the road, strikes a car, and the other driver is killed instantly in the collision.
D. Angered because his neighbor is playing his stereo at a very high volume, Defendant fires a gun into the neighbor's house. The bullet strikes and kills neighbor's wife. | D |
Asa was an old man who had few friends and most of whose relatives had died. One day, while Asa was studying a chess problem at the senior citizens center, a young woman asked him if he would care to play a game. The woman had accompanied her grandmother to the center. Soon the woman, whose name was Stephanie, was visiting the center regularly to play chess with Asa. They became close friends and often visited each other's homes. Asa decided that he would like Stephanie to have his only real asset, Oldacre, the singlefamily residence in which he lived. He wrote a note to Stephanie dated December 25, 2003, stating, "Because you have been such a good friend to a lonely old man, I want you to have this house and land."' He then went to Lawyer and had Lawyer draft a deed conveying Oldacre to Stephanie. Asa validly executed the deed and gave both the note and the executed deed to the director of the senior citizens center telling him to give them to Stephanie upon his death. Asa continued to live at Oldacre until his death in July of 2004. A will Asa had executed in 1987 was admitted to probate shortly thereafter; the will left all of Asa's property to a cousin in another state. When Stephanie received the note and deed from the lawyer prior to the probate of Asa's estate, she promptly recorded the deed, and after probate, she brought an appropriate action to quiet her title to the property conveyed by the deed. In that action, the court should find for:
Options:
A. Stephanie, because the deed as delivered constituted a valid conveyance of Oldacre.
B. Stephanie, because Asa's note to her constituted a valid conveyance of Oldacre.
C. The cousin, because the deed conveying Oldacre to Stephanie was not recorded and thus was not effective until after Asa's death.
D. The cousin, because the fact that Asa remained in possession of Oldacre rendered the conveyance in the deed to Stephanie ineffective. | A |
In which of the following situations would Defendant's claim of intoxication most likely result in a finding of not guilty?
Options:
A. Defendant is charged with battery after wounding Hal by shooting him. Defendant claims that he was too drunk to realize that anyone was in the house into which he shot.
B. Defendant is charged with manslaughter when he hit and killed a child while riding his motorcycle. Defendant claims that he was so drunk he did not see the child in time to avoid hitting her.
C. Defendant is charged with larceny. Defendant claims that when he took the car he was too drunk to realize that it was not his.
D. Defendant is charged with involuntary manslaughter after her unsupervised fouryear-old child was killed in a fire at their home. Defendant claims that she was at the corner bar, drunk, when the fire occurred. | C |
Parker was a guest at Hotel, located about 200 miles from his home. After Parker had spent two nights at Hotel, he received a call at 5 a.m. from his wife, who told him that their child had just been rushed to the hospital and was in critical condition. Parker decided to hurry home. He called the airport and reserved space on the next flight out, scheduled to leave at $6: 15$ a.m. Parker packed and rushed to the lobby. However, it happened that a number of guests were checking out early that morning, and thus there was a long line ahead of him and only one cashier on duty. Parker hoped that the line would move quickly, but when he heard the first guest in line arguing with Stockton, the desk clerk, over a $25 / otin$ telephone charge, he realized that he would never make it to the airport in time if he continued to wait in line. The hotel had no express check-out service available, so he left without paying his bill and flew home. As soon as Parker's child was out of danger, he wrote a letter to Hotel, apologizing for his swift departure and enclosing payment for two nights' lodging; he also added an extra $ 25$ "to cover any inconvenience and billing expense" he may have caused. Meanwhile, Stockton discovered that Parker had left without paying. On Hotel's behalf, Stockton signed a complaint with the state police, charging Parker with theft of services. The police went to the appropriate magistrate, and a warrant was sworn out for Parker's arrest. The day after Parker left Hotel, Hotel received Parker's letter and payment. However, no one notified the police that Parker had paid his bill. Three days after Parker left Hotel, the state police, armed with a warrant, came to Parker's office and arrested him. Despite Parker's objections, he was taken to jail. Although he repeatedly told the police that he had paid his bill and suggested that they call Hotel, they refused to do so. After holding Parker for 18 hours, the police called Hotel. The manager told the police, "Yes, we got Parker's check two days ago, but we were too busy to call you." The police, with apologies, released Parker. Parker sued Hotel and the state police for false imprisonment. Will Parker prevail in his action against the police?
Options:
A. Yes, because of Parker's protestations of innocence.
B. Yes, because Parker had not stolen services.
C. No, because the police acted pursuant to a valid warrant.
D. No, because Hotel had reasonable grounds for signing a complaint against Parker. | C |
Civil service rules, which have been on the books in the city of Charlesville for many years, provide that any member of the police department must serve a one-year probationary period before he or she will be considered a permanent employee. In fact, this rule was enacted before Charlesville had a police academy, and now a prospective police officer spends six months in the academy before being hired by the city. Ruby, a graduate of the police academy, was with the city police department for eight months when she was terminated. There were no city ordinances or state laws that required that Ruby be given a reason for the termination or a hearing, and she was given neither. Which of the following facts, if shown, gives the city of Charlesville the strongest argument for refusing to give Ruby a statement of reasons why her employment was terminated and for denying her the opportunity to contest the termination?
Options:
A. Ruby, as a female, did not perform as a police officer as well as her male counterparts.
B. Ruby had failed to include in her application the fact that during college she was a member of a radical student organization.
C. Ruby had not been granted permanent employment status.
D. Ruby had graduated in last place in her class at the police academy. | C |
While it was parked on a side street, Driver's car was severely damaged by a hit-and-run accident. While the car was being repaired, Driver arranged to borrow a car from his friend, Lender, to drive until Driver's car was finished. Lender had an extra car that had not been driven for some time, which he gladly allowed Driver to use. However, when Driver picked up the car, Lender forgot to warn Driver that the brake fluid had a tendency to leak out of the brake system and needed to be replaced regularly. Lender telephoned Driver's wife, Rider, and warned her about the brake fluid problem. Rider, however, forgot to tell Driver. Shortly thereafter, Driver was driving Rider to work in the borrowed car. Driver was proceeding along at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit. As he approached an intersection, another car, driven by Reckless, ran through the red light and into the intersection. Driver, upon seeing Reckless's car, stepped on the brakes, but the brakes failed and the two cars collided. If the proper amount of brake fluid had been in the brake system, Driver could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Driver and Rider were injured. The jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence. If Driver asserts a claim against Reckless, Driver will:
Options:
A. Recover only a portion of his damages, because Rider was also at fault.
B. Recover the full amount of his damages, because Driver himself was not at fault.
C. Not recover, because Driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
D. Not recover, because Rider was negligent in not telling Driver about the defective brake condition, and Rider's negligence would be imputed to driver. | B |
While it was parked on a side street, Driver's car was severely damaged by a hit-and-run accident. While the car was being repaired, Driver arranged to borrow a car from his friend, Lender, to drive until Driver's car was finished. Lender had an extra car that had not been driven for some time, which he gladly allowed Driver to use. However, when Driver picked up the car, Lender forgot to warn Driver that the brake fluid had a tendency to leak out of the brake system and needed to be replaced regularly. Lender telephoned Driver's wife, Rider, and warned her about the brake fluid problem. Rider, however, forgot to tell Driver. Shortly thereafter, Driver was driving Rider to work in the borrowed car. Driver was proceeding along at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit. As he approached an intersection, another car, driven by Reckless, ran through the red light and into the intersection. Driver, upon seeing Reckless's car, stepped on the brakes, but the brakes failed and the two cars collided. If the proper amount of brake fluid had been in the brake system, Driver could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Driver and Rider were injured. The jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence. If Rider asserts a claim against Reckless, Rider will:
Options:
A. Recover in full for her injury, because Driver, who was driving the car in which she was riding, was not himself at fault.
B. Recover a portion of her damages, based on the respective degrees of her negligence and that of Reckless.
C. Not recover, because Driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
D. Not recover, because Rider was primarily at fault for the collision. | B |
On a wholly random basis, a state agency has given a few probationary employees who were not rehired at the end of their probationary period a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing; but the agency has very rarely done so. No statute or rule of the agency required such a statement of reasons or a hearing. The employment of Masters, a probationary employee, was terminated without a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing. The agency did not even consider whether it should give him either. A suit by Masters requesting a statement of reasons and a hearing will probably be:
Options:
A. Successful, on the grounds that failure to give Masters reasons and an opportunity for a hearing constituted a bill of attainder.
B. Successful, on the grounds that an agency's inconsistent practices, even if unintentional, deny adversely affected persons the equal protection of the laws.
C. Unsuccessful, because Masters does not have a right to be rehired that is protected by procedural due process.
D. Unsuccessful, because the conditions of state employment are matters reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. | C |
Constance owned Greenacre in fee simple. She executed two instruments in the proper form of deeds. The first instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Henry and his wife, Audrey, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The second instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Susan, the only child of Henry. Susan was 13 years old at the time. The common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute. No actual consideration was paid for the deeds. Constance handed the two deeds to Henry. Henry promptly and properly recorded the deed to himself and Audrey and put the deed to his daughter, Susan, in a safe-deposit box without recording it. The same year, Henry, Audrey, and Susan were on a vacation when the plane in which they were flying went down, and all three were killed simultaneously. Henry, Audrey, and Susan died intestate. The applicable statute in the jurisdictions provides that "when title to property on its devolution depends on priority of death and there is insufficient evidence that the persons have died otherwise than simultaneously, the property of each person shall be disposed of as if he had survived." An appropriate action was instituted by the heirs of Henry, Audrey, and Susan. Constance, who is not an heir of any of the deceased, was a party to the action. The court should determine that title to Greenacre is:
Options:
A. Entirely in Constance.
B. One-half in the heirs of Henry and one-half in the heirs of Audrey.
C. One-half in Constance, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey.
D. One-half in the heirs of Susan, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey. | D |
Dryden is tried on a charge of driving while intoxicated. When Dryden was booked at the police station, a videotape was made that showed him unsteady, abusive, and speaking in a slurred manner. If the prosecutor lays a foundation properly identifying the tape, should the court admit it in evidence and permit it to be shown to the jury?
Options:
A. Yes, because it is an admission.
B. Yes, because its value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
C. No, because the privilege against selfincrimination is applicable.
D. No, because specific instances of conduct cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence. | B |
Davis is arrested and tried for battery. At trial, the prosecution offers evidence that shows Davis punched Verne in the stomach. In which of the following situations is Davis most likely to be not guilty of battery?
Options:
A. Davis was heavily intoxicated and was attempting to swat at a fly when he punched Verne.
B. Davis, who had just awakened from a deep sleep, was not fully aware of what was happening and mistakenly thought Verne was attacking him.
C. Davis was suffering from an epileptic seizure and had no control over his motions.
D. Davis, angered by something Verne had said, punched him in retaliation. | C |
The state legislature of Nevada enacted legislation prohibiting the use of tractor-trailer rigs weighing more than 100,000 pounds gross, after lengthy hearings demonstrated to the legislators' satisfaction that superheavy trucks rapidly degrade the state's roadways and pose a greater safety danger than smaller trucks. Western States Freight, a trucking firm that frequently uses Nevada highways for trips between Colorado and California, has recently purchased several tractor-trailer rigs weighing over 100,000 pounds when loaded. Most of its equipment may still be legally used in Nevada, but the firm does not want to have to exclude the superheavies from the California runs and plans to gradually replace its older trucks with larger models. Western brings an action for declaratory relief in federal court in Colorado, seeking to have the Nevada legislation declared unconstitutional. The state of Nevada asserts that the legislation is justified as an exercise of the state's police power based upon safety considerations, and that the court may not second-guess the state legislators as to this subject. None of the evidence presented at the legislative hearings is produced in court. Western presents expert testimony that the heavier trucks are no less safe than smaller models. The trial court should rule:
Options:
A. That the legislation is an unconstitutional violation of Western's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.
B. That the legislation is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.
C. That the legislation is a valid exercise of the state's police power to regulate highway safety.
D. That the evidence of the damage done to the state's highways by the superheavy trucks is sufficient to uphold the legislation independently of the safety argument. | B |
Howard and Wendy were engaged and looking for a lovely lot on which to build their dream house. They fell in love with Blueacre at first sight and purchased it, taking title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Before construction of the dream house could begin, Howard discovered that Wendy was having an affair with Claude, and the engagement was called off. Wanting to obtain the money to run off with Claude, Wendy wanted to sell Blueacre. Howard refused to sell. Wendy put Blueacre up for sale anyway, and when Tim agreed to purchase it, Wendy forged Howard's signature on the deed conveying Blueacre to Tim. Who owns Blueacre?
Options:
A. Howard only.
B. Tim only.
C. Howard and Tim as tenants in common.
D. Howard, Wendy, and Tim as tenants in common. | C |
Penelope was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a truck owned by Deeco and driven by Deeco's employee, Albert. Albert was just finishing his deliveries for Deeco when the accident occurred. At the scene of the accident, Walter, a bystander, heard Albert say, "I can't believe it ... I shouldn't have had all those beers." Penelope sued Deeco for her injuries and asked Walter to testify at trial as to Albert's statement. Walter's testimony should be ruled:
Options:
A. Admissible, as a statement against interest.
B. Admissible, as an admission of a partyopponent.
C. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
D. Inadmissible, as hearsay. | B |
Lynn entered into an enforceable written agreement to sell her home to Werner for $ 150,000$. The agreement provided that escrow would close on March 31, and on that date Lynn would provide good and marketable title to the house, free and clear of all encumbrances. On March 10, Lynn was notified by her insurance company that she had to renew her insurance policy by March 15 . Lynn immediately notified the company that she did not want the insurance renewed at that time. Consequently, when the house was destroyed by fire on March 25, it was uninsured. On March 31, Werner refused to close and Lynn immediately brought an action against him for specific performance. In this jurisdiction, which has no applicable statute to govern this situation, the most probable result of this action would be:
Options:
A. Werner prevails, because an implied term of all conveyances is that the property at the time of closing will be in substantially the same condition as it was at the time the contract was entered into.
B. Werner prevails, because as the house was destroyed, Lynn would have nothing to "sell" and, therefore, could not convey marketable title.
C. Lynn prevails, because under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the risk of loss was on Werner.
D. Lynn prevails, but since the house was destroyed, she is only entitled to recover the fair market value of the land itself. | C |
The state police of New Lancashire wished to infiltrate the Aryan Consciousness Movement ("ACM"), a racist organization devoted to the goal of creating an "All White America." The New Lancashire police decided to create a new undercover position for the person who would infiltrate the ACM. The pay was substantially better than the salary of ordinary officers. Dimer, the chief personnel officer of the New Lancashire State Police, put out a memo inviting all white New Lancashire police officers to apply for the undercover position. Pendergrass had been a New Lancashire State Police officer for eight years and had received many citations for efficiency, bravery, and public service. However, Pendergrass is black, and Dimer refused to even accept his application for the undercover position, even though Pendergrass told Dimer that he was very desirous of obtaining the position. If Pendergrass sues to require Dimer to give serious consideration to his application, should the court rule that Dimer has acted in a manner in accordance with the principles of the United States Constitution?
Options:
A. Yes, because the state has a rational basis for using race as a qualification for the job.
B. Yes, because the state has a compelling interest in infiltrating $\mathrm{ACM}$, to promote the general welfare of its citizens.
C. No, because Dimer's actions were discriminatory per se.
D. No, if there is a chance that Pendergrass might be able to win the confidence of ACM leaders. | B |
While Doug was driving Olivia's car, he hit Peter in a pedestrian right-of-way. Peter sued both Doug and Olivia, alleging that Doug had negligently driven the car and that Olivia had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car. Assume for the purposes of this question only that the day after the preexisting structure is demolished and the rubble removed, a severe storm causes gigantic waves that erode the seashore so that Owner's lot is now under water. Must Builder still perform the contract?
Options:
A. No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
B. No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
C. Yes, if Owner obtains an alternative lot within a reasonable period of time.
D. No, the contract is void because of mutual mistake. | B |
On January 1, Fred executed and delivered a deed to his daughter, Diane, conveying his avocado ranch as follows: "To Diane for life, but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and children, then to Diane's spouse for life, with the remainder in fee simple to Diane's children; but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and no children, then to my son Sam in fee simple." On June 15, Diane married George and as a wedding gift Fred quitclaimed his interest in the avocado ranch to George. Assume that the jurisdiction does not follow the doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders. On December 1, Diane died without children and without a will. The applicable law of intestate succession provides that George is Diane's only heir. Sam claims that George has no interest in the land. Title to the avocado ranch is held by whom?
Options:
A. George, because of the doctrine of merger.
B. George, because Diane died intestate and her fee simple passed to him as her intestate heir.
C. Sam, because the interest granted to Diane's spouse is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
D. Sam, because Diane, although survived by her spouse, died without children. | D |
Dennis was charged with larceny. His principal defense was that he had no intent to permanently deprive the victim of her property. The judge instructed the jury that the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis was guilty of larceny and that the evidence tended to show that Dennis had taken some jewels belonging to the victim; but if they believed that Dennis had proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he did not intend to keep the jewels, but to return them, they should find him not guilty. Dennis was convicted of larceny. He appeals the conviction, contending that the judge erred in his instructions to the jury. Dennis's conviction will probably be:
Options:
A. Affirmed, because the jury has the power to ignore Dennis's testimony if they do not believe him.
B. Affirmed, because Dennis had failed to rebut the State's evidence tending to show that he intended to keep the jewels.
C. Reversed, because the judge cannot comment at all on the evidence.
D. Reversed, because the instructions put some of the burden of proof on Dennis. | D |
Justin is being tried for the murder of Harvey, which occurred during the course of the robbery of Harvey's house. Justin took the stand in his own defense. His attorney asked him about the robbery and murder, and Justin denied committing the crimes. His attorney asked him what he said to the police when he was first arrested and he said, "I told them I knew nothing of the crimes because I was in Seattle at the time." This answer should be:
Options:
A. Stricken, because it is self-serving.
B. Stricken, because it is hearsay.
C. Admissible, because Justin can competently testify to statements he made himself.
D. Admissible, as a prior consistent statement. | B |
In 1998, Jane sold Wes her resort hotel for $ 250,000$. Wes paid $ 100,000$ down and agreed to pay the balance in equal monthly installments over the next 15 years. Jane's eldest son, Luke, started law school in 1999 and, because Jane wanted to help him with his educational and living expenses, she sent a letter to Wes instructing him to send Luke $ 500$ a month from the money he owed to Jane until Jane instructed him otherwise. Wes was unable to raise the capital he needed to expand the hotel, and in 2000 he sold the resort to Funco in exchange for Funco's agreement to assume all his obligations and to provide him with a long-term contract to be the hotel's manager. Funco agreed with these terms and assumed the contract Wes had with Jane. In 2002, when Luke had completed law school, Jane's other son, Zack, was getting married. Jane knew Zack could not afford to buy a house so Jane told Zack that she would instruct Wes and Funco to send the full installments to Zack so he could buy a house if Zack agreed that Jane could have the funds back if she ever needed them. Zack agreed, and Jane wrote a letter to Wes informing him of this agreement and instructing him that the full payment should now go to Zack. Zack was given a copy of this letter. In 2003, Funco wanted to get out of the resort business, and it sold the hotel and all the obligations back to Wes. About this same time, Jane promised her sister's daughter, Susan, that if she wanted to go to Europe for several months to study art, Jane would pay her expenses. Susan agreed, and Jane sent another letter to Wes telling him to send the monthly installments to Susan until Jane told him otherwise. Wes did so. Several months later Jane died, leaving all her cash (and the balance due on the note from Wes) to Zack. If Zack were to sue Funco to recover the sums paid to Susan, how would a court hold?
Options:
A. Judgment for Zack, because he was a creditor beneficiary, had notice, and had changed his position in reliance on the contract.
B. Judgment for Zack, because he was a donee beneficiary and had assented to the agreement.
C. Judgment for Funco, because Zack's rights had not vested before being extinguished by the subsequent assignment.
D. Judgment for Funco, because Zack was only an incidental beneficiary of its agreement with Wes. | C |
Leftacre and Rightacre are adjoining 50-acre parcels of land. For many years, Leftacre and Rightacre have been thriving dairy farms. In 1959, McWilliams, the owner of Rightacre, purchased Leftacre. She continued to operate both parcels as separate dairy farms. In 1979, McWilliams sold Rightacre to Stone, who promptly and properly recorded the deed. Since Rightacre had no direct access to a public road, McWilliams wrote into the deed, "Stone, his heirs and assigns shall have the right to use the existing dirt path along the eastern border of Leftacre for ingress and egress to Rightacre." The dirt path, which connected with a public road on the northern boundary of Leftacre, was wide enough for motored vehicle traffic and had been graded for that purpose. In 1994, Sandberg purchased Leftacre from McWilliams. In 2002, Stone died, leaving a will that devised all his interest in Rightacre to O'Toole. For this question only, assume the following facts: In 2003, O'Toole decided to subdivide Rightacre into several lots for single-family residences. O' Toole notified Sandberg that he, O'Toole, will spend the money to improve the dirt path into a private driveway by paving it and doubling its width to 24 feet. He will also provide appropriate drainage for such an improved driveway by means of ditches on either side of the pavement. Sandberg had ceased using Leftacre as a dairy farm five years earlier, and it has been vacant ever since. Sandberg instituted an appropriate action for a declaratory judgment to establish that O'Toole cannot so improve the dirt path. If Sandberg prevails in such an action, it will be because:
Options:
A. The proposed improvement exceeds the scope of an easement by necessity.
B. The proposed improvement constitutes a burden that exceeds the scope of an express easement.
C. The servient owner has the obligation for maintenance of an easement for right-of-way, and hence can control the nature of its improvement.
D. The proposed subdivision so changes the nature of the use of the dominant tenement that any easement has been abandoned. | B |
Pitts purchased a new Stratton Spitfire sportscar manufactured by the Stratton Corporation from a local dealership. While Pitts was driving home from the dealership, she stopped at a red light. She was struck from behind by a truck driven by Drago, who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver's side of the car flew open because of a defective latch. Pitts fell out the open door and was injured. Pitts fell even though she was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the impact because the seatbelt buckle was also defective and failed to hold Pitts. Assume that a local ordinance requires all automobiles to be equipped with door latches that will not open on impact, and that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Pitts asserts a claim against Drago, Pitts will:
Options:
A. Prevail, unless Stratton was negligent in the manufacture of the car that Pitts was driving.
B. Prevail, because Drago's negligent driving was a cause in fact of the collision.
C. Not prevail, because the door latch on Pitts's car violated a local ordinance.
D. Not prevail if Pitts would not have been injured but for the failure of the seatbelt buckle. | B |
Pitts purchased a new Stratton Spitfire sportscar manufactured by the Stratton Corporation from a local dealership. While Pitts was driving home from the dealership, she stopped at a red light. She was struck from behind by a truck driven by Drago, who had negligently failed to stop. On impact, the door on the driver's side of the car flew open because of a defective latch. Pitts fell out the open door and was injured. Pitts fell even though she was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the impact because the seatbelt buckle was also defective and failed to hold Pitts. Assume that a local ordinance requires all automobiles to be equipped with door latches that will not open on impact, and that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Pitts asserts a claim against Stratton, will Pitts prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, unless Pitts could have discovered either of the defects.
B. Yes, because the car she was driving was dangerously defective.
C. No, because Drago's negligent driving was the cause of Pitts's injuries.
D. No, unless Stratton knew or had reason to know of either of the defects. | B |
Ben and Sandy, brother and sister, received a $ 50,000$ inheritance from their deceased father. By mutual agreement, they used the money to purchase a 10 -acre parcel of land. Ben and Sandy took title as joint tenants. Three years after the purchase, Ben suggested to Sandy that they build an apartment house on the property. Sandy rejected this idea. Ben then asked if he could build an apartment house on his half of the property; Sandy agreed. Ben then built an apartment house on the eastern five acres of the property. Six months later, Sandy gave permission to the Boy Scouts of America to use the western half of the property as a site for weekend camping trips. Two years later, Ben died, leaving his entire estate to his son, Steven. In an appropriate action to determine the respective interests of Sandy and Steven in the property, if Steven is judged to be the owner of the eastern five acres of the property, the most likely reason for the judgment will be that:
Options:
A. Sandy's conduct during Ben's lifetime estopped her from asserting title to the eastern half of the property.
B. The taking of title as joint tenants does not conclusively presume that the property is held as joint tenants.
C. The joint tenancy was terminated by the oral agreement of Ben and Sandy at the time it was made.
D. A joint tenant may will away his interest in property, provided it is passed on to a lineal descendant. | A |
Allan invited all of his neighbors to a July 4 th party in his backyard. Practically the entire neighborhood showed up, except for Clem, who lived next door. Clem was an elderly man with a known heart condition who chose not to participate in neighborhood social functions. That evening, after a full day of festivities and much beer drinking, someone at the party suggested, "We ought to set off some fireworks!" Bob, another guest, thereupon produced a large skyrocket, which he lit. However, the skyrocket failed to climb properly and crashed into Clem's garage, starting a fire. Clem rushed out of his house and attempted to put out the flames, but he suffered a heart attack and was rendered unconscious. The garage burned to the ground before the fire department arrived. Fortunately, however, the firefighters were able to revive Clem, and he has since recovered from the heart attack. A local ordinance made it a misdemeanor to sell fireworks within the city limits. If Clem sues Allan for the damage to his garage, the theory on which he is most likely to prevail is that:
Options:
A. Allan failed to exercise due care to control the acts of his guests.
B. Allan is strictly liable for harm resulting from ultrahazardous activities performed on his land.
C. Clem had been invited to Allan's party; as an invitee, Allan owed him a duty to discover and guard against activities on his land involving an unreasonable risk of harm.
D. Allan is liable on a negligence per se theory because of the local ordinance banning the sale of fireworks within the city. | A |
In early January 2004 , representatives of MacDougall Corporation, makers of the famous "MacDougall Dog" hot dog and related convenience foods sold through thousands of owned and franchised "MacDougall's" restaurants, met with representatives of Time Management, Inc. ("TM"), a firm specializing in time-and-motion studies of labor intensive industries. After extensive negotiations, it was orally agreed that TM would redesign the food production area of MacDougall's restaurants, including modification of cooking equipment, if necessary, so that, using existing MacDougall's food products, savings in labor costs through reduction in restaurant cooking staffs would result. Lawyers for MacDougall's subsequently drafted a written agreement, sent it to TM, whose lawyers modified the draft, and returned the modified draft to MacDougall's. This modified writing, signed by both parties, stated in its entirety: Provided that at least 2,000 work-hours per restaurant are eliminated, MacDougall Corporation will pay to TM within 90 days of installation of new food production systems at MacDougall's restaurants in Richmond a first installment of $1$ million. Upon installation of new food processing systems nationwide, MacDougall Corporation will pay to TM a second and final installment of $ 1.5$ million. Nationwide installation must be completed by January 15,2005 . Any amendments to this agreement must be in writing signed by both parties. TM immediately began work on the restructuring of MacDougall's food processing methods. On September 5, 2004, a radical change in the layout of MacDougall's kitchen area and new personnel assignments had been designed, and TM demanded payment of the first installment payment of $ 1$ million. MacDougall Corporation refused, but negotiations conducted between the parties resulted in an oral agreement that MacDougall's would pay $ 750,000$ immediately and then the $ 1.5$ million second installment as originally agreed, after nationwide installation of the new system. The restructured food production system was installed and in operation in all Richmond MacDougall's restaurants on October 1, 2004. Subsequent audits revealed that the new system enabled MacDougall Corporation to eliminate 1,500 work-hours per restaurant, saving the corporation $ 90,000$ in labor costs for all Richmond restaurants. The new system required that MacDougall's increase the length of the famous "MacDougall Dog" by three centimeters and that the "Mother MacDougall Hot Apple Fritters" be made in a rectangular shape rather than the traditional round form. Nationwide installation of the new system in all MacDougall's restaurants was completed on January 30, 2005. The 1,500 work-hours per restaurant savings to MacDougall Corporation was projected at $ 1.8$ million per year. TM sent a certified letter to the chief executive officer of MacDougall Corporation requesting his certification that the new food production system was in place and operating as promised, and demanding the $ 1.5 \mathrm{mil}$ lion second installment. The CEO refused to so certify and refused to make any payment, noting in his reply letter that the system had not been installed by January 15,2005 , and that it did not use existing MacDougall's food products, as promised by TM. Was TM entitled to payment of the first installment when it completed design work on the new system on September 5, 2004?
Options:
A. No, because substantial completion of installation of the system in Richmond restaurants would be a constructive condition precedent to MacDougall's duty to pay.
B. No, because the phrase "within 90 days of installation" would be interpreted to mean within 90 days after installation.
C. Yes, because September 5 was "within 90 days of installation" of the food processing system on October 1, 2004.
D. Yes, because TM had completed work on designing the new system and could expect to install it within 90 days. | B |
Baker had a contract with City to supply City with five computers a month for seven months. At the start of the fourth month, Baker realized that his supply of computers had dwindled to one. Baker called his normal supplier of computers but was informed that the supplier was out of computers. Baker immediately sent a fax to Stevens explaining the situation and asking for "a price quote for 20 computers to be delivered before the first of next month." Stevens responded by fax: "I can deliver 20 computers from my present stock at a cost of $ 2,000$ per computer." Baker responded the next day with a fax that stated: "I will buy 20 computers at a cost of $ 2,000$ per computer." Assume for the purpose of this question only that a contract exists between the parties for the sale of the 20 computers. The payment provisions are $ 20,000$ upon acceptance of the contract, $ 10,000$ upon delivery of the computers, and $ 10,000$ when Baker receives his last payment from City. City defaults on its payments to Baker. Is Baker liable for the last payment of $ 10,000$ to Stevens?
Options:
A. Yes, because the provisions only set a reasonable time for payment.
B. Yes, because a buyer may not delegate the duty of payment.
C. No, because an express condition for payment to Stevens has not occurred.
D. No, because Baker has not received sufficient funds to make the payment to Stevens. | A |