Question: A gambler learned that a friend of his was planning a vacation to visit some casinos. The gambler, who was an avid college football fan, approached his friend. The gambler explained that he wanted to place a bet with a sports-betting agency that his beloved team would win the college football championship the next year. The gambler further explained that he had read that the odds of his team winning the football championship next year were listed as 100-1, and he wanted to place a $1,000 bet on his team. The gambler told his friend that he would pay him for his efforts. After further discussion, the gambler wrote up the following agreement:"I hereby promise to pay my friend $100 if he will place a $1,000 bet for me that my favorite team will win the college football championship next year. The bet is to be placed at my lucky casino sports book. I further promise to pay my friend an additional $100 within 30 days after the bet is placed. "Since the gambler knew his wife would be angry if she found out about the bet, the gambler included a clause that the friend promised not to tell anyone about the bet. After both the gambler and his friend signed the agreement, the gambler gave him $1,100, representing $1,000 to place the bet and $100 as the initial payment for the friend's efforts. The friend then went on vacation. Shortly after arrival, the friend attempted to place the bet for the gambler. However, the friend discovered that the gambler's lucky casino had recently closed its sports book. The friend then entered another casino next door and discovered that they had a sports book, also offering 100-1 odds on the gambler's favorite team winning the college football championship the next year. The friend placed the bet with the other casino's sports book. After returning from his vacation, the friend gave the betting slip to the gambler. Nothing more was said until 30 days later, when the friend asked the gambler when he was going to receive the final $100. The gambler then refused to pay anything more to the friend. In a breach of contract action by the friend to collect the $100, which of the following, if true, is the gambler's best defense?

Choices:
- The contract was void ab initio, because the contract could not be performed in its entirety within the span of one year.
- The friend's placing the $1,000 bet at the other casino instead of at the gambler's lucky casino constituted a material breach of contract, thereby relieving the gambler of any further contractual obligations under the terms of their agreement.
- While on vacation, the friend told his girlfriend about the $1,000 that he bet on the gambler's behalf.
- Since the gambler's lucky casino no longer had a sports book at which to place the bet, all contractual obligations would be suspended under the doctrine of frustration of purpose.


Question: A center and a quarterback were 14-year-old eighth graders at the local high school. They were both members of the school's junior varsity football team. The center weighed 170 pounds and was stocky in build. The quarterback was lanky and weighed about 145 pounds. The center and the quarterback often engaged in friendly tests of strength, such as arm wrestling and weight lifting contests, to see who was stronger. One afternoon, both youngsters were in the school gymnasium getting ready for football practice. As they were putting on their football uniforms, the center turned to the quarterback and said, "Hey, weakling, why don't you punch me in the chest with your best shot?" The quarterback replied, "No, I'm afraid I might hurt you. " The center then said, "Are you kidding? You can't hurt me. C'mon, give me your best shot. " The center stood up, stuck out his muscular chest, and prepared to have the quarterback hit him. The quarterback proceeded to cock his fist and then punched the center in the chest as hard as he could. Immediately thereafter, the center slumped to the floor, gasping for air. Realizing that the center was seriously hurt, the quarterback tried to render assistance but to no avail. Seconds later the center stopped breathing and died. Unknown to either the center or the quarterback, the center had a defective heart and suffered a heart attack as a result of the blow to the chest. In a wrongful death action, the quarterback will likely

Choices:
- be held responsible, because he committed a battery by hitting the center in the chest.
- be held responsible, because the center's consent was ineffective.
- not be held responsible, because the center's consent was effective.
- not be held responsible, because the quarterback delivered the punch with greater strength than the center anticipated.


Question: An elevator company installed an elevator in an apartment building. Under the terms of its contract with the owner of the apartment building, the company agreed to carry out regular monthly inspections of the elevator and to make all necessary repairs. The elevator was installed in the apartment complex in January. For the next 10 months, the company made regular inspections. However, starting in November, the company began to have some difficulties with its employees and failed to send inspectors out for three successive months. On February 20, a woman went to visit her friend, who was a tenant on the 20th floor of the building. The woman used the intercom to call up to the friend, who buzzed to unlock the front door so that the woman could enter the building. The woman headed to the elevator. When the doors opened, several people were already inside the elevator, apparently having entered the elevator from the parking garage below the building. One of the people in the elevator was a man who acted shifty and nervous. By the 12th floor, only four persons were left, including the woman and the man. At that floor, the other two people left, leaving the woman and the man alone on the elevator. Apprehensive at finding herself alone with such an unkempt stranger, the woman pressed the 13th floor button, intending to step out and hoping to find other persons on that floor. Unfortunately, the elevator stalled, and came to a stop between the 12th and 13th floors. The woman's fears were justified, as the man suddenly grabbed at her purse. When the woman resisted, the man struck her, and she fell unconscious. When the woman recovered consciousness, she found herself in a hospital with a concussion and multiple contusions on her body. She later learned that the elevator had remained stalled for 50 minutes. Thereafter, it moved to the 20th floor, where she was found by her friend, who took her to the hospital. Two weeks later, the police arrested the man and found the woman's purse in his possession. This was the first assault that had occurred in the apartment building. The elevator's stalling was caused by a defective cable that a routine inspection would have discovered. If the woman brings suit against the owner of the apartment building for negligence, she will most likely

Choices:
- recover, because she was an invitee of a tenant in the building.
- recover, because the owner would be vicariously liable for the company's failure to inspect the elevator.
- not recover, because the woman was negligent in failing to exit the elevator on the 12th floor when the other occupants exited the elevator.
- not recover, because there had been no previous assaults in the apartment building.


Question: In a jurisdiction using the grantor grantee indices, the following events have occurred in the order listed below:(1) In 1993, a woman mortgaged a tract of land to a mortgage company to secure a note for $25,000, due on December 31, 1993, with 9'/2 percent interest per annum. (2) In 1996, the mortgage company recorded the mortgage on the tract of land. (3) In 2007, in a signed writing, which the woman delivered to her daughter, the woman promised to convey the tract of land to her daughter by quitclaim deed and pay the mortgage debt when it came due. (4) In 2008, the woman delivered to the daughter a quitclaim deed that made no reference to the mortgage. If the woman thereafter defaulted on the mortgage debt, which of the following is probably correct?

Choices:
- Only the daughter has a cause of action against the woman.
- Only the mortgage company has a cause of action against the woman.
- Both the daughter and the mortgage company have causes of action against the woman.
- Neither the daughter nor the mortgage company has a cause of action against the woman.


Question: In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely guilty of manslaughter?

Choices:
- A defendant was a guide on a nature walk in a national park. The group was traversing a mountainous path when a mountain lion suddenly appeared. The defendant, who was carrying a loaded gun, knew that mountain lions and coyotes were in the area. The defendant saw that the mountain lion was about to attack one of the hikers. Although the defendant could have easily shot and killed it, he did nothing. The wild animal pounced on the hiker. As she was being savaged, the defendant and the other members of the group ran to safety.
- A defendant, a registered nurse, asked her friend out to lunch. While eating, the friend suddenly began choking on a chicken bone. The defendant did nothing to help her friend. The friend choked to death.
- A defendant, a physician, was walking home from his office one afternoon when he saw a car hit a man who was trying to cross the street. The victim was knocked to the ground and seriously injured, while the car sped away. The defendant, who could have saved the man's life if he had treated him, continued walking home without rendering assistance. The man died from loss of blood.
- A defendant took his four-year-old daughter out in the yard to play. As they were playing catch, the telephone began to ring. The defendant ran into the house to answer the phone. While he was inside, the daughter's ball rolled into the street. As she went to retrieve it, the daughter was struck and killed by a car.


Question: On June 1, an owner of a business that built mobile homes was visited by a representative of a company that manufactured propane tanks. Propane tanks were an essential component of the mobile homes produced by the builder. The representative told the owner that the company could supply propane tanks at $50 per tank, a substantial savings over what the owner currently paid for propane tanks. The owner asked if the company could supply 1,000 propane tanks by the end of the month, and the representative assured him that they could. The owner stated that he would think about it and decide what to do within a week. On June 3, the owner sent the following memo to the company headquarters at the address provided by the representative: "I am happy to confirm my order of 1,000 propane tanks, to be delivered by June 30. I have always received a 10 percent discount for cash payment, so I will assume you will grant me the same discount. I will have $45,000 cash ready to give to your representative at the time of delivery. "On June 30, the company delivered 1,000 propane tanks to the owner. The representative accompanied the delivery and presented the owner with a bill for $50,000. The owner refused to pay any more than$45,000. Which of the following accurately states the legal rights of the parties?

Choices:
- The contract price was $45,000, because the June 3 memo was an effective integration of their agreement.
- The contract price was $45,000, because the company did not specifically object to the 10 percent discount stipulated by the owner in his June 3 memo.
- The contract price was $50,000 if the discount term in the owner's June 3 memo materially altered the terms of the company's offer.
- The contract price was $50,000 even though the company's offer did not expressly limit acceptance to the terms contained therein.


Question: A store owner noticed that an expensive electronic device was missing from the store. He assumed that a shoplifter had taken it. Later that day, the store owner was cleaning up the small room in the back of the store that the employees of the store used to store their personal items while they were at work. The store owner was straightening up the coat rack in the back room, when he accidentally knocked one of the employee's coats off the hanger. As the coat fell onto the floor, the missing electronic device fell out of the pocket of the coat. It was still in its original packaging, and the store owner checked the serial number on the package to confirm that it was the device missing from the store's shelves. The store owner knew that the coat belonged to a woman who worked as a cashier in the store. The store owner felt bad, but decided that he had no choice but to call the police. Two police officers arrived at the store. They gathered information from the store owner, who signed a criminal complaint against the woman. The officers then discussed the matter with the woman. Although she denied stealing anything, the officers arrested her and informed her that they would need to take her to the police station. After the police took the woman away, another employee of the store found out that the woman had been arrested. That employee immediately went to the store owner and admitted that he was actually the one who had stolen the device, and that he had hidden it in the woman's coat, intending to retrieve it later before the end of the woman's work shift. The store owner promptly called the police and told them that there had been a mistake and that the theft charge against the woman was invalid. The police released the woman, who spent a total of approximately 30 minutes in police custody. If the woman asserts a claim for false imprisonment against the arresting officers, will the woman prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the woman had not committed a crime at the time she was arrested.
- Yes, because the woman was arrested and held in custody.
- No, because the woman was detained for only 30 minutes.
- No, because the officers had probable cause to arrest the woman based on the store owner's complaint and honest belief that the woman had stolen the device.


Question: A pilot was flying his small plane when he experienced engine trouble and was forced to make an emergency landing. He landed the plane safely in a large yard behind a home located in a relatively remote area. Unfortunately, when he disembarked from the plane, he was attacked and injured by two large dogs kept by the homeowner to discourage trespassers. The homeowner, who had seen the plane land, had ordered the dogs to attack. Several months earlier, the homeowner had posted large signs around the perimeter of the yard warning of the dogs. Does the pilot have a viable claim against the homeowner for battery?

Choices:
- No, because the homeowner had provided adequate warning.
- No, because the pilot was a trespasser.
- Yes, because the pilot can invoke the privilege of necessity.
- Yes, because the pilot could not reasonably have been expected to see the warning signs posted by the homeowner.


Question: On March 1, a homeowner hired a landscaper to landscape his front yard. On March 25, as the landscaper was almost finished with the work on the front yard, the homeowner said to the landscaper, "I'm very pleased with your work to date. If you are willing, I would like you to landscape my backyard, on the same terms and conditions as our existing contract, the work to be completed by May 1. If you can meet that deadline, I'll pay you $10,000 at that time. " The landscaper replied, "Agreed. Let's shake hands on it. " They shook hands. What is the probable legal effect of the landscaper's promise on March 25 to landscape the backyard?

Choices:
- The landscaper's promise created an enforceable unilateral contract.
- The landscaper's promise created an enforceable bilateral contract.
- The landscaper's promise was voidable, since it was not in writing.
- The landscaper's promise was illusory, thereby creating an unenforceable contract.


Question: The defendant was an off-duty police officer who frequently worked security at concerts on his free time. One night, he was working backstage security for one of his favorite bands when he noticed a groupie sneak in the back door, pick up a guitar, and begin to walk out with it. He drew his service revolver and exclaimed, "Stop or I'll shoot!" The groupie looked at him and then fled. The defendant fired at the fleeing groupie, fatally wounding her. Use of force was not authorized by the concert promotion company that employed him. On these facts, if the defendant is charged with murder, he should be found

Choices:
- guilty.
- not guilty, because the killing constituted justifiable homicide.
- not guilty, because the killing constituted excusable homicide.
- not guilty, because the defendant warned the groupie before he fired his gun.


Question: A homeowner awoke one night and observed a thief stealing chickens from his backyard chicken coop. He thought he saw a gun but could not tell for sure. While the thief was exiting with a sack of chickens, the homeowner got his hunting rifle and shot him dead. The authorities charged the homeowner with homicide. At the trial, he defended on the basis that he was in fear for his safety, and was legally authorized to use deadly force to defend his dwelling and person from the illegal threat. Is the defense to homicide valid under these facts?

Choices:
- Yes, he was authorized to use deadly force where he reasonably believed that the thief had a gun and would harm him.
- No, because it is not reasonable to use deadly force to prevent the theft of the chickens.
- No, because a homeowner can never legally use deadly force to stop a theft.
- Yes, because a dwelling owner can always use deadly force to protect his property and person from an illegal trespasser or thief.


Question: An owner took his car to an auto mechanic to have the oil changed. When he returned to pick up his car later in the day, the mechanic told him the charge was $1 The owner objected and said the charge was excessively high. The mechanic indicated that the amount was reasonable and showed the owner a price listing substantiating the charge. As the two men were arguing, the mechanic excused himself to answer the telephone in the rear of his shop. While the mechanic was on the phone, the owner got into his car and drove off without paying the servicing charges. If the owner is subsequently charged with larceny, he should be found

Choices:
- not guilty, because the car was his own property.
- not guilty, if the jury finds the servicing charge to be excessively high.
- guilty, if the jurisdiction has a statute making theft of services a crime.
- guilty, because he took the car without the mechanic's consent.


Question: A state law imposes penalties for "any public statement containing false or misleading information about a service or product." An airline falsely claimed in an advertisement that its competitor had an inferior safety record. The claim was based on erroneous information, found on the website of a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, that the airline assumed to be true. The airline was charged under the state law for making a false statement. No federal statute applies. Which of the following best supports the airline in a defense based on the First Amendment?

Choices:
- Its statement about the safety record was made without malice.
- Its statement about the safety record was protected noncommercial speech.
- The state law is a prior restraint.
- The state law is overbroad.


Question: Sarah Student was a third-year law student who had just purchased the Primer Series MBE Review program. She was studying in the law library and decided to take a short refreshment break. When she returned to her study desk ten minutes later, her Primer Series was gone. She ran into the student lounge and announced, "I will pay $20 to anyone who identifies the dirty bum who took my Primer Series MBE Review books." Donna Doubtful saw Terry Thief pick up Sarah's Primer Series books, but did not believe Sarah would actually pay her the $20, if she made the identification. Thus, Donna went up to Sarah and said, "I know the identity of the thief and promise to tell you, but I want the $20 in advance." The effect of Donna's statement is to

Choices:
- Create a unilateral contract.
- Create a bilateral contract.
- Create no contract.
- Create a contract which is defeasible unless Donna makes the required disclosure within a reasonable period of time.


Question: A defendant entered a bar and ordered a beer. The bartender politely told the defendant he would have to wait until two other patrons were served. The defendant became irate and pulled out a small penknife. Although the defendant intended only to frighten the bartender, he accidentally nicked the bartender's arm with the penknife. The bartender's arm became infected, and he died from gangrene two months later. The most serious crime that the defendant can be convicted of is

Choices:
- battery.
- involuntary manslaughter.
- assault with a deadly weapon.
- murder.


Question: A waitress sued her former employer, a restaurant, under Title VII in federal court. She claimed that the owner had sexually harassed her and then caused her wrongful termination. A jury returned a verdict of $100,000 for the former employee. Two weeks after the court entered judgment on the verdict, the employer filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. Rule 12(b)(6), claiming that it did not have at least 15 employees as required by the definition of an "employer" under the civil rights statute. The employer claimed that there was therefore no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The lower court agreed, dismissed the case and voided the judgment. On appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will the appellate court likely uphold the lower court's decision?

Choices:
- Yes, because a challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time, even after judgment has been entered, and here the jurisdictional requirement was missing.
- Yes, because an appellate court has no authority to reverse a lower court's finding that there was no subject-matter jurisdiction.
- No, because a judgment entered on a jury verdict can never be changed or attacked after a judgment is entered.
- No, because this is a challenge to the existence of a cause of action, i.e., the failure to state a claim, which does not go to jurisdiction and cannot be raised post-judgment.


Question: A defendant was arrested one morning by a police officer for the attempted murder of the victim. The defendant had allegedly fired three shots at the victim, a physical education teacher, in the schoolyard of an elementary school. Immediately after the arrest, the arresting officer advised the defendant of his Miranda rights. The defendant responded that he would not make any statement until he consulted his attorney. Within minutes, a patrol car arrived and the defendant was taken into the car to be transported to the police station. The arresting officer sat in the front, next to the driver, and the defendant sat alone in the back seat, with his hands cuffed. On the way to the station, the driver stated to the arresting officer, "I hope that the gun involved in this crime doesn't get into the hands of those small children, because one of them could be seriously injured, to say the least. " The defendant interrupted the officers and told them where to look in the schoolyard for the abandoned gun. As a result of this information, the police found the gun where the defendant said it was. What is the state's best rebuttal to the defendant's argument that the gun was illegally seized?

Choices:
- The defendant was not entitled to be re-warned of his Miranda rights in the patrol car.
- The defendant was not interrogated in the patrol car.
- The defendant waived his right to consult counsel.
- The seizure of the gun was not the fruit of the defendant's statement.


Question: A seller contracted to manufacture 1,000 toasters for a buyer for a specified price. The contract contained a provision that clearly stated: "This contract may not be assigned, and any violation of this prohibition voids the contract." After the contract was signed, the seller informed the buyer that the toasters would be manufactured by a competitor of the seller. Citing the non-assignment provision, the buyer claimed that it was no longer bound by the contract. Toasters manufactured by the competitor were of equal quality to toasters manufactured by the seller. Is the buyer bound by the contract?

Choices:
- No, because "this contract may not be assigned" means that duties may not be delegated, and the seller delegated a duty.
- No, because the seller assigned a right despite the contractual prohibition.
- Yes, because even though the seller breached the contract, there are no damages since the competitor's toasters are of equal quality to the seller's toasters.
- Yes, because the non-assignment provision is not enforceable since public policy favors free assignment and delegation.


Question: One evening, an undercover narcotics agent, with the help of a confidential informant, met with a man. The man took the agent to the home of a drug dealer, who sold the agent four pounds of marijuana. At trial, the drug dealer claimed the defense of entrapment and demanded that the informant's identity be disclosed and that he be produced. At no time prior to trial did the drug dealer seek to subpoena the man. However, the man was a fugitive from justice the whole time, and no subpoena could have been served. The government claims a right to protect the informant's identity. Should the government's claim be honored?

Choices:
- Yes, because an informant has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- Yes, because informants would not assist in crime prevention unless they were reasonably certain that their identities would be kept secret.
- No, because under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant has the right to be confronted by witnesses against him.
- No, because under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to a fair trial.


Question: An ex-con who had just been released from prison approached two men and asked if they wanted to take part in a bank robbery. The two men both agreed. The ex-con went ahead and planned the robbery. As part of his scheme, the ex-con stole a van, which he intended to use as the getaway vehicle. According to the ex-con's plan, he would pick up the two men in the van on Friday morning and drive over to the bank where the robbery would occur. The ex-con instructed his cohort that he would be the getaway driver and wait in the van while they entered the bank, armed with shotguns. However, the day before the robbery was to take place, the excon was arrested on a parole violation for carrying a concealed weapon and was taken into custody. The two men, nevertheless, decided to carry out the robbery using the van that the ex-con had stolen. On Friday moming, the two men drove to the bank. When they entered, an undercover police detective was waiting and arrested the two men, as the police had received an anonymous tip regarding the robbery earlier that morning. The ex-con should be found guilty for which of the following crimes?

Choices:
- Automobile theft and solicitation.
- Automobile theft and conspiracy.
- Automobile theft and attempted robbery.
- Automobile theft, conspiracy, and attempted robbery.


Question: A bank loaned a company $1,500,000 for the manufacture of a widget control system. As a condition of the loan, a majority shareholder in the company agreed in writing to personally guarantee the loan. Thereafter, the company defaulted on the loan and entered into a repayment agreement with the bank. This agreement provided that the bank would "use maximum efforts in selling the company's assets at the highest possible price. " The bank proceeded to sell the company's assets, discharging the indebtedness of the widget company. Later, it was ascertained that the bank did not realize the "highest possible price" in administering the sale of the company's assets. Consequently, the shareholder was forced into bankruptcy and lost her entire investment in the company. The shareholder brings an appropriate action against the bank to recover her investment in the company. She will most likely

Choices:
- not prevail, because the shareholder was an incidental beneficiary of the bank's sale of the company's assets.
- not prevail, because the bank's sale of the company's assets discharged whatever contractual relationship existed between the shareholder and the bank.
- prevail, because the bank did not realize the highest possible price from the sale of the cornpany's assets.
- prevail, because the bank breached its fiduciary duty to the shareholder under the terms of the contract between the bank and the company.


Question: A man, his brother and his friend all discuss murdering the man's neighbor because the neighbor took some shots at the man's dog but he missed. They agree on a plan. They decided on strychnine poisoning, which the friend told them how to get and they went and got it. When they asked the friend to go forward in poisoning the victim, he refused, saying, "I'm was only here for planning and advice, but I never intended to commit murder." The man and his brother took the poison to a meeting with the neighbor, but he wouldn't drink. They were caught and arrested. The statute requires an overt act for criminal conspiracy. Which of the following most accurately states the criminal responsibility of each of the three men?

Choices:
- The man and his brother have committed criminal conspiracy and attempted murder.
- The man and his brother are guilty of conspiracy but not attempted murder.
- The man and his brother are guilty of conspiracy and attempted murder, but the friend is guilty of nothing.
- The man and his brother are guilty of conspiracy and attempted murder, and the friend is guilty of criminal conspiracy.


Question: A patient entered the hospital to have a simple appendectomy. She signed a simple consent form allowing an appendectomy to be performed, and giving the surgeon the right to respond to any life-threatening conditions that required immediate surgical intervention . During surgery, the surgeon performed a full hysterectomy because he felt that it would be a sound medical procedure under the circumstances, even though no emergency existed. The patient sued the surgeon. An expert testified that the surgeon committed no negligence in performing the operation. Does the patient have a valid theory of recovery against the surgeon?

Choices:
- No, she cannot recover where there is no negligence by the surgeon.
- Yes, she can claim a lack of informed consent as to the hysterectomy.
- No, her consent implied that the doctor could perform any other procedures that were necessary.
- Yes, she can recover on a theory of trespass beyond the bodily parameters.


Question: A homeowner conveyed his property to his cousin "for life, with remainder to (the homeowner's) heirs. " Later, the cousin conveyed the property to a farmer "for as long as he would continue to farm the property. " After the cousin's death, the homeowner's heirs brought suit against the farmer to quiet title. Which common law doctrine would be most applicable in the court's determination of the ownership of the property?

Choices:
- Rule in Wild's Case.
- Doctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders.
- Doctrine of Worthier Title.
- Rule against Remainders in the Grantees' Heirs.


Question: A county owns a large expanse of land next to the ocean. Four years ago, in order to enhance the recreational aspects of this land, the county leased most of it to a company. The lease required the company to construct and operate a first-rate luxury hotel complete with bar, restaurant, and private marina and to pay the county 15% of its net profits as rent. The company set up management and operations bylaws for its new hotel, which were reviewed and approved by the county at the time the lease was negotiated. Upon completion of the facilities, the state granted the company a license to sell alcoholic beverages in its restaurant and bar. The hotel announced that the least expensive room was $1,000 per night. Much of the population in the county cannot afford to stay at the new hotel. One resident who cannot afford to pay the hotel fees brings an action against the company, claiming that the high fees operate to discriminate against the poor, in violation of the constitutional right to equal protection. What is the most likely result of this action?

Choices:
- The company will lose because social class constitutes a suspect classification under the equal protection clause.
- The company will win, because hotel privileges are not an important or basic enough deprivation, for those unable to pay for them, to be held to violate equal protection.
- The resident will win because all public rights cannot be limited to those who can afford them.
- The resident will win because discrimination against poor people violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: A state has recently enacted a statute requiring all prospective voters in state elections who wish to write-in a candidate to print the candidate's full name, and designate the office for which the candidate is running. The statute provides that such information must be written on the ballot in ink inan appropriate space. A write-in candidate is a German-American and is of the opinion that he needs a large turnout of German voters in order to win the election. As a result, his campaign manager decides to mail to every registered German voter a tear-off sticker, which bears the candidate's name and office for which he is running. Since many native German people are not proficient in reading and writing English, the campaign manager believes that many of the voters will have difficulty writing the candidate's name and office on the ballot. As a result, the campaign manager has mounted an extensive media campaign to inform voters on how to apply the stickers to the ballot. Five months prior to the election an election official notifies the candidate's campaign committee that the tear-off stickers do not comply with the state statute. In her letter, the official explains that state election officials are of the opinion that it is necessary for potential voters to write the candidate's name in ink. Therefore, she concludes that the stickers do not comply with statutory requirements. Three weeks later, the candidate filed suit in federal district court against state election officials, claiming that their interpretation of the state statute violates the U. S. Constitution. Which of the following sets forth the strongest constitutional argument the candidate could make against the interpretation of the statute by the state officials?

Choices:
- It unreasonably discriminates against German voters who lack a proficiency in the English language.
- It unreasonably discriminates against write-in candidates for public office.
- It unreasonably interferes with the exclusive federal election power as embodied in the Fifteenth Amendment.
- It unreasonably interferes with the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawing literacy tests.


Question: A woman from State A filed an action against a retailer in a state court in State B. The complaint alleged that the retailer had not delivered $100,000 worth of goods for which the woman had paid. Twenty days after being served, the retailer, which is incor-porated in State C and has its principal place of business in State B, filed a notice of removal in a federal district court in State B. Was the action properly removed?

Choices:
- No, because the notice of removal was not timely filed.
- No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B.
- Yes, because the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in controversy.
- Yes, because the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C.


Question: A buyer purchased a shovel at a local hardware store. The shovel had a metal blade and a wooden handle. While the buyer was using the shovel to dig out a tree stump in his back yard, the handle broke in half, causing the buyer to fall and injure his back. The buyer brought a negligence claim against the manufacturer of the shovel. He proved that the shovel broke because of a manufacturing defect that made the handle too weak and that the manufacturer acted unreasonably in allowing this to happen. While conceding that the handle had a defect that caused it to break, the manufacturer established that if the buyer had been using the shovel carefully, he would not have fallen down and would not have been injured when the shovel broke. Assume that the case is governed by the law of a jurisdiction that follows traditional contributory negligence rules. Who is most likely to prevail?

Choices:
- The buyer, because the manufacturer conceded that the shovel was defective.
- The buyer, because the manufactuter failed to exercise reasonable care in the production and inspection of its product.
- The manufacturer, because the manufacturer did not guarantee that the shovel would never break.
- The manufacturer, because the buyer's negligence in the way he used the shovel was one of the causes of his injury.


Question: A city has adopted the following ordinance which provides:"Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person, group, or organization to hold a meeting of 50 persons or more in any city park without first securing a city permit;Section 2: The application shall specify the day and hours for which the permit is sought. The fee shall be $10 per hour, with a maximum fee of $50;Section 3: Permits shall be issued on a first come basis; provided that the chief of police shall deny any application if, after hearing the applicant, it is his considered judgment that (a) the meeting would create serious traffic congestion, or (b) interfere with public enjoyment of the park, or (c) speakers at the meeting would advocate the commission of crime. "A religious fundamentalist who believes that other religions should be violently resisted, planned to hold a protest demonstration against other religions at a city park on July 25. Although his previous anti-religion protest rallies attracted fewer than 25 demonstrators, he decided to apply for a permit pursuant to the city's ordinance. After meeting with the fundamentalist, the chief of police denied his permit application because he believed that the demonstration would incite the protestors and threaten imminent violence or serious disorder. On July 25, the fundamentalist and his fellow demonstrators staged their protest at a city park. The rally attracted only about 20 protestors and was conducted peacefully. As he was making his final remarks to the gathering, the city police arrived at the park and arrested him and his fellow demonstrators charging them with violating the city ordinance. If the fundamentalist now brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 of the city ordinance, his best argument would be that

Choices:
- the section is void for vagueness and overbreadth.
- the section is content based.
- the section permits the police chief to exercise unbridled discretion in approving or disapproving permits.
- the section does not fall within the area of compelling state interest.


Question: A man needed to have the oil changed on his car. On Friday, he decided to take his car to the local dealership to have the oil changed and asked his neighbor if she would give him a ride home from the dealership. The neighbor said, "Why pay the high prices a dealership will charge you? I can change the oil in your car for you. If you will agree to pay me $50, I'll change the oil in your car over the weekend. " The man readily agreed. On Sunday afternoon, the man noticed that his neighbor still had not started working on the car. He asked his neighbor if the car would be ready for him to drive to work Monday morning. The neighbor replied, "I thought about it and realized $50 is too low a price for the work involved. I don't think I'm going to change the oil in your car. " The man then said, "Look, I realize $50 is low for the work involved. If you can change the oil in my car by tomorrow morning, I'll pay you an additional $25. And I won't sue you in small claims court for your failure to perform your promise. " The neighbor then changed the oil late Sunday afternoon, but the man refused to pay to the neighbor anything more than $50. In a suit by the neighbor to recover the additional $25 promised by the man, the neighbor will

Choices:
- win, because she performed her part of the bargain.
- win, because the second contract for $75 superseded the original $50 contract.
- lose, because the $75 contract did not supersede the $50 contract.
- lose, because the neighbor had a pre-existing duty to change the oil in the car for $50.


Question: The Evergreen State University charges resident students $1,200 per year and nonresident students $4,800 per year in tuition. The University considered a student a "nonresident" if the student's primary residence was outside the state at any time during the previous school year. Imma Grant transferred from Sunshine State University to Evergreen State in her junior year, and paid nonresident tuition. She filed a declaratory judgment action against the Evergreen Registrar to have her considered a resident and asked for no money damages. Fourteen groups filed amicus briefs in support of Imma, advocating a change in Evergreen's protectionist regulation. Now that she is a senior, and spent the previous year within Evergreen so she is thus now considered a resident student. The federal court should

Choices:
- Dismiss the suit as moot.
- Dismiss the suit, because Imma lacked standing to sue initially.
- Hear the case if it appears that Ms. Grant is diligently prosecuting the matter.
- Hear the case due to the amicus interests.


Question: A man was at a pub drinking beer and playing darts with a group of friends. Quite intoxicated, the man left the bar around midnight. He was staggering down the street when the defendant approached him from behind. The defendant took out a stick, stuck it against the man's back and told the man to give him his wallet or he was going to shoot him. Frightened, the man fainted and fell to the pavement. The defendant reached into the man's pants pocket and stole his wallet. The defendant is guilty of

Choices:
- attempted robbery.
- robbery.
- larceny.
- assault and larceny.


Question: A defendant and a classmate were students at a state college. They were spending a leisurely afternoon listening to music in the defendant's dorm room. They had just consumed a six-pack of beer when the classmate asked the defendant if there was anything else to drink. The defendant indicated there wasn't and suggested that his classmate drive to the store and buy another six-pack. The classmate told the defendant that his car wasn't working and asked the defendant if he could borrow his. The defendant assented and gave his classmate the keys to his car. The defendant knew that the classmate was drunk when he lent him his car. The classmate was driving to the store at an excessive rate of speed. As he approached an intersection, he was traveling at 70 M. PJ-I. When he came to the intersection, the light turned red. The classmate, who made no effort to stop in time, drove through the red light and collided with another car. The driver of the other car, who had entered the intersection with a green light, was killed in the accident. In the event that the defendant can be convicted of manslaughter, it will most likely be upon the basis of

Choices:
- responsibility for the accident as an accomplice.
- recklessness in lending his car to his classmate.
- joint venture in lending his car to his classmate for a common purpose.
- vicarious liability for the conduct of his classmate.


Question: A grantor conveyed her mansion and surrounding property to her nephew "for life, remainder after (the nephew's) death to his heirs. " Two years later, the nephew entered into a real estate agreement for the sale of the property to his brother, whereby the nephew agreed to convey the premises to the brother in fee simple absolute. Prior to the settlement date, the brother contacted the nephew, telling him that he would not perform his part of the agreement because the nephew could not convey a fee simple. The Rule in Shelley's Case has been abolished by statute in this jurisdiction. Thus, the nephew's prayer for specific performance would be

Choices:
- denied, because the Rule would not be triggered, thus creating only a life estate in the nephew.
- granted, because the remainder in his heirs would become vested into a full fee in those heirs.
- granted, because the nephew's heirs receive a vested indefeasible interest in the property.
- denied, because under the Doctrine of Worthier Title, at the termination of the nephew's life estate, the grantor has a reversionary interest.


Question: A wife and husband are married and own a dairy as tenants by the entirety. If the wife transfers her interest in the dairy by quitclaim deed to her aunt without the husband's knowledge, what interest, if any, does the aunt have?

Choices:
- No interest.
- An undivided one-half interest with right of survivorship.
- An undivided one-half interest without right of survivorship.
- A lien against the entire property.


Question: A state passed a statute stating that it will pay for one-half of the tuition for any student attending a private school, whether religious or secular, as long as the school meets the educational requirements established by the department of education. The parents of two students who attend a public high school in the state sue for a declaratory judgment and injunction in federal court, claiming that the state statute violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Assume that the federal court decides to hear the case on its merits. Which of the following is the state's LEAST persuasive argument for sustaining the validity of the statute?

Choices:
- The state statute benefits the parents or guardians of all the children in private schools, religious and nonreligious.
- The primary effect of the state statute is not to advance or inhibit religion.
- The administration of the state statute by the department of education does not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
- The state statute is a valid exercise of state regulatory action in the field of education.


Question: A landowner owned a 10-acre tract of land, in fee simple. The tract was located in a small town. In 1974, the landowner conveyed the tract to the town development association "on condition that a ski lodge and resort area be built thereon and the land be used solely for skiing purposes and, in the event that said property is not used as a ski resort, the property shall revert to myself, the grantor, my heirs or assigns. " Subsequently, a ski lodge was built and the land was continuously used as a ski resort for more than 20 years. In 1979, a neighbor, owner of a farm abutting the northeast corner of the 10-acre tract, began to use a portion of the 10-acre tract for ingress and egress to his farm. He used this access road openly, visibly, and notoriously until 2000. The period of prescription in this particular jurisdiction was 20 years. In March 2000, the neighbor decided to sell the farm to a skier. Thereupon, the neighbor and the skier entered into a written real estate sales contract, with closing set for May 1, 2000. On April 1, 2000, the president of the town development association was approached by the skier with the request that a written easement be given over the used area and that an appropriate instrument be delivered to the skier concurrently with the skier's closing with the neighbor. Following the president's meeting with the skier, the town development association held a duly announced meeting and voted unanimously to authorize its trustees to grant such an easement. On April 15, 2000, the landowner died. The landowner's sole descendant and successor in interest was his wife. Upon her husband's death, the wife immediately notified the town development association that if it granted the easement to the skier, the 10-acre tract would revert to her. The skier then brought an appropriate action, joining the neighbor, the wife, and the town development association, seeking a declaratory judgment that the neighbor has a perpetual easement appurtenant to the 10-acre tract. In this action, judgment should be in favor of which of the following parties?

Choices:
- The wife, because the skier could not obtain rights against the town development association by prescription.
- The wife, because the easement would violate the negative restriction that the landowner originally sought to impose.
- The skier, because the neighbor had already obtained an easement by prescription.
- The skier, because the language of the conveyance to the town development association was too vague to support any claim by the wife.


Question: A professor owned a building in a city. The building had a commercial space on the first floor, with two apartments above it; one on the second, and another on the third floor. Several years ago, a teacher, in a signed writing, entered a three-year lease agreement with the professor. The teacher agreed to pay $800 monthly rent for the third-floor apartment in the professor's building. The original three-year term had long since expired, but the teacher has continued to pay his rent, and the professor continued to accept it. The professor rented the first floor to a restaurateur, who opened a sushi restaurant there. Within months, there was a citywide hookworm epidemic that was traced to the consumption of raw fish. The city council, in an attempt to protect the public from the parasites, passed an ordinance prohibiting all sushi restaurants from operating in the city. The restaurateur was forced out of business. She locked the doors and left a sign in the window: "Closed until further notice. "Within weeks, rats were attracted to the odor from the fish that was left in the restaurant, and the building became infested with them. The teacher could not tolerate the rats and served notice on the professor that he was moving to another city and has not been heard from since. The teacher's best defense is that the professor, by permitting the restaurateur to store the fish in the closed restaurant, caused a

Choices:
- partial constructive eviction.
- partial actual eviction.
- constructive eviction.
- breach of implied covenant of habitability.


Question: A truck and a car collided at an intersection. Both drivers were injured, and each one filed a lawsuit against the other for negligence. At trial, the jury found each of the drivers liable for negligence. The jury found that the amount of the truck driver's injuries was $10,000, and the amount of the car driver's injuries was $8,000. The jury assigned 50 percent of the fault for the accident to the truck driver and 50 percent of the fault to the car driver. Assume that the jurisdiction has a statute in effect that provides: "Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action to recover damages for negligence resulting in injury to person or property if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person from whom recovery is sought. Any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person who is seeking recovery. "Which of the following is the appropriate judgment in the case?

Choices:
- The truck driver recovers $10,000, and the car driver recovers $8,000.
- The truck driver recovers $5,000, and the car driver recovers $4,000.
- The truck driver recovers $1,000, and the car driver recovers nothing.
- Neither party recovers anything from the other.


Question: A man, a woman, and their son went to their neighbor's house. The man intended to take back some tools that he believed were his and that the neighbor was keeping unlawfully. The woman believed that the tools were the man's, and she intended to help the man take them. When the son learned that the man and the woman were going to break into the neighbor's home, he decided to accompany them. The son planned to find some items inside that might be worth taking. Arriving at the neighbor's home, the man opened the front door, which was closed but unlocked. Upon entering, the son went to the neighbor's upstairs bedroom and found a watch, which he took. In the meantime, the man and the woman went to the garage and began rummaging through the neighbor's tools. The man found the tools, which he seized. The three of them then left the neighbor's home. In this jurisdiction, burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of any structure with the intent to commit a felony therein. Which, if any, individuals should be found guilty of conspiracy?

Choices:
- The man, the woman, and the son.
- The man and the woman.
- The woman and the son.
- None.


Question: A 2-week-old baby had developed a severe case ofjaundice. A pediatrician informed the infant's father that unless his daughter received immediate medical treatment, she would die. The father, who was very religious, refused to permit the pediatrician to administer the necessary treatment. He explained that his faith in his religion would restore his daughter to good health. As a consequence, the pediatrician sought an order from the state court, where the father was present, permitting the pediatrician to provide the necessary medical treatment to the infant. Which of the following is the father's strongest constitutional argument against the court order?

Choices:
- The order violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The order violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The order violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The order violates the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: A truck driver was making deliveries for his employer. After telling his employer by phone that he was going for lunch and getting approval, he pulled into the entrance of a restaurant where he intended to have his usual 30- minute lunch break. While entering the parking lot, the driver carelessly ran over and seriously injured a pedestrian. The injured person sued the driver and the driver's employer for negligence in causing her injuries. Is the employer liable?

Choices:
- Yes, because of the doctrine of vicarious liability.
- Yes, because the employer owned the truck.
- No, because the employee was not within the scope of his employment.
- No, because liability cannot be imputed from one person to another.


Question: A city entered into a small-cost construction contract with a construction company whereby the latter obligated themselves to perform certain minor sewer repair work. Two months after completion of the work, the company sued the city for its failure to pay under the terms of the contract. At trial, the company's construction supervisor who personally oversaw all the repair work was called to testify. He sought to testify about the amount of sewer pipe used, the number of hours required to complete the job, and the number of workers employed by the company during the construction repair work. The defendant's attorney objected on the grounds that the company routinely recorded such factual information in their log books, which were in the company's possession. As a consequence, the supervisor's testimony should be ruled

Choices:
- admissible, because it is based on firsthand knowledge.
- admissible, because it is a report of regularly conducted business activities.
- inadmissible, because such testimony would be violative of the best evidence rule.
- inadmissible, because no evidence was introduced to show that the original log records are not available for examination.


Question: One night, a victim was in her home when she heard the doorbell ring. When the victim opened the door, she was confronted by three defendants. They pushed the victim inside her house and threatened her with bodily harm if she didn't cooperate. After tying her up with ropes, the trio then proceeded to ransack the victim's home. They then placed many of the victim's valuables and other possessions into a large sack and hurriedly left her house. What crimes should the defendants be convicted of?

Choices:
- Assault, battery, and robbery.
- Larceny, robbery, and burglary.
- Robbery and burglary.
- Robbery only.


Question: A landowner owned a large building in the city. On January 15, the landowner leased the building to a tenant for a period of 20 years at a rental of $10,000 per month. The leasehold agreement between the landowner and tenant provided that the latter was not permitted "to assign this lease to anyone except a corporation with an A' credit rating from a well- known credit rating company. " On February 1 of the following year, the tenant leased the premises to a corporation that did not have the required credit rating. The tenant corporation lease was for a period of five years, with a rental of $15,000 per month, payable by the corporation to the tenant. In addition, the corporation agreed to abide "by all of the terms and conditions of the lease between the landowner and tenant. "Which of the following accurately states the legal effect of the non-assignability clause contained in the landowner tenant leasehold contract?

Choices:
- The non-assignability provision had no legal effect.
- The non-assignability provision made the assignment from the tenant to the corporation ineffective.
- The tenant-corporation lease did not effectuate a breach of the landowner tenant contract.
- Although the tenant-corporation lease constituted a breach of the landowner tenant contract, the landowner would nevertheless be required to recognize the validity of the transfer (of the premises) to the corporation.


Question: A company contracted with a builder to construct a new corporate headquarters for a fixed price of $100 million. At the time of the contract, structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item. Before work began on the project, tornado damage shut down the production facility of the biggest structural steel supplier in the country, and the price of structural steel increased by 20% as a result. The builder informed the company of the steel price increase, and the parties then orally agreed to increase the project price to $101 million. The builder proceeded with construction and delivered the project on time. The company paid the builder $100 million but refused to pay the additional $1 million. If the builder sues the company for $1 million, is the builder likely to prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the modification was never reduced to a writing signed by the party to be charged.
- No, because there was no consideration for the modification of the contract.
- Yes, because the companyÕs promise was supported by consideration.
- Yes, because the modification was fair and equitable in view of the unanticipated increase in the price of structural steel.


Question: The defendant was walking down the street when he saw a woman struggling with a man over a briefcase. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the woman had just stolen the briefcase from the man on the street. Believing the woman to be the victim of an attack, the defendant intervened and punched the man until the woman was able to get away with the briefcase. Confused as to why he wasn't being hailed as a hero by the woman, the defendant eventually realized that he had been an unwitting accomplice to the woman's theft. The defendant apologized profusely to the man and went home. According to the alter ego rule, which of the following statements is correct with respect to the amount of force that the defendant was entitled to use in the woman's defense?

Choices:
- Since the defendant did not stand in any personal relationship with the woman, he was not justified in using force in her defense.
- Not knowing the true facts, the defendant was not justified in using force to protect the woman because the man was privileged to recapture his briefcase.
- The defendant was justified in using reasonable force in the woman's defense, since he reasonably believed she was in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from the man.
- The defendant was justified in using reasonable force in the woman's defense, since his belief that she was in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from the man was both objectively and subjectively reasonable.


Question: A defendant hated a victim and decided to kill him. The defendant put a loaded gun in his coat pocket and went outside for a walk, not sure if and when he may see the victim. The defendant passed by a bar and decided to go inside for a drink. While in the bar, he drank several bottles of beer and became intoxicated. While walking home from the bar, the defendant bumped into the victim. As soon as the defendant recognized him, he pulled out his gun and shot and killed the victim. In this jurisdiction, first-degree murder is defined as a premeditated and deliberate killing. All other forms of murder are second-degree murder. The defendant is guilty of

Choices:
- first-degree murder.
- second-degree murder.
- involuntary manslaughter.
- voluntary manslaughter.


Question: A state recently imposed a one cent tax on the playing of any coin-operated video game in any restaurant. Since virtually all of the video games required a payment of either a dime, quarter, or dollar, the imposition of this tax required a major costly adaptation on each video game to allow for the deposit of the additional one cent tax. Although many video game owners have complained about the video game tax, their only alternative is to absorb the tax themselves and lose one cent per game. As a consequence of the tax, fewer video games are purchased by the restaurant owners. No manufacturer of video games is located in the state. Which of the following is most likely to have standing to bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the video game tax bill in an appropriate federal court?

Choices:
- A manufacturer of video games who is attempting to sell them to a restaurant owner in the state.
- A state resident who frequently plays video games at restaurants.
- A national video game association whose members travel to the state to play video games at restaurants.
- The director of the state's youth organization who wants to provide video games that only play for free at recreation centers within the state.


Question: The buyer asked a manufacturer to make him 100,000 widgets for $1,000,000. The buyer intended to retail them by mail order sales. The widgets had to have the buyer's logo imprinted on them. The manufacturer ordered the raw material and made a new widget mold that contained buyer's logo. The buyer wanted quick delivery of at least 10,000 right away. The manufacturer rushed the order and sent 10,000 conforming widgets two days later. The buyer paid for the widgets but rejected delivery on the remaining 90,000 widgets. The manufacturer filed suit and claimed damages for breach of contract. Defendant buyer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the statute of frauds was violated in that it was a contract for over $500 that was unenforceable under state law. Will the court likely grant the motion to dismiss?

Choices:
- Yes, the statute of frauds must be enforced when it involves goods over $500.
- Yes, the manufacturer did not protect its interests by agreeing to an oral contract and it must pay for its bad business practices.
- No, because there is an exception for goods that are specially made for a buyer.
- No, the law will enforce the "benefit of the bargain" rule.


Question: A newspaper printed an article stating that a local doctor was afflicted with a venereal disease and had volunteered for a program studying the various cures for the disease. The article was false, and was printed without adequate research. The doctor sued the newspaper company, claiming damages per se. The paper defended on the basis that this was a public interest article, that the paper was not reckless or malicious in its investigation and reporting, and that the doctor could not prove any special damages. Will the court adopt the defense reasoning and dismiss the case for failure to state a claim?

Choices:
- Yes, the doctor is a professional figure in the community and he must accept the risk of false reporting, especially where he cannot prove any special damages.
- Yes, the newspaper is allowed to make mistakes as long as there is no malice, and the case must be dismissed as a matter of law.
- No, this fits the requirements for slander per se and there is a valid claim of malice stated against the paper.
- No, this fits the requirements for libel per se, which is so inflammatory that the doctor does not have to prove special damages.


Question: A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has ÒBeware of DogsÓ signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The manÕs next-door neighbor frequently walks past the manÕs house and knows about the dogsÕ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the manÕs fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured. In a suit against the man, is the neighbor likely to prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.
- No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the manÕs property.
- Yes, because the neighbor was an invitee for the pur-pose of retrieving the shovel.
- Yes, because the man was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.


Question: A defendant had an argument with his neighbor. As they were quarreling, the defendant pulled out his penknife intending only to frighten the neighbor. The defendant accidentally slightly nicked the neighbor's arm with the knife. Unknown to the defendant, his neighbor was a hemophiliac who then died from the cut. What is the most serious crime that the defendant can be convicted of?

Choices:
- Murder.
- Voluntary manslaughter.
- Involuntary manslaughter.
- Battery.


Question: Two college students were members of the same fraternity. During a fraternity party, the defendant pulled out a gun, pointed it at the other student and said, "Beg for your life, sucker. " The student, who knew that the defendant had a reputation as a practical joker, said, "Get lost, you jerk. " The defendant then pulled the trigger and shot the student to death. A statute in this jurisdiction provides: "Any intentional and premeditated killing with malice aforethought is murder in the first degree. Murder in the second degree is any killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a serious or inherently dangerous felony. Manslaughter includes all other types of unlawftil homicide and unjustifiable killings. "The defendant was subsequently prosecuted for killing the student. At trial, the defendant testified that a fellow fraternity member gave him the gun before the shooting and told him that it was unloaded. If the jury believes the defendant, it should find him

Choices:
- guilty of assault, but not murder or manslaughter.
- guilty of manslaughter.
- guilty of second-degree murder.
- guilty of first-degree murder.


Question: Defendant is on trial. Which of the following, if occurs, would NOT cause a due process violation in the trial?

Choices:
- The trial is conducted in a way that jurors would not be able to give evidence reasonable consideration.
- The defendant is compelled to stand trial in street clothing.
- The defendant is compelled to stand trial or appear at penalty phase proceedings visibly shackled (unless there are security concerns).
- Jurors are exposed to influence favorable to the prosecution.


Question: A man is the owner of record of a parcel of land designated as "A. " It is the highest of three neighboring properties on a mountain. The man's friend is the owner of parcel "B," which is situated lower than "A" on the mountainside. The man's cousin owns parcel "C," which lies below parcels "A" and "B" on the mountain slope. In 2000, the man who originally owned all three parcels of land constructed a private drainage system. This system consisted of an underground pipeline that extended across all three parcels of land. Sewage from parcel "A" drained through the system to a municipal sewer, which was located at the bottom of the mountain. In 2005, the man sold parcel "B" to his friend. The following year, the cousin purchased parcel "C" from the man. The deeds to the friend and the cousin did not contain any mention of the man's drainage system. Located on each of the parcels are large ranch-style homes occupied by the respective owners. From the standpoint of the friend and the cousin, thedrainage system would most likely be defined as a(an)

Choices:
- easement appurtenant.
- easement by implication.
- prescriptive easement.
- express easement.


Question: A pet store owner opened a store in a new town. She was not aware that the city council had recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs from a retail pet store. The statute had a provision that allowed the pet store to give space to a non-profit humane society to adopt animals from the pet store. The owner sued the city in federal court, claiming a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court used the rational basis test to conclude that the statute served a legitimate state interest and was enforceable. The pet store owner appealed the decision. Will the appellate court likely affirm the decision of the lower court?

Choices:
- Yes, because the pet store owner was not treated differently than any other pet store owner.
- Yes, because the correct test requires only that the law in question will satisfy any set of facts that could establish a rational basis for achieving legitimate government ends.
- No, the pet store owner has a vested constitutional right to earn a living and that is unreasonably precluded by the law in question.
- No, because this ordinance is so invidiously discriminatory that it must pass the strict scrutiny test, which it fails to do.


Question: A football player was the star fulllack for the local college football team. After missing two practices, the football player was dropped from the team by the head football coach. Following his dismissal, the football player met with the coach and asked if he could rejoin the team. The coach said that the football player was despised by the other players and under no circumstances could he return to the team. As the football player was leaving the coach's office, feeling very dejected, the coach then said to him, "Hope you decide to transfer, because everybody hates your guts around here. "Later that same evening, the football player wrote a suicide note in which he stated, "The coach is responsible for my despondency. If I can't play football, I don't want to live. " After swallowing a bottle of Quaalude barbiturates, the football player fell unconscious in his dormitory room. Moments later, the football player's roommate entered the room and saw his limp body on the floor. The roommate read the suicide note and then attempted to administer aid. Failing to revive him, the roommate picked up the football player and carried him to the college's first aid center. The football player received prompt medical attention and soon recovered from his drug overdose. If the football player asserts a claim against the coach based on intentional infliction of emotional distress, the football player will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because the coach intended to cause him to suffer emotional distress.
- prevail, because the coach's remark did, in fact, cause the football player to suffer emotional distress.
- not prevail, because the football player's drug overdose resulted from his own voluntary act.
- not prevail, because the coach acted reasonably under the circumstances, since everyone on the team hated the football player.


Question: A girlfriend lived with her boyfriend in a small apartment. The boyfriend was a gun enthusiast who kept a collection of antique pistols and firearms in the apartment. The boyfriend was also an avid baseball fan and had a fanatic devotion to his favorite team. One evening, the boyfriend was watching his beloved team play their archrival on television. His favorite team lost in extra innings. After the game, the boyfriend became despondent and told his girlfriend that he was so disgusted that he was going to kill himself. The boyfriend took one of the pistols from his gun collection and shot himself in the head. As the boyfriend fell to the floor, wounded, his girlfriend couldn't believe her eyes. At first she thought that she should call 911 for an ambulance. But she was afraid that the police might think that she was responsible for the shooting. Consequently, she decided to do nothing. She proceeded to leave the apartment and spent the night at her mother's home. The boyfriend did not immediately die from the gunshot wound. A subsequent medical examiner's report concluded that the boyfriend died from loss of blood approximately two hours after the shooting. If the girlfriend had sought immediate medical assistance, the boyfriend would have lived. The girlfriend is subsequently prosecuted for her boyffiend's death. She should be found

Choices:
- guilty of first-degree murder.
- guilty of second-degree murder.
- guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- not guilty, because she had no legal duty to render assistance.


Question: During a paternity trial, the mother's attorney asks to have the baby girl, now 36 months old, exhibited for the purpose of calling attention to certain facial resemblances between the child and the reputed father. The defendant's attorney objects to the offering of the baby into evidence for comparison. The trial judge should

Choices:
- permit the child to be exhibited as a non-objectionable form of demonstrative evidence.
- not permit the child to be exhibited, because such an exhibition would be highly prejudicial to the defendant.
- permit the child to be exhibited as within the hearsay exception of pedigree.
- not permit the child to be exhibited, because such an exhibition would be self-serving to the complainant.


Question: A man was visiting his friend at the friend's cabin. The man decided to surprise the friend with some fireworks, so he purchased some fireworks and hid them under his friend's chair on the friend's porch. That evening, the friend went outside to smoke and dropped his unfinished cigarette next to his chair on the porch. The cigarette ignited the fireworks, and the fireworks immediately exploded, causing extensive damage to the friend and to his cabin. The man was arrested and is being prosecuted for arson. Will the man be found guilty of arson?

Choices:
- No, because the man never intended to hurt the friend.
- No, because the man did not intend to burn down the cabin and was not guilty of wanton and willful misconduct.
- Yes, because the man indirectly set fire to the friend's cabin.
- Yes, because the injury to the friend and to his cabin was the natural result of the man's actions.


Question: A man and a woman are adjoining landowners in an area of large estates located in the "chateau" region of southeastern Louisiana. In 2000, the man inherited his estate from his father, whose family had owned the property continuously since 1812. The woman purchased her estate in 2008. The man had a stable, which housed many valuable racing horses, on his property. The stable, built in 2002, stood on a portion of the man's land located only 10 feet from the border of the woman's property. Not infrequently, putrid stenches arose from the man's property, caused by large accumulations of horse manure, which were left unattended. The woman had often complained to the man of the noises and odors emanating from the stable. The woman brought an appropriate action to enjoin the man's use of the stables. Judgment is likely to be for whom?

Choices:
- The man, because the woman moved onto her property after the stable had been built.
- The man, because a homeowner is entitled to make reasonable use of his property.
- The woman, because the noise, coupled with the odors, substantially interfered with the use and enjoyment of her land.
- The woman, because the man was negligent in permitting the manure to be left unattended.


Question: A father conveyed a parcel of real estate to his three daughters by a warranty deed. The deed recited that the title was conveyed to the three siblings "as joint tenants with the right of survivorship, and not as tenants in common." One of the sisters, during the lifetime of all three, conveyed an "undivided one-third interest" to a third party. The third party died, leaving a will that bequeathed her one-third interest to her son. Is the son's ownership interest enforceable in the face of the claim by the two non-selling sisters that they own 100% of the property pursuant to the law regarding joint tenancies?

Choices:
- No, because each joint tenant owns an equal and undivided interest in the whole of the property, making invalid the sister's attempted conveyance of a one-third interest.
- Yes, only a will can create a joint tenancy; the deed was invalid for that purpose and resulted in a tenancy in common by operation of law.
- Yes, because the conveyance severed the joint tenancy, and the third party took a one-third interest that she could pass by will to her son.
- No, because the selling sister did not take steps to get a court order to sever the joint tenancy prior to conveying a deed to a third party.


Question: During an ice storm, a man's car slipped down an embankment and became lodged against a large tree. The man called a towing company and told the company's manager that the car was 100 feet down the embankment. "That's lucky," said the manager, "because our winch only goes 100 feet." After the manager and the man agreed on a price, an employee of the company attempted to reach the car but could not because the car turned out to be 120 feet down the embankment. Is the towing company's performance excused on the grounds of mistake?

Choices:
- No, because both parties were uncertain about the distance.
- No, because the towing company assumed the risk by the manager's failure to examine the distance himself.
- Yes, because at the time of contracting, both parties were mistaken about a basic assumption on which the contract was based.
- Yes, because the agreement did not allocate the risk of mistake to either party.


Question: A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for injuries arising out of an accident involving the parties. The plaintiff alleged and presented evidence at trial demonstrating that her injuries had left her legs permanently paralyzed. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $5 million in damages. Two months after the court entered judgment, the defendant was given a videotape made that day showing the plaintiff jogging with her doctor. What is the best way for the defendant to seek relief from the judgment?

Choices:
- Move for a new trial or in the alternative for remittitur to reduce the award in light of the shortened duration of the plaintiff's injuries.
- Move for relief from the judgment on the ground that the judgment was based on the jury's mistaken belief that the plaintiff's injuries would be permanent.
- Move for relief from the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff committed a fraud in obtaining damages for permanent injuries.
- Move for relief from the judgment on the ground that there is newly discovered evidence that the plaintiff's injuries were not permanent.


Question: A hotel guest suffered personal injuries from a fire started by an arsonist. The hotel had no sprinkler systems or smoke detectors. After settling with the hotel, the guest sued the manufacturer of the carpet that was in her room and elsewhere in the hotel. The carpet caused the fire to spread rapidly due to its easy flammability. Evidence proved that the manufacturer knew of the product's flammability and that it would be used in buildings lacking proper safety measures. The manufacturer argued that the hotel's negligence and the criminal act of the arsonist were both superseding causes, thus abrogating the manufacturer's liability as a matter of law. How did the trial court most likely rule on that issue?

Choices:
- The intervening causes relieved the manufacturer of liability.
- The intervening causes did not relieve the manufacturer of liability.
- The intervening causes were irrelevant due to the strict liability of the manufacturer.
- By not suing the arsonist first, the guest waived her right to sue the manufacturer.


Question: A retailer agreed to purchase an orchard's total cherry production for a 12-month period. The contract included this provision: "Terms: Cash upon delivery  deliveries to be made at least twice per month." The deliveries went as scheduled. At the beginning of the fifth month, the orchard sent notice to the retailer that a load of cherries was ready for pick up. The truck driver, however, forgot to take the retailer's check with him. The orchard turned over the cherries but advised the retailer to pay within three days. The retailer sent the check by mail but it arrived late by two days. The orchard refused to deliver any more cherries. The retailer sued the orchard for breach of the installment contract and demanded the difference in price between the cherries on the open market and what he would have paid under the contract. The orchard claimed that the delayed payment impaired the value of the contract and moved to dismiss. Will the court grant the orchard's motion to dismiss?

Choices:
- Yes, the agreement called for cash at delivery, which was not done when the driver forgot to deliver the check.
- Yes, the failure to make an installment on time was a breach because time is of the essence in all installment agreements.
- No, there is always a grace period of ten days for any single payment pertaining to an installment contract.
- No, the delay in one payment under these facts was not enough to impair the value of the contract under the Uniform Commercial Code.


Question: Client has an estate that reads "To A on condition that if drugs are ever used on premises, B shall have the right to reenter and retake the premises." What is NOT true about this kind of estate?

Choices:
- It is a fee simple determinable, and title ends automatically if drugs are used.
- It is a fee simple subject to condition subsequent, which requires a reentry first before title can end.
- Estate does not revert automatically.
- Grantor must exercise right of reentry.


Question: A defendant was arrested and charged with burglarizing a pharmacy. The break-in allegedly occurred late one evening after the store had closed for business. The defendant was identified as the perpetrator of the crime by a film that was recorded during the burglary from a hidden camera. When the defendant was apprehended, he denied involvement in the crime and told the arresting officers that he had been out of town when the burglary occurred. Prior to trial, the defendant's court appointed attorney filed a motion requesting discovery of the videotape film that was recorded during the perpetration of the crime. The trial judge granted the request and ordered the prosecution to send a duplicate copy of the videotape to the defendant's attorney. Following the judge's ruling, the prosecuting attorney, pursuant to state law, then filed a discovery motion specifically asking the defendant whether he planned to raise an alibi defense. The prosecuting attorney also sought discovery of the identity of such an alibi witness. Assume that the judge requires the defendant to respond as to whether the defendant intends to raise an alibi defense. May the judge also require the defendant to disclose the identity of the alibi witness?

Choices:
- Yes, because the prosecution should have an opportunity to investigate the merits of the alibi.
- Yes, because the defendant waived any claim of privilege when he sought discovery of the film from the prosecution.
- No, because by requiring the defendant to reveal information before he is tactically ready to do so substantially impairs his ability to successfully defend himself.
- No, because such disclosure constitutes an implied representation that is testimonial in character and, thus, violates the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination.


Question: A builder wanted to have security systems installed in a series of homes he was building. He contacted several companies and asked them to submit bids for the installation work. An alarm company decided to submit a bid and, in turn, requested bids from several wholesalers for the burglar alarms it planned to use if it was awarded the job. A supplier submitted a bid to the alarm company that the latter used in computing the bid that it was preparing for the builder. On September 1, the alarm company sent the builder its bid, in which it proposed to install the security systems for $100,000. On September 9, the supplier notified the alarm company that it would be unable to supply any burglar alarms to them. On September 11, the builder sent the following fax to the alarm company: "I hereby accept your offer to install the security systems for $100,000. "The alarm company had to pay another wholesaler $10,000 above the price quoted by the supplier for the burglar alarms. As a result, the alarm company advised the builder that the total price for the job would have to be increased to $10,000. The builder replied that he would hold the alarm company to the initially agreed price of $100,000. The alarm company installed the security systems, but the builder has not yet paid them anything. In an action by the alarm company against the builder for services rendered, the alarm company will probably be able to recover

Choices:
- $100,000, because that was the contract price.
- $110,000 because of an unanticipated changeof circumstances after the parties had entered into their contract.
- only in quantum meruit, because of the doctrine of commercial frustration.
- only in quantum meruit, because by demanding $110,000 the alarm company repudiated its contract with the builder.


Question: Max entered a mini-mart store, pulled out a gun, and demanded that the cashier empty the register. As he nervously looked around for police, the cashier reached out and attempted to grab the gun. Max then droped the gun, which accidentally discharged, killing a nearby customer. Max is charged with first degree murder. He will likely be

Choices:
- Acquitted, because he lacked the necessary intent required for first degree murder.
- Acquitted, because the cashier's actions were the proximate cause of the death.
- Convicted, because any death that is a natural and probable consequence of a felony is first degree murder.
- Convicted, because intent to commit serious bodily harm is assumed when a deadly weapon is used.


Question: A man committed a series of heinous crimes, including a kidnapping, that took him across state lines and violated federal law. He was convicted and received a life sentence. The felon, however, was pardoned by the President of the United States, who was a childhood friend. A great hue and cry ensued, and the talking heads on television proclaimed that legislation was needed to prevent such injustice again. Would such legislation be constitutional?

Choices:
- No. While what the president did wasn't a good idea, the Constitution expressly grants the President an unqualified power to pardon.
- Yes, under Article I.
- Yes, under Article II
- Yes, because Congress can put limits on the pardon power.


Question: Kendall and Thornton agree to form a partnership, but both agree that only Kendall will manage the business and make all business decisions and execute all contracts with third parties. After that time, Thornton then enters into a long-term service contract for the partnership with Clark, who does not know of the internal agreement. The contract of Thornton with Clark is

Choices:
- enforceable, as the partners' agreement cannot withhold statutory authority of a general partner to bind the partnership.
- enforceable, as Clark has no knowledge of Thornton's lack of authority.
- unenforceable, as Thornton is unauthorized to execute the contract by the partner agreement.
- unenforceable, as Clark had an obligation to confirm Thornton's authority prior to entering into a service contract with the partnership.


Question: Fourth-grader Billy Bully started a fist fight with 10-year-old Jack DeLong. Billy thought Jack was a weakling, but Jack had been working out with weights and knew karate. Ike Intervenor, a large 25-year-old who knew neither party, strolled around the corner of the block in time to see Jack strike Billy twice. Billy fell back and Jack stepped forward to strike him again. Ike thought Jack was the aggressor and to protect Billy, Ike threw Jack into the bushes, accidentally breaking Jack's arm. Jack brought suit against Ike for his damages. Ike's best defense is

Choices:
- He thought Jack was the initial aggressor.
- Billy had a valid defense if Jack sued him.
- The force Ike used was not excessive.
- He had no intention of injuring Jack, only to stop his beating of Billy.


Question: A woman and her 4-year-old son were Christmas shopping at a toy store. The toy store sells a complete array of toys, games, dolls, hobbies, and crafts. The items were displayed on a variety of tables and shelves, which were easily accessible to the customers. While the woman was walking down one of the aisles, her attention became focused on a doll that was prominently exhibited on an overhead display shelf. When the woman approached the doll display, she reached up to grab the doll. As she did so, the woman failed to see a baseball lying on the floor. She tripped over the baseball and fell down, fracturing her hip. If the woman asserts a claim against the toy store for her injuries, will the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply on the issue of whether the toy store was negligent and responsible for the baseball being on the floor?

Choices:
- Yes, because the woman was a business invitee on the premises of the toy store.
- Yes, because the toy store was in control of the premises at the time of the accident.
- No, because another customer may have caused the baseball to be on the floor.
- No, because the baseball was an intervening act that cuts off the toy store's liability.


Question: At a defendant's trial for drug dealing, a prosecution witness testified that he had heard the defendant telling a group of people to come to the defendant's house because he had "a great crop of apples for sale." The prosecutor then called and qualified a drug enforcement agent as an expert in how drug dealing is conducted. The prosecutor now seeks to have the expert testify that in her opinion, based on years of experience with drug dealers, the defendant's statement about the apples was code for his having drugs for sale. Should the expert's opinion be admitted?

Choices:
- No, because an expert must base his or her opinion on scientific or technical data, not merely on experience.
- No, because the opinion is based on the criminal actions of others engaged in drug dealing, and thus is substantially more unfairly prejudicial than probative.
- Yes, because the opinion is based on her specialized knowledge, and it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence and determining facts in issue in the case.
- Yes, provided that the expert first testifies about the specific information upon which she based her view that the defendant was using "apples" as a code word to refer to drugs.


Question: An elderly married couple was shopping in a crowded retail store. The husband was several feet ahead of his wife when she saw him slip and lose his balance. He was able to prevent a fall by holding onto a counter. Wife saw something sticky on a wide part of the floor but became disoriented by seeing her husband slipping and gripping the counter. With other shoppers behind her, she stepped forward and fell on the wet floor, breaking her hip, and requiring extensive complicated surgeries. She sued the store for negligent maintenance. She proved through discovery that the retailer did not clean the mess soon enough and did not put up a warning sign. The store filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56, alleging that the wife voluntarily assumed the risk as a matter of law. The trial court agreed, ruling there was no issue of material fact in dispute for the jury to decide. On appeal, is it likely that the appellate court will reverse and remand for a new trial?

Choices:
- No, because wife proceeded to encounter a known danger voluntarily, thereby assuming the risk of injury as a matter of law and there were no material issues of fact for a jury to decide.
- No, because even taking the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party under Rule 56, it is nonetheless clear that she knew there was a danger and she accepted the risk.
- Yes, because there is evidence that raises a material issue of fact whether the wife was in an emergency where she did not have time to deliberate on whether to move forward.
- Yes, because the store was strictly liable to the wife, who was a customer invited on the premises to do business and the store had to protect her.


Question: A state legislature has proposed a bill setting up a postal service. Under the proposal, the postal service would be established as a separate state agency under the direction of a postmaster general. The postal service would be responsible for the overnight or express delivery of official governmental mailings within the state. The bill further provides that all state government employees may utilize the overnight postal service at no charge for sending mailings to persons or corporations within the state. Assume that no other state has established such a postal service to date. Moreover, assume there is uncontradicted evidence that the establishment of such an independent state postal service will diminish the revenues of the U. S. Postal Service. Which of the following, if established, is the strongest argument in support of the proposed legislation?

Choices:
- Under the Tenth Amendment, a state has exclusive authority to regulate transactions that are wholly intrastate.
- Since the proposed bill is not inconsistent with congressional postal power, it is valid under the supremacy clause.
- State employees may be exempt from paying for mailing charges under intergovernmental immunity provided Congress has enacted a similar exemption for federal governmental employees.
- There is a legitimate state interest in ensuring that governmental mailings are delivered expeditiously.


Question: After two men robbed a local bank, they left the bank and went in different directions with a plan to meet three days later at the train station. Two days after the robbeiy, one of the men was involved in an auto accident. The man was rushed to the hospital and taken to the x-ray room. A doctor positioned the man so that the x-ray technician would be able to take x-rays of his lower back area. Based on the man's complaints about the area of pain, the doctor stated, "It seems as if you might have a fractured pelvis. If you do, you'll have to stay in bed for several weeks. " The man responded that he couldn't do that because he had to meet the other man tomorrow. A technician who was in the room at the time overheard the man's response to the doctor. Subsequently, both men are charged with robbery and conspiracy. At the man's trial, as evidence of a conspiracy, the prosecution attempts to introduce the doctor's testimony that the man said, "I have to meet the other man tomorrow. " The defense objects. This evidence is

Choices:
- inadmissible, because it violates the physician- patient privilege.
- admissible, because the technician overheard the conversation.
- admissible, because of the nature of the man's statements.
- admissible, because the statement was not confidential, under the circumstances.


Question: While on routine patrol, police officers observed a driver make an illegal U-turn. After stopping the driver's car, they observed him reach under the driver's seat. They ordered him out of the car and saw a cellophane package protruding from under the seat. The package contained a white powdery substance, which the officers suspected to be cocaine. The officers placed the driver under arrest and put him in the rear of their patrol car. They then proceeded to search the rest of the driver's car. In the trunk they found an assault rifle that was later determined to be the weapon used in a liquor store robbery. Charged with that robbery, the driver moved to suppress the assault rifle as evidence on the grounds that the police did not have a warrant to search the trunk. The best theory that the prosecution can use in support of the admissibility of the assault rifle as evidence is that

Choices:
- the police conducted an automobile search.
- the police conducted an inventory search.
- the search was incident to a lawful arrest.
- the search was made under exigent circumstances.


Question: As a legislative aide to a U. S. Senator you are called upon to provide an analysis of the constitutionality of a bill pending congressional approval. The bill imposes a 15% tax upon the gross annual receipts from the sales of all birth control devices. The bill has the strong support of conservative and pro-life organizations. The stated purpose of the proposed measure is to raise revenue and spur population growth across the country. In your learned opinion, the proposed tax is probably

Choices:
- constitutional, because the fact that the tax applies to all sales of every type of birth control device invalidates any possible objection to the tax on the grounds that it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- constitutional, because the fact that controversial policy motives may have induced the enactment of an otherwise reasonable measure calculated to raise revenue does not ipso facto invalidate the tax.
- unconstitutional, because in inseverable aggregates, the domestic purchases and sales of birth control devices affect interstate and foreign commerce.
- unconstitutional, because the tax burdens the fundamental right to privacy of users of birth control devices without establishing a compelling national interest for doing so.