Question: One afternoon, a pilot was flying a small airplane when it suddenly ran out of gas. As he was coming in for an emergency landing, the plane crossed into a neighboring state at a very low altitude. At this time, a 9-year-old boy was walking to school when he was struck and injured by an object, which may have fallen from the plane. In federal court, a negligence suit was brought against the pilot by the father of the boy for his son. Accompanied by his father, the boy had visited an attorney for preliminary discussions regarding the case. However, the father did not retain the attorney to represent his son in the lawsuit. Instead, the father hired another lawyer to handle the case. At trial, the pilot's attorney calls the consulting attorney to testify what the boy had said to him regarding his physical condition during the consultation that the attorney had had with the boy and his father. The attorney's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible, because the attorney-client privilege was waived by the filing of the lawsuit.
- admissible, because there is no privilege of confidentiality when a person other than the client is present at the attorney-client consultation.
- inadmissible, because the attorney-client privilege prevents such a breach of confidential communications.
- inadmissible, because it was a statement of physical condition not made for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment.


Question: A state statute provides: "Whenever a person knows or should know that he (or she) is being arrested by a police officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest. " Violation of the statute is made punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. One morning, there was a bank robbery in the state. That afternoon, a police officer arrested a suspect who he believed was involved in the crime. However, the police officer and the suspect have given different accounts concerning what happened next. According to the police officer, after the suspect was apprehended, he resisted arrest and hit the police officer in the mouth with his fist. The police officer, who was momentarily stunned, pulled out his nightstick and struck the suspect over the head with it. On the other hand, the suspect claimed that after he was arrested, he cursed at the policeman, whereupon the police officer began hitting the suspect with his nightstick. To avoid being hit again, the suspect hit the police officer with his fist, knocking him down. The suspect was charged with assault. The suspect should be found

Choices:
- not guilty, if the arrest was unlawful without probable cause and the jury believes the suspect's account.
- not guilty, if the arrest was lawful, provided that the jury believes the suspect's account.
- guilty, if the arrest was lawful, regardless which account the jury believes.
- guilty, if the arrest was unlawful, regardless which account the jury believes.


Question: A taxpayer was notified by the government that her individual income tax was underpaid by $1,012. 69. The taxpayer retained an attorney to represent her in contesting the assessment. During the preparation of his client's case, the attorney suggested that it might be a good idea if the taxpayer hired an accountant to organize her records and prepare a financial statement for the year in question. Following the attorney's advice, the taxpayer consulted an accountant, an old family friend, who prepared a financial statement, which the attorney referred to at trial. During the trial, the attorney representing the government called the accountant to testif' about statements that the taxpayer made to him. The accountant's proposed testimony is

Choices:
- inadmissible, because it would violate the attorney-client privilege.
- inadmissible, because it would violate the taxpayer's privilege against self-incrimination.
- inadmissible as violative of the work-product rule.
- admissible as an admission.


Question: A resident announced his candidacy for state representative. A law in the state requires new political entrants (regardless of party affiliation) to obtain three times the number of signatures as other candidates who have run for office previously. The resident, however, failed to obtain the necessary number of authenticating signatures to have his name placed on the ballot. The resident filed a complaint in federal district court alleging the unconstitutionality of the authenticating requirement. Which of the following, if established, is the state's strongest argument for sustaining the validity of the authenticating requirement?

Choices:
- The resident's petition contained a large number of false signatures.
- A similar authenticating statute was held to be constitutional in another state the previous year.
- The authenticating requirement was necessary to further a compelling state interest.
- Two other candidates had successfully petitioned to have their names included on the ballot.


Question: A defendant was angry at his friend for marrying the defendant's former girlfriend. As the friend was painting his house one afternoon, the defendant fired a shot from his gun at him. Although the shot missed the friend, the bullet struck and killed the friend's daughter. The defendant is subsequently charged with the first-degree murder of the daughter. The relevant statutes in effect in this jurisdiction are as follows:Section 169: Murder in the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Section 170: Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to take away the life of another. Which of the following, if established, would provide the defendant with his best defense?

Choices:
- He intended to kill the friend and not the daughter.
- He intended only to wound the friend.
- He was unaware of the elements of malice.
- The killing was the result of negligence in missing the friend.


Question: The accused made a confession to the police, but his defense attorney needs to find out if the confession is admissible. In which of the following situations would a confession be inadmissible?

Choices:
- The defendant's statement was involuntary.
- The defendant's statement was voluntary.
- The defendant was not in custody when the statement was made.
- The statement was not made in response to a known police interrogation.


Question: A devastating earthquake struck a foreign country. The earthquake destroyed hundreds of homes and buildings. Thousands of residents were killed, injured, and left homeless by the earthquake. The leader of the foreign country sought the assistance of the United States in providing emergency aid. The President initially wanted to send troops from a west coast military base but learned that they were out on training maneuvers. As a result, the President issued an executive order directing members of a federal agency under the supervision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to travel to the foreign country to engage in emergency rescue operations. This federal agency's main function is to patrol the borders to prevent illegal aliens from entering the United States. A member of this federal agency refused to comply with the executive order and assist in the relief effort. He claimed that participating in such operations in a foreign country is beyond the scope of his job responsibilities. He brought suit in federal court challenging the validity of the President's executive order. Assuming the member of the federal agency has adequate standing, the court should rule the executive order

Choices:
- valid, because as commander-in-chief, the President has unfettered authority to require federal employees to participate in an international relief effort.
- valid, because employees of an executive agency can be required to perform such emergency functions.
- invalid, because the executive order is beyond the scope of presidential power absent congressional authorization.
- invalid, because the director of the INS, not the President, has the power to issue directives to federal agencies under its supervision.


Question: Which of the following is not a warrantless search exception?

Choices:
- Cold pursuit
- Incident to a lawful arrest
- Plain view
- Stop and frisk


Question: A grocery store purchased a large mirror to hang on a wall in the store. Along with the mirror itself, the manufacturer provided brackets and bolts to be used for hanging the mirror. The grocery store paid a local carpenter to come in and hang the mirror. A few days after the carpenter installed the mirror, the mirror suddenly fell from the wall because of a defect in the brackets. It struck a shopper on the head, causing serious injuries to him. If the shopper asserts a claim against the carpenter based on strict liability in tort, the plaintiff will

Choices:
- prevail, because the brackets were defective when installed.
- prevail, because it would be abnormally dangerous to maintain such a large mirror on the wall of a retail outlet.
- not prevail, because the carpenter was not engaged in the sale of the mirror.
- not prevail, because the carpenter had no relationship of privily with the plaintiff.


Question: A man who was separated but never divorced from his first wife, married another woman and lived with her as husband and wife. The man and his purported second wife bought a home together as tenants by the entirety. They lived there together for a few years, when the man was accused and convicted of killing his purported wife. He was given a life sentence. The decedent's estate brought a quiet title action to declare the property forfeited to the decedent on the basis that a murderer cannot benefit from his crime. The trial court awarded the property to the estate. The man appealed from his prison cell. Under the common law, will the appellate court affirm the trial court's decision and strip the man of all ownership rights in the home?

Choices:
- Yes, because a murderer cannot reap the benefits of his ill-doing.
- Yes, because the murderer was also a bigamist who could not take good title to the property in the first place, thus putting full title in the decedent from the date of purchase.
- No, the court will as a policy matter recognize the murderer's pre-slaying right to one-half of the property as a tenant in common.
- No, there is no rule of law that gives the victim or her estate any additional rights in the property that she had before the homicide.


Question: Bill, a single man, owned pasture land in Deerwoods, Florida, which he leased to a tenant. He also owned a condominium in Miami, which he held for investment. In his will, he devised the pasture land to his son Tommy and the condominium to his daughter Julie. All other assets would pass equally to Tommy and Julie. Bill met Kathy and married her after she executed a valid prenuptial agreement relinquishing all rights she might otherwise enjoy by marrying Bill. On their Miami honeymoon they drove by the condominium and Kathy declared she'd love to live there. Bill was so happy with Kathy that after the honeymoon he signed and delivered to Kathy a deed conveying the condominium to himself and Kathy as an estate by the entirety and made plans to live in the condominium as soon as the tenant vacated. Bill died the next day. How are the foregoing assets distributed?

Choices:
- Kathy gets the condominium regardless of the prenuptial agreement, Tommy takes the pasture land and Tommy and Julie split the rest of the estate.
- Due to Kathy's prenuptial agreement, Tommy receives the pasture land, Julie gets the condominium and Tommy and Julie split the rest of the estate.
- Kathy gets the condominium, but because Bill had originally indicated his intent to devise equally to his children, Tommy and Julie will split the remaining estate.
- Regardless of the prenuptial agreement, Kathy is a pretermitted spouse. Since Bill leaves surviving lineal descendants who are not Kathy's, Kathy receives 50% of the estate, Tommy gets the pasture land, and Tommy and Julie split the residue of the estate.


Question: For many years, persons engaged in real estate transactions in a state have utilized installment land contracts. The so-called installment land contract has been popular as a substitute for the mortgage or deed of trust. Under such a contract, the seller agrees to accept, and the buyer agrees to pay, the purchase price in installments over a stipulated period of time. The vendor retains legal title as security for the payment of the purchase price; and the vendee has equitable title under the doctrine of equitable conversion. The most important characteristic of the installment land contract, however, is the forfeiture clause, which provides that if the vendee is in default for 30 days, the vendor may, at his option, declare a forfeiture of the contract, in which case all payments made shall be forfeited as "liquidated" damages and the buyer shall become a tenant at will of the seller. Over the years, many sellers of property under such installment land contracts have declared forfeitures in situations where the prospective buyers were delinquent in their payments, even when the buyer was late with a single payment after nearly all the other payments had been made. In order to remedy this inequitable situation, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring any seller attempting to declare a forfeiture of an installment land contract to do so by instituting a formal foreclosure action in the courts. The new law also provided that prior to the commencement of such a foreclosure action, the seller under such an arrangement must give the buyer a 60-day grace period to make up any delinquent installment payment with interest. The new law expressly applied both to installment land contracts entered into subsequent to its enactment and to installment land contracts already in existence at the time of its enactment. Is this new state statute likely to be held constitutional?

Choices:
- Yes, because it is a reasonable regulation of the procedure to be followed in such cases and does not substantially diminish the underlying obligations of the buyer.
- Yes, because the authority to enact laws regulating real estate sales transactions occurring within the boundaries of individual states is reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
- No, because application of the law to installment land contracts entered into prior to its enactment is a violation of the obligation of contracts.
- No, because application of the law to installment land contracts entered into before or after its enactment is a deprivation of a proprietary interest without due process of the law.


Question: A man placed the following advertisement in his local newspaper:"Public Auction Sale . . . without reserve December 7, 10:00 a. m. 110 Walnut St. , City, StateEntire furnishings of home must go: antiques, piano, pool table, appliances, tables, stereo system, etc. "On the morning of December 7, a group of approximately 20 people showed up at the man's home. The first item the man put up for bid was an antique Baldwin grand piano. The man announced that the bidding would be "without reserve" and said, "What's the opening bid on this beautiful Baldwin grand piano?" A woman opened the bidding with $100. The man then commented, "This piano is worth at least $5,000. What other bids am I offered?" When the man did not receive any other bids, he informed the woman that he would not accept $100 and was removing the piano from the sale. If the woman asserts an action against the man for breach of contract, the woman will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because goods put up at an auction "without reserve" may not be withdrawn.
- prevail, because whether or not the auction is "without reserve," goods cannot be withdrawn after the auctioneer calls for bids.
- not prevail, because at an auction "without reserve," the auctioneer may withdraw goods until he announces completion of the sale.
- not prevail, because at an auction "without reserve," the auctioneer invites offers, which he may accept or reject.


Question: A defendant offers into evidence his computer business records to show his good faith monitoring of the accounts in his business. The defendant testifies that he kept the records on a regular business basis  but did not explain the records in any other way. The government objected to the records as being hearsay and not authenticated. What will the court decide regarding the admissibility of the computer business records?

Choices:
- The court will allow the records because they were kept in the ordinary course of business.
- The court will require a greater foundation to establish the reliability of the records.
- The court will dismiss the hearsay objection because the defendant, who is the declarant, is available in court.
- The court will allow the records because they are the product of a reliable computer process of data collection.


Question: A regulation prevents persons with a drug arrest and conviction and/or those undergoing current treatment for drug abuse from working in certain state run facilities for the safety of the general public. One employee of the department of treasury brought an action claiming a denial of equal protection and due process by taking away his right to a job. It is claimed that the prohibition is necessary to protect the public from potential problems that could arise. Which test of constitutional validity would be likely applied to this regulation?

Choices:
- Strict scrutiny, since drug users are a special class of persons often discriminated against by the public.
- Intermediate scrutiny, because, like gender, this can be a sensitive area where discrimination is common.
- The rational basis test, because discrimination is generally favored with drug users or even those getting treatment.
- The rational basis test, because the regulation need only be related to a legitimate state interest to be valid.


Question: A man was driving while drunk. He was speeding down a center city street, veering from lane to lane, when he lost control of his car while going over a slick puddle of water. Without realizing it, he drove his car onto the sidewalk and killed two persons. What common law crime most appropriately fits the man's situation?

Choices:
- Felony murder in that he killed someone while committing the felony of driving under the influence.
- Voluntary manslaughter because it was an intentional killing done while acting recklessly or impulsively.
- Involuntary manslaughter in that it was a killing committed while engaging in reckless activity but without the intent to kill.
- First degree murder because the act of driving under the influence is legally presumed to involve premeditation and specific intent.


Question: The authorities arrested a man without a warrant and held him imprisoned for 14 days without a determination of probable cause. He finally saw a public defender who filed a motion to dismiss alleging an unconstitutional detention in violation of due process. The prosecution countered that the state's rules allowed for detention without a probable cause hearing for up to 30 days, and that the procedure was constitutional. Will the court most likely decide that this detention is unconstitutional?

Choices:
- No, because the Supreme Court has ruled that detentions can properly last up to 30 days without a probable cause determination.
- No, because each case must be decided on its own facts and there may be many good reasons why the state has not yet provided a probable cause determination.
- Yes, because when the state arrests someone without a warrant it must provide a prompt probable cause determination.
- No, because it is constitutional to hold someone for up to 15 days without a probable cause determination.


Question: A man owned land along the south side of a highway. To the south of the man's land was a lot owned by a woman who lived on it in a house. Five years ago the man conveyed a right-of-way easement over his land to the woman because it provided a more direct route between her house and the highway. The easement was evidenced by a clearly marked path. The document granting the easement was promptly recorded. Three years ago, the woman conveyed her house to the man. The man never took actual possession of the house. Two years ago, the man conveyed the house to a purchaser by a warranty deed. Two months after the purchaser moved into the house, a neighbor informed him about the easement. He then began using the path that had been marked on the man's land. When the man noticed the purchaser using the path, he erected a barricade on his land that effectively prevented the purchaser from using the path. The purchaser has sued the man, claiming that he has an easement over the man's land. Who is likely to prevail?

Choices:
- The man, because the easement was extinguished.
- The man, because the purchaser did not have actual notice of the easement at the time of acquisition.
- The purchaser, because he purchased the house by warranty deed.
- The purchaser, because the easement was of public record when he acquired the house.


Question: Rainmaking Lawfirm regularly purchased its office supplies from catalogs. Marty Manager saw an advertising catalog from Costco offering 10,000 envelopes for $1,000 CIF. He immediately sent a purchase order which stated "our law firm accepts your $1,000 offer for 10,000 envelopes for $1,000 CIF." Costco then sent Rainmaking an order confirmation which stated "Envelope order acceptance conditional upon a loading charge of $50 per thousand envelopes." If the parties disagree on the proper contract relationship, a court would likely rule:

Choices:
- A contract at $1,000 because the offer terms CIF means cost, insurance and freight including all loading charges.
- A contract at $1,500 because the loading charges are to be included.
- No contract because the order confirmation was a counteroffer which was not accepted.
- No contract because the purchase order was the offer and, under the mirror image rule, can not be deviated from.


Question: A woman sued her former employer in state court, asserting age and sex discrimination claims under both state and federal law. The woman's attorney had recently been embarrassed in court by the judge to whom the case was assigned. Wishing to avoid difficulties with the judge, the woman's attorney promptly removed the case to federal court on the basis of federal-question jurisdiction. The employer's attorney has timely moved to remand. How is the federal court likely to proceed?

Choices:
- Remand the entire case.
- Remand the state claims but keep the federal claims.
- Retain the case to avoid the risk of bias and impropriety in having it proceed before a judge who has shown clear hostility toward the woman's attorney.
- Retain the case, because it was timely removed and the woman alleges federal claims.


Question: A city ordinance provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to litter in a public park, and that a violation of this ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days. A protestor organized a demonstration against federal governmental support to rebels in a foreign country. The rally took place in a city park, and attracted about 100 supporters. During the rally, the protestor delivered a speech to the attendees. At the conclusion of his speech, the protestor said, "I'm sick and tired of the garbage this administration is getting away with. Here's what I think about its policy of rebel aid . . . " At which point, the protestor walked over to a trash can and dumped its contents on the ground. As the crowd cheered wildly, the protestor shouted, "No more rebel aid . . . let's stop this garbage now!" After littering the park, the protestor and his supporters left without picking up the trash. As a matter of constitutional law, may the protestor be prosecuted under the aforementioned city ordinance for littering the public park?

Choices:
- No, because littering the park in these circumstances could be construed as symbolic speech and, thus, it is protected from government regulation by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- No, because the facts do not indicate that the protestor's actions presented a clear and present danger that was likely to produce or incite imminent lawless action, thereby necessitating an abridgment of his freedom of speech.
- Yes, because the city ordinance advances an important and legitimate public interest and is not directed at the suppression of communication.
- Yes, because littering the park is conduct, not speech and, therefore, it may not be treated by the law as communication.


Question: A resident of a state was the owner of a large tract of virgin forest. The resident conveyed the tract "to the people of the state in fee simple; provided, however, that if any portion of said tract shall ever be used or developed for any commercial purpose or otherwise converted from its natural state (with exception for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes), then the grantor or his successors in interest may reenter as of the grantor's former estate. "Under state law, conveyances of real property to "the people" of the state are deemed to vest title in the state regarded as a legal entity, and custody over such property resides in an appointed official known as the director of environmental resources. The director granted a logging company the privilege to cut timber on a remote portion of the tract, together with incidental easements of way. The section that the logging company was to clear would be used for the development of a state recreational area. After the privilege was granted, the logging company proceeded to clear the timber, which he later sold for $10,000. When the resident learned that the logging company was cutting the timber and selling it, he notified the director to desist further exploitation of the land. In an ejectment action instituted by the resident against the state to recover the tract, what result would be expected?

Choices:
- The resident would succeed, because the logging company's selling of the timber would entitle the resident to re-enter and terminate the grant to the state.
- The resident would succeed, because the logging company's selling of the timber would constitute an automatic termination of the state's fee interest.
- The resident would not succeed, because the director approved the clearing of the timber in order to develop the area for recreational purposes.
- The resident would not succeed, because the reservation of the resident's right to terminate would be violative of the rule against perpetuities.


Question: A company owned a night club that was built on a pier extending into a major riverbed. For several months sections of the building had been wobbling noticeably, particularly during inclement weather, when the river pounded more aggressively against the structure. Several employees and customers complained but the general manager did not respond. One windy night a section of the pier collapsed into the river, killing 28 customers and employees. It was revealed that officials had on several prior occasions cited the club for violating applicable safety regulations. The police arrested the general manager and charged him with involuntary manslaughter. He defended on the basis that his omissions to act were legally insufficient to establish manslaughter. What will the court decide?

Choices:
- This was not manslaughter because the omission to respond to safety citations is not enough to establish the high degree of criminal negligence that is required.
- The failure to act is much less culpable than active recklessness, and therefore there was insufficient evidence to charge manslaughter.
- A corporate employee cannot be prosecuted for the crime of manslaughter with respect to the performance or nonperformance of his duties on behalf of the corporation.
- The charge of involuntary manslaughter is legally sufficient because the manager's omissions were reckless and unlawful under the circumstances.


Question: A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a large-screen TV from a neighbor's house. The friend wasangry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even with him by having him arrested. Thefriend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor's house. The young manbroke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The friend is guilty of what offense in a common law jurisdiction?

Choices:
- No crime.
- Conspiracy.
- Burglary.
- Conspiracy and larceny.


Question: Upon graduation from high school, a student enrolled in a college close to where he lived. However, since the student did not have a car, he rode the bus to and from the college each day. The student soon discovered that he was spending up to two hours each day to make the round trip to and from college on the bus, whereas the trip could be made in half that time if he had a car. He decided to buy a car and asked his father to accompany him as he looked for a car to purchase. After visiting a number of car lots, the son finally found a used car to his liking. However, the son only had $2,500 in his bank account, and the price of the car was $10,000. Since the son had not built up a credit history, the car lot was reluctant to sell the car to the son. The father then told the finance manager of the car lot, "If you will sell the car to my son and for any reason he defaults on the payments, I will pay the balance due. " The finance manager then approved the deal, which required the son to pay $2,500 down and monthly payments of $500 for 15 months. Six months later, the son defaulted on the payment plan, and the car lot sought recovery from the father without first suing the son. With regard to the father's obligation under his promise to the finance manager, the court would most likely

Choices:
- relieve the father of liability, because the car lot failed to first sue the son.
- relieve the father of liability, because the father was never under a duty as a surety.
- not relieve the father of liability, because of the main purpose exception.
- not relieve the father of liability, because parents are responsible for the debts of their children.


Question: A widow owned an apartment building. Several years ago, a student, in a signed writing, entered a three-year lease agreement with the widow. The student agreed to pay $800 monthly rent for the third-floor apartment in the widow's building. The original three-year term had long since expired, but the student had continued to pay his rent, and the widow continued to accept it. If the widow had chosen to evict the student immediately upon the end of the three-year period, and before she had accepted the next rent check, the student's strongest argument to prevent eviction, if true, would have been that

Choices:
- the leasehold contract was void ab initio.
- the widow had not given the student requisitenotice for terminating a periodic tenancy.
- the widow had not given the student requisitenotice for terminating a term of years.
- the terms of the leasehold contract were binding on both parties.


Question: A mail clerk domiciled in State A slipped and fell on ice that had formed near the loading dock of the building in State B where the clerk's State B employer leased space for its headquarters. The building was owned and operated by a State C corporation. As a result of the fall, the clerk was injured and the employer's expensive computer he was carrying was badly damaged. The clerk sued the building owner for negligence in a federal district court in State B, seeking $100,000 in personal-injury damages. The employer has filed a timely motion to intervene, asserting an $80,000 negligence claim against the building owner for the damage to its computer. Is the court likely to grant the employer's motion to intervene?

Choices:
- No, because although the employer has an interest in the clerk's action, that interest is not likely to be impaired in the employer's absence.
- No, because the clerk chose not to join the employer as a co-plaintiff in his action.
- Yes, because the employer is an indispensable party.
- Yes, because the employer's claim shares common questions of law and fact with the clerk's action.


Question: A pedestrian was crossing the street when he was hit by a car. The pedestrian suffered a neck injury. The driver of the car that hit the pedestrian had auto insurance. A claims adjuster from that insurance company contacted the pedestrian and discussed the accident with him. The insurance adjuster said, "You're not actually entitled to any compensation for these injuries, under the laws of this state; but I feel bad for you, and I'm a nice guy, so I'm willing to approve a $1,000 payment to you. " The insurance adjuster knew that, in fact, the pedestrian would be entitled to compensation under the state's tort law. The pedestrian rejected the offer, retained an attorney, and wound up winning a $550,000 jury verdict on negligence claims against the driver. If the pedestrian asserts a claim against the insurance adjuster for misrepresentation, will the pedestrian prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the insurance adjuster's $1,000 settlement offer was grossly inadequate.
- Yes, because the insurance adjuster knew that laws of the state provided for recovery in such a case.
- No, because the insurance adjuster's statements did not cause the pedestrian any monetary loss.
- No, because the insurance adjuster did not have a fiduciary relationship requiring him to protect the pedestrian's interests.


Question: A police officer was employed on a city's police force for 10 years. When the officer accepted the job, the city's employee benefit plan provided a death benefit to the spouse of any employee who died as a result of any job-related injury. Last year, the city amended its employee benefit plan to deny its death benefit in cases where the death "was caused by the employee's refusal to accept, for any reason other than its excessive risk to life or health, reasonably available medical care prescribed by a physician." After this amendment took effect, the officer was shot while on duty. Because of a sincerely held religious belief, the officer refused to allow a prescribed blood transfusion and, as a result, died from loss of blood. When the officer's spouse applied for the death benefit, the city denied the application on the basis of the amendment to the employee benefit plan. The officer's spouse has challenged the amendment, claiming that, as applied to the officer, it violated the officer's constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Is the court likely to find the amendment to the employee benefit plan constitutional as applied to the officer?

Choices:
- No, because it effectively discriminates against a religious practice.
- No, because it violates the vested contractual rights of city employees who were hired before the amendment took effect.
- Yes, because it does not single out religious reasons for the denial of benefits and is a reasonable limitation on the award of such benefits.
- Yes, because it imposes a condition only on the award of a government benefit and does not impose a penalty on an individual's conduct.


Question: Which reason may constitute sufficient good cause or excusable neglect to enable a litigant to file a late notice of appeal past the 30-day deadline?

Choices:
- The district court judge assured the litigant that the late filing would be permitted.
- The litigant's original attorney neglected to file notice on time, and now the litigant has retained a new attorney to file the appeal and has also sued the former attorney for malpractice.
- The litigant ran a red light causing a car crash just before the judgment was rendered, and was in the hospital for two months recovering.
- Opposing counsel agreed not to object to the late notice of appeal.


Question: A patent holder brought a patent infringement action in federal court against a licensee of the patent. The patent holder believed that a jury would be more sympathetic to his claims than a judge, and asked his lawyer to obtain a jury trial. What should the lawyer do to secure the patent holder's right to a jury trial?

Choices:
- File and serve a complaint that includes a jury trial demand.
- File and serve a jury trial demand at the close of discovery.
- File and serve a jury trial demand within 30 days after the close of the pleadings.
- Make a jury trial demand at the initial pretrial conference.


Question: A man is sitting on a beach chair, peacefully and in a relaxed meditative state, when a truck racing on the sand ran down a sunbathing elderly person. The man said out loud, "Oh God, look what that truck driver did. The man driving that truck was racing and going about 100 mph.! Someone call 911!!" A woman, who was sitting on the beach nearby, but facing the other way, heard the man's outcry. When the case comes to trial, will the court allow both the man and the woman to testify about the man's utterances?

Choices:
- Yes, both the woman and the man can testify because it is an excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule that goes to the material issue of the case.
- Yes, because this is not hearsay and it is not being entered for the truth of the statement by either witness so that they can both testify.
- No, neither of them can testify because the man was impaired due to being too relaxed from his meditation, and the woman cannot repeat the utterances of an impaired witness.
- No, neither can testify because the utterances do not fit any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.


Question: A landlord is the owner in fee simple of a tract of land on which is situated a large office building. The landlord leases the land and building thereon to a tenant for a term of seven years, commencing on August 1, 2001, and terminating at midnight on July 31, 2008. The lease contains the following provisions"(1) The tenant covenants to keep the building on the leased premises insured against fire in the amount of $100,000. "After three years of the lease had expired, the tenant assigned the entire balance of the lease period to a doctor, who took immediate possession of the leased property. Then in 2005, the doctor assigned his leasehold interest to a dentist. The dentist went into possession, but failed to pay any rent for two months. Soon afterwards, a fire spread from an adjoining building to the leased property, completely destroying the building thereon. While the tenant was in possession of the leased property, he carried a fire insurance policy on the premises in the amount of $100,000. However, the tenant allowed the policy to lapse after his assignment to the doctor. The doctor did carry insurance on the leased building, but only in the amount of $50,000. When the dentist took possession of the building, he did not obtain any fire insurance. The landlord learned that the building was not insured at the time of the fire as per the original agreement. In an action by the landlord against the tenant to recover for the fire loss, the landlord will most probably

Choices:
- recover, because in accordance with the Rule in Spencer's Case, the covenant to maintain fire insurance would "touch and concern" the land.
- recover, because the tenant's obligation to maintain fire insurance did not terminate after his assignment to the doctor.
- not recover, because the covenant to provide fire insurance did not run with the land.
- not recover, because the dentist, as assignee, would be liable for the fire loss.


Question: A nightclub owner applied for a required zoning permit to open a nude-dancing nightclub in the theater district of a city. An organization of influential city residents began an intensive lobbying effort to persuade the city council to deny the owner a permit to operate any type of nude- dancing facility at any time or in any place in the city. The owner has sued the city in an appropriate federal court, seeking an injunction that would prohibit the city council from considering the organization's views, on the ground that if the organization is successful in its lobbying efforts, the owner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights would be violated. The city has moved to dismiss the action. Should the court dismiss the owner's action?

Choices:
- No, because nude dancing is symbolic speech and is therefore protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- No, because the organization does not seek a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation of nude dancing, but instead seeks a total ban on the owner's opening any type of nude-dancing facility at any time or in any place in the city.
- Yes, because the action is not ripe.
- Yes, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not protect obscenity, and nude dancing is obscene.


Question: The President announced that a newly created military rapid deployment force would be engaging in joint training exercises with the military forces in a foreign country. Following the President's announcement, Congress enacted a statute that unequivocally prohibited "the U. S. Armed Forces from conducting military exercises with foreign military forces unless Congress has received notice of such intention to take such action at least three months before the joint military exercises become effective. "This statute is most likely

Choices:
- constitutional, because the President, in this instance, has not been called by Congress into actual service as Commander-in-Chief.
- constitutional, because of Congressional power under the War Powers Act.
- unconstitutional, because of the President's authority to execute the laws of the United States.
- unconstitutional, because of the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.


Question: A man and a school entered into a written contract providing that the man would be employed for one year in various capacities (athletic director, teacher, football coach) in return for an annual salary of $37,750. Shortly thereafter and prior to the July commencement date of employment, the school elected to terminate its varsity football program. The school publicly attributed the decision to economic factors. Upon hearing this news, the man sought out the headmaster of the school to inquire as to the effect, if any, of this decision on his salary and responsibilities. In order to resolve the matter, the headmaster arranged a meeting among various school officials to discuss the man's situation. Afterward, the school sent written notice to the man of its intent to terminate his employment contract. The man then commenced suit to recover the full balance of his salary calculated on the basis of the contract. At trial, the headmaster was called to testify. On direct examination, he testified that six people (including himself) attended the meeting where it was decided to terminate the man's employment contract. When asked to identify the attendees, the headmaster gave the names of four but, despite trying, was unable to remember the name of the fifth person. The attorney who called the headmaster to testify now seeks to show him her handwritten notes that the attorney prepared during her pretrial interview with the headmaster, in which he provided all five names. The trial court is likely to consider the showing of the notes taken as

Choices:
- a proper attempt to refresh the headmaster's recollection.
- a proper attempt to introduce recorded recollection.
- an improper attempt to support the headmaster's credibility.
- an improper attempt to lead the witness.


Question: A baseball fan purchased two tickets for a World Series baseball game. The fan contacted his best friend and invited him to go to the game. The friend, who was a fanatic baseball fan, eagerly agreed. The fan told the friend that the game started at 7:00 p. m. and that he would pick him up at about 5:00 p. m. so they could get there early to watch batting practice. They were driving to the game together when the fan sped up to cross an intersection while the traffic signal was changing from amber to red. As he reached the intersection, the fan was traveling at 50 m. p. h. although the posted speed limit was 25 m. p. h. Simultaneously, a car entered the intersection on red and collided with the fan's vehicle. The friend suffered a broken pelvis in the collision. This jurisdiction has adopted the following "modified" comparative negligence statute:"A negligent plaintiff is entitled to obtain a recovery provided plaintiff's negligence is not equal to or greater than that of the defendant's; otherwise no recovery is permitted. "Suppose the friend brings suit against the driver of the car that entered the intersection on the red light to recover damages for his injury. Ajury returned a special verdict with the following findings: (1) The fan was 55 percent negligent in speeding; (2) The driver was 45 percent negligent in driving through the red light; and (3) The friend suffered $100,000 in damages. As a result, the court should enter a judgment for the friend in the amount of

Choices:
- $100,000. 00
- $55,000. 00
- $45,000. 00
- nothing, because the fan was more negligentthan the driver.


Question: Denise Developer found a near-perfect piece of property zoned commercial in the downtown area of Pleasantville. She hired an architect to design a high tech office building with an objective of attracting upscale tech-industry tenants. She approached Microhard and secured a lease agreement for over half of the available square footage. The lease was not recorded, but the agreement allowed Denise to attract other wealthy tenants. She also disclosed the Microhard lease on her application for a $1,500,000 construction loan from Maximum Mortgage Company. Denise executed a mortgage and related promissory note in favor of Maximum. Maximum recorded the mortgage immediately. The office building was completed and Denise had more tenant demand than available space, so the building opened full. One year later, Denise ran into financial trouble and defaulted on the mortgage. Maximum took possession and immediately notified all the tenants that their leases were cancelled, that they were evicted, and that they must vacate immediately unless they were willing to sign a new lease at double the previous rent. The recording statute in the jurisdiction specified "every conveyance, encumbrance, or lease not recorded is void as against any subsequent party recording first." The tenants retained you to compel Maximum to honor the leases at the lower rents. Which of the following statements of advice is the most accurate?

Choices:
- All the tenants will prevail (unless otherwise in default on their leases), because Maximum loaned money to Denise with actual knowledge that she intended to enter into binding leases with the tenants.
- Microhard is entitled to continue their lease because Maximum had constructive notice of their prior lease.
- Microhard is entitled to continue their lease because Maximum had actual notice of their prior lease.
- All the tenants should renegotiate their leases with Maximum.


Question: A man conveys to his wife's cousin a property to "cousin and the heirs of his body." He then conveys the same property to his niece in fee simple. Under modern real estate laws and practice in most states today, what interest if any does his niece have?

Choices:
- The conveyance gives the niece nothing because the property was already conveyed in fee simple to his wife's cousin.
- She gets a reversion in case the cousin has no heir of his body at his death.
- A contingent remainder based upon whether or not cousin has heirs.
- She has a fee simple.


Question: A landlord leased an apartment to a tenant on a month-to-month basis beginning on the first of the month, with rent payable monthly. Five months into the lease, the tenant failed to pay rent. The landlord then sued the tenant for possession for nonpayment of rent. The tenant successfully defended this suit on the ground that the apartment was uninhabitable and that, accordingly, no rent was properly payable. On May 7, immediately following the court order in the tenant's favor, the landlord served the tenant with a written but not notarized notice to terminate the tenancy and to vacate the apartment on or before June 30. On July 1, the tenant was still in possession, nothing had changed, and the landlord brought an appropriate action for possession. The tenant prevailed. What is the most likely reason for the court's decision?

Choices:
- A six-month notice was required to terminate this periodic tenancy.
- The landlord did not give the tenant a notarized notice of termination.
- The landlord was attempting to terminate the tenancy as a reaction to the tenant's defense in the previous lawsuit.
- The landlord's notice to terminate was improper, because it was given to the tenant more than one month before the required termination date.


Question: A manufacturer created a new brand of fish tackle which they sold throughout the country. Congress now imposes a tax of 14 cents on each set of tackle sold in the United States. This tax is

Choices:
- unconstitutional, because the tackle is sold in interstate commerce.
- unconstitutional, because it interferes with the sovereign right of state governments to engage in intrastate commerce.
- constitutional, because the supremacy clause validates laws enacted by Congress.
- constitutional, because it is within the power of Congress to raise revenue.


Question: In an automobile accident case, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by driving at an excessive speed. The defendant's attorney calls its first witness, who was standing along the side of the road when the plaintiff's and defendant's cars collided. The defendant's attorney asks the witness: "Is it a fact that in your estimation, plaintiff was traveling at a speed of 45 m. p. h. in a 35 m. p. h. speed zone at the time of the accident?" The plaintiff objects. The trial judge should

Choices:
- overrule the objection, because the judge may take judicial notice of the speed limit within the jurisdiction.
- overrule the objection if the witness has already been shown to be an experienced driver who was able to estimate the approximate speed of moving vehicles.
- sustain the objection if the witness has not been qualified as an expert witness.
- sustain the objection, because the witness is not an adverse witness.


Question: If certain fundamental rights are denied to some individuals but not others, then it is considered what type of problem?

Choices:
- Substantive due process problem
- Equal protection problem
- Procedural due process problem
- None of these


Question: A local ordinance in Breezytown allows the mayor to decide who may get a permit to speak in the city park. The ordinance is broad, stating only that the mayor can use his discretion in granting permits. If someone just extemporaneously gives a political speech in the park without a permit and were arrested and convicted, would this be constitutional?

Choices:
- Yes, because the ordinance controls.
- Yes, because he didn't have a permit.
- No, the ordinance is void on its face.
- No, because it is a public park.


Question: Assume this question takes place in a "lien theory" state. A woman and her co-habiting partner share a property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. He has run up debts that he did not tell her about, and so he uses his interest in the property to secretly get a mortgage from the bank. When he dies, the bank attempts to execute on the mortgage. Can it do so? Apply the majority view on this issue.

Choices:
- No, the mortgage lien could not destroy the joint tenancy, and when the partner dies, the property passes by operation of law to the surviving joint tenant.
- No, although the mortgage destroyed the joint tenancy, the bank has to get a deed of trust in order to execute on jointly owned property.
- Yes, the bank got title to the property by virtue of the mortgage, which destroyed the joint tenancy, and it can execute on its lien.
- Yes, the mortgage was the equivalent of a deed of trust and the joint tenancy was severed by the mortgage lien, giving the bank unfettered legal authority to execute on its mortgage.


Question: In an action for malpractice, a plaintiff sued a doctor, claiming that the latter failed to properly diagnose his emphysema condition. The plaintiff contends that he went to the doctor for a medical examination after experiencing chest pains and shortness of breath. However, the doctor found no evidence of the disease and advised him that he was probably suffering from indigestion. Thereafter, the plaintiff was examined by another doctor who discovered that the plaintiff in fact was suffering from a chronic case of emphysema. At trial, the plaintiff calls the other doctor as his first witness. The other doctor proposes to testify the x-rays of the plaintiff's lungs showed that his respiratory organs were marked by distension, which was characteristic of emphysema. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the testimony should be

Choices:
- admitted, because a doctor is properly qualified as an expert in medical matters.
- admitted, because the other doctor followed accepted medical practice in arriving at his opinion.
- excluded, because his opinion is based upon facts not in evidence.
- excluded, because the x-rays are the best evidence to show the distension of the plaintiff's lungs.


Question: A young lawyer worked late at her office one night. When she finally decided to go home, she headed to the elevator, got in, and pushed the button for the ground floor. The elevator went all the way to the ground floor, but then just stopped there. The doors did not open. The lawyer tried pushing each of the buttons in the elevator and tried to use the intercom in the elevator to call for help, but nothing on the elevator's control panel seemed to be functioning. The lawyer was afraid that she would be stuck in the elevator all night. She began pounding on the doors and yelling. She started to feel panicked, hyperventilated, lost consciousness, and fell to the floor of the elevator. As she fell, she struck her head on the elevator wall, causing a large bump and bruise on her head. She was unconscious in the elevator for about 30 minutes before a security guard tried to use the elevator and realized it wasn't working. The guard managed to force the doors open and found the lawyer. At that moment, the lawyer regained consciousness. An investigation revealed that the elevator stopped working because it had not been properly maintained. The owner of the building had canceled all service and maintenance work on the elevator in order to save money. If the lawyer sues the building owner for false imprisonment, she will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because she was confined in the elevator for an unreasonably long period of time.
- prevail, because she was injured during her confinement in the elevator.
- not prevail, because the building owner did not intentionally cause the lawyer to be confined.
- not prevail, because the lawyer was unconscious and unaware of what was happening for most of the confinement period.


Question: A famous environmentalist was the owner of a large tract of virgin forest. The environmentalist conveyed the tract "to the people of the state in fee simple; provided, however, that if any portion of said tract shall ever be used or developed for any commercial purpose or otherwise converted from its natural state (with exception for recreational, scientific, or educational purposes), then the grantor or his successors in interest may re-enter as of the grantor's former estate. "The interest of the state in the tract would be best described as a (an)

Choices:
- fee simple determinable.
- fee simple subject to condition subsequent.
- easement appurtenant.
- determinable fee subject to an executory interest.


Question: A buyer purchased a gallon of nonfat milk from a market. The milk, which was sold in a plastic container, had been processed and packaged by a dairy. That evening, the buyer was preparing dinner and poured himself a glass of milk from the container purchased at the market. He then sat down to eat his meal and proceeded to take a mouthful of milk. As he did so, the buyer felt something furry lodge in his mouth. He immediately spat out the furry object and saw that it was a dead mouse. The buyer suffered severe emotional distress but did not suffer any physical illness or injury. If the buyer asserts a claim against the dairy based on negligent manufacturing, he will most likely

Choices:
- recover, because he suffered severe emotional distress.
- recover, under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
- not recover, because the dairy's negligence only caused mental disturbance.
- not recover, because the buyer's proper cause of action is for intentional infliction of mental distress.


Question: The defendant was on a date when the victim invited him up to her apartment for coffee. The defendant and the victim began to kiss on the couch. The defendant lifted the victim's shirt, and the victim gently pushed the defendant's hand away and then left the couch to make coffee. While the victim was making coffee, the defendant picked up her solid gold ring that she had carelessly left on the living room table. Intending to give it back to her with a diamond in it, he put it into his pocket and got ready to leave. Before the defendant went home, he stopped into a bar. There he met a patron who offered to sell him a two-month-old plasma TV for $200. The patron said that he would take only cash and that he also had some unboxed silverware and jewehy he could sell the defendant from his van, which was parked outside. The patron said, "You better decide fast, because I've got to get out of town right away. " The defendant, who knew that the TV was worth $1,000, gave the patron $200, and the patron gave the defendant the TV, which was not in a box. The patron did not tell the defendant he had just stolen the television from a house down the street. Based on the above facts, for which of the following crimes should the defendant be convicted?

Choices:
- Battery upon the victim, and larceny of the ring.
- Larceny of the ring.
- Embezzlement of the ring.
- Receiving stolen property.


Question: A developer wished to build an apartment house in a local city. He raised $1 million from various sources to fund the project. After searching for a vacant lot that would be sufficient for development, the developer concluded that there was not a suitable vacant lot available. Reluctantly, the developer concluded that he would have to purchase a developed lot, have the existing structures removed, and then build the apartment house. The developer was reluctant to do this, because he had not budgeted for the additional cost of buying a developed property and removing the development. After a search for an appropriate parcel, the developer purchased a large lot, developed with a single-story residential home, for $200,000. He then spent $50,000 having the residential home removed from the lot. Knowing that it would cost approximately $850,000 to build the apartment house, the developer realized he would need to raise another $100,000. He approached an investor about lending him $100,000. The investor was apprehensive about the project because the developer had not yet lined up a construction firm to build the apartment house. As a result, the parties signed the following written agreement:"The investor promises to lend to the developer $100,000 at 5 percent interest within 30 days, provided the developer contracts with a construction company to build the apartment house for no more than $850,000. Loan to be repaid at the rate of $1,000 per month, starting one month after the completion of the apartment house. The loan is to be secured by a mortgage on the property. "The developer then contracted with a construction company to build the apartment for $800,000. After the contract was signed and construction had begun, the developer asked the investor when he would be receiving the $100,000 the investor promised to lend him. The investor replied, "I've changed my mind. I think this is too risky an investment. I'm not going to lend you the money. "In an appropriate action to secure specific performance of the investor's promise to lend him the $100,000, the developer will

Choices:
- win, because there is a memorandum that satisfies the Statute of Frauds.
- win, because land is unique, making the legal remedy inadequate.
- lose, because the developer's only remedy is for damages.
- lose, because the developer cannot show detrimental reliance.


Question: A builder contracted in writing to construct a small greenhouse on a homeowner's property for $20,000, payable upon completion. After the builder had spent $9,000 framing the greenhouse and an additional $1,000 for materials not yet incorporated into the greenhouse, the homeowner wrongfully ordered the builder to stop work. The builder then resold the unused materials that he had already purchased for the greenhouse to another contractor for $1,000. At the time the homeowner stopped the work, it would have cost the builder an additional $5,000 to complete the project. The an additional $5,000 to complete the project. The partially built greenhouse increased the value of the homeowner's property by $3,000. In a suit by the builder against the homeowner, how much is the builder likely to recover?

Choices:
- $3,000, the increase in the value of the homeowner's property.
- $10,000, the total cost expended by the builder at the time of the breach.
- $14,000, the total cost expended by the builder ($10,000) plus the builder's expected profit ($5,000), minus the loss avoided by the resale of the unused materials ($1,000).
- $15,000, the contract price ($20,000) minus the costs saved by the breach ($5,000).


Question: A group advocating the resumption of U. S. diplomatic relations with certain foreign countries planned to hold a rally at a park in the downtown section of a city. The group secured a rally permit in accordance with a local ordinance. Several members of the group, including a political science professor at a state university and one of the group's leaders, were scheduled to give speeches. Other members of the group were assigned to walk among the crowd to solicit signatures for a petition, which the group planned to present to the President. A large crowd gathered in the park at the appointed date and time, anxiously waiting for the speeches to begin. As the professor, the first speaker, began addressing the gathering, a television news team started filming her presentation, which was to be shown on the local news that evening. After the professor finished her speech, a few members of the crowd began hissing and booing and shouting. The police soon arrived and attempted to break up the rally. Several members of the group, including the professor, were arrested for inciting a riot. Which of the following would be the most accurate statement with regard to the police halting the rally?

Choices:
- The police were justified, since the rally threatened imminent violence and serious disorder.
- The police were justified in order to protect the group's leaders.
- The police violated the group's First Amendment rights of assembly.
- Since the group obtained the rally permit, the police were not permitted to interfere with the staging of the rally.


Question: A man filed a federal diversity action against a bus company, seeking damages for injuries he had sustained in an accident while riding a bus owned by the company. The man demanded a jury trial. After the parties' attorneys examined the prospective jurors and exercised their challenges, six jurors and two alternate jurors were chosen. During the trial, two jurors became ill and were replaced by the alternate jurors. At the conclusion of replaced by the alternate jurors. At the conclusion of the trial, a third juror also became ill, and the court excused that juror. The parties' attorneys stipulated to the return of a verdict from a five-person jury. The jury then deliberated and returned a verdict for the company. The man timely filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the five-person jury was not large enough to return a verdict. Should the court grant the motion?

Choices:
- No, because the court properly excused the three jurors due to illness.
- No, because the parties stipulated to a verdict from a jury of fewer than six jurors.
- Yes, because there must be at least six jurors on a federal civil jury.
- Yes, because there must be at least 12 jurors on a federal civil jury.


Question: Bob Wilson borrowed $20,000 from Ted Lamar to open a hardware store. Ted's only interest in the business was the repayment of his 5-year unsecured loan. Bob was so grateful for the loan that he named his business "Wilson and Lamar Hardware" and purchased signs and advertising displaying this name. He also listed Bob Wilson and Ted Lamar as "partners" on his stationery. When Ted found out, he was flattered to the point that he voluntarily reduced Bob's interest rate from 9 percent to 8 percent per annum. A few weeks later, Pete Smith, who had assumed that both Wilson and Lamar were operating the hardware store and was not familiar with the true situation, sold goods to Wilson and Lamar Hardware. Pete Smith has been unable to collect for the goods and he seeks your advice. Your advice to Pete is

Choices:
- only Bob Wilson is liable.
- Bob Wilson and Ted Lamar are liable jointly.
- Bob Wilson is liable for the entire amount and Ted Lamar is liable only to the extent the debt cannot be collected from Bob Wilson.
- only the de facto partnership arising from the relationship between Wilson and Lamar is liable.


Question: A defendant met her friend at the electronics store where the friend worked. Unbeknownst to the defendant, her friend had taken a music player from the display case and stuffed it in her bag earlier in the day. Knowing that employees are subject to search when they leave the store, the friend surreptitiously put the music player into the defendant's bag. The defendant and her friend proceeded to a local tavern and drank shots of tequila. The friend became intoxicated and forgot to retrieve the stolen music player from the defendant's bag. After leaving the tavern, the defendant proceeded home. Upon opening her bag, she was surprised to see the music player. Believing that the music player had accidentally fallen into her bag at the bar, the defendant planned to return it the next day. The following day, however, the defendant changed her mind and decided to keep it. The defendant is guilty of

Choices:
- receiving stolen property.
- larceny.
- receiving stolen property and larceny.
- neither receiving stolen property nor larceny.


Question: An owner operated a successful retail business. He decided he wanted to retire and listed his business for sale. A buyer saw the listing and visited the retail business. The buyer told the owner that she was very interested in buying the business, but that she needed to get a loan from the bank to finance the purchase. The parties drafted a contract, signed by both parties, which stated that the buyer agreed to purchase the retail business from the owner for $250,000. The written agreement contained a provision wherein the sale would not take effect "unless the buyer is successful in her bid to obtain a loan from a bank to finance the purchase of the business. " Subsequently, the buyer made no effort to attempt to obtain a loan from a bank so that the sale could be finalized. After several months, the owner filed suit against the buyer for breach of contract. Which of the following will be the owner's strongest argument in support of his action against the buyer for breach of contract?

Choices:
- The obtaining of a loan from a bank was not worded as a "condition" to the buyer's duty to buy the business.
- Although obtaining a loan from a bank was a condition to the buyer's duty to buy the business, the condition should be excused because its non-occurrence would cause a forfeiture to the owner.
- Although obtaining a loan from a bank was a condition to the buyer's duty to buy the business, it should be stricken from the contract because it is an unconscionable term.
- The buyer breached an implied promise to make a reasonable effort to obtain a loan from a bank.


Question: An employee worked for a hardware company in a city under an at-will-employment arrangement that paid the employee a monthly salary of $2,000. After two years, the owner of the hardware store told the employee it was time for them to enter into a more formalized employment agreement. The owner and the employee then both signed a written agreement drafted by the owner, whereby the employee agreed to work for a salary of $3,000 per month. The agreement further specified that either party had a right to terminate the contract by giving 60- days' notice to the other. Moreover, the agreement stipulated that if the employee's employment at the hardware store should be terminated, he would not be able to engage in any aspect of the hardware business for a period of two years within a 50-mile radius of the city. Finally, the agreement stated that should the employee violate this agreement, he would be liable to the hardware company for $1,500. The written agreement between the owner and the employee would most likely be held

Choices:
- enforceable in all respects.
- enforceable only with respect to the salary and termination provisions.
- enforceable in all respects, except with regard to the $1,500 penalty clause.
- unenforceable in all respects.


Question: A woman duly executed a will under which she devised her farm to her nephew and bequeathed the residue of her estate to her niece. For 12 years after executing her will, the woman lived on her farm. Then she sold it and used the sales proceeds to purchase a home in the city, in which she lived until she died, never having changed her will. Following the admission of the will to probate, both the nephew and the niece claimed ownership of the home. There is no applicable statute. Who is the owner of the home?

Choices:
- The nephew, because of the doctrine of ademption.
- The nephew, because of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
- The niece, because of the doctrine of lapse.
- The niece, because she is the residuary legatee.


Question: A plaintiff was suffering from a respiratory infection and his doctor prescribed for him a drug that was manufactured by a pharmaceutical company. With every prescription of this drug distributed, the company inserted a written warning, which stated:"Use of this drug may cause dizziness. "In accordance with the prescription, the plaintiff received a four-day supply of the drug from his neighborhood pharmacy, which passed along the warning to the plaintiff. After two days, the plaintiff felt much better and went back to work at a home improvement store, where he was the manager. The plaintiff continued to take the drug until his supply was exhausted. On the fourth day, the plaintiff took his final capsule at 2:00 p. m. While he was driving his car home at 5:45 that afternoon, he became dizzy and crashed into a tree. As a result, he received multiple injuries. The plaintiff decided to consult an attorney, who filed a lawsuit on the plaintiff's behalf against the pharmaceutical company, alleging that the company was responsible for the accident and resulting injuries on the theories of negligence and strict liability. At trial, the plaintiff's attorney attempts to introduce evidence that subsequent to this accident, the company expanded its warning to read: "Use of this drug may cause dizziness. Do not drive for five hours after use. "Such evidence is

Choices:
- admissible as an indication that the company did not use due care in wording its original warning.
- admissible as a declaration against interest, to prove the possibility of alternate warnings.
- inadmissible to show that the company was negligent in wording its original warning.
- inadmissible, because the subsequent warning is not relevant to the feasibility of a modified warning.


Question: An employee had been employed by a hotel as a window cleaner for eight years when the hotel issued to him and other employees the following certificate:"In appreciation of the faithful service hitherto rendered by you as an employee of this hotel, there will be paid in the event of your death, if still an employee of this hotel, to the party designated by you below as your beneficiary, the sum of $5,000. The issuance of this certificate is understood to be purely gratuitous. "Upon receipt of the certificate, the employee designated his wife as beneficiary, signed it, and returned the form to the hotel. One year later, while still employed by the hotel, the employee died. In an action by the employee's widow against the hotel to recover the sum of $5,000, which of the following, if established, is the strongest argument against enforcement of the certificate agreement?

Choices:
- The widow was unaware of the certificate agreement until after the employee died.
- There was no privity of contract between the widow and the hotel.
- The widowin no way relied on the hotel's promise to pay the $5,000.
- There was insufficient consideration to support the certificate agreement.


Question: Two co-defendants were investment brokers at a bank. They had been employed by the bank for ten years. One day, they were unexpectedly fired by the bank's new manager. Apparently, the co-defendants' investments had not been performing well in the economic downturn. The co-defendants, upset and humiliated by their firing, vowed to get back at the bank. As their revenge, they decided to plant a bomb in the bank and demand $2,000,000. After receiving the money, they would then reveal the location of the bomb and provide details for defusing it. The co-defendants agreed that the bank should be given adequate warning so that nobody would be injured. In accordance with their plan, the co-defendants consulted the Internet, where they found all the information they needed on how to build a bomb. They built the bomb and placed it in a supply closet. Shortly thereafter, they phoned the bank and made a demand for the money. They said a bomb was in the bank and that it would explode in 24 hours unless the money was paid. The bank refused to pay the money. Realizing that their plan had gone awry, they drove to the bank to attempt to defuse the bomb. As they were driving back to the bank, the bomb exploded, killing 30 people. If the co-defendants are charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder, which of the following statements is correct?

Choices:
- Both co-defendants are guilty of felony murder, but neither is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder.
- Both co-defendants are guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
- Both co-defendants are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, but not murder.
- Both co-defendants are not guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.


Question: A wealthy retiree had amassed a fortune after selling his pharmaceutical company. The retiree and his wife lived in an exquisitely decorated penthouse apartment overlooking a park. One night, the retiree and his wife were returning home from dinner when they were accosted by a man outside their apartment building. The man brandished a gun and told the retiree and his wife to take him to their apartment. Upon entering the apartment, the man blindfolded the retiree and his wife and tied them up with duct tape to chairs in the living room. The man then stole the retiree's wallet and assorted jewelry from the bedroom. After the man exited the apartment, the retiree and his wife tried desperately to free themselves from their constraints. As the retiree was struggling, he suffered a heart attack and died. The man should be found guilty of

Choices:
- burglary.
- robbery and burglary.
- robbery and murder.
- burglary, robbery, and murder.


Question: A pregnant woman was sitting on her front porch watching her husband mow the lawn. A friend of the woman had known the woman for years and knew that she was an easily excitable person. The friend also hated the woman's husband. Knowing that the woman was present, the friend drew a pistol and threatened to kill the husband. The woman suffered severe emotional distress as a result of witnessing this incident and soon afterward had a miscarriage. In an action by the woman against the friend for mental anguish resulting in her miscarriage, the woman will

Choices:
- lose, because the friend did not intend for the woman to suffer a miscarriage.
- lose, because the friend's actions were directed against the husband, not the woman.
- win, because it was highly probable that the friend's extreme and outrageous conduct would cause emotional distress to the woman.
- win, because she is the husband's wife.


Question: A law student and two friends were at a mall peacefully handing out fliers in protest of U.S. Middle East policy. The mall owner called the police, who warned them to stop or they would be arrested. They returned the next day and continued to leaflet. The police came again and issued another warning. The law student left to avoid arrest, but the police arrested his companions for criminal trespass and loitering. The law student, in an attempt to get an advance ruling on the constitutionality of the criminal statutes, filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court asking for declaratory relief. Based on Supreme Court precedent will the federal district court dismiss the declaratory judgment action?

Choices:
- Yes, the declaratory relief would interfere with existing state prosecutions and would therefore be disallowed for reasons of equity and comity.
- No, because a federal plaintiff may seek a declaratory judgment even if he is not threatened with a state prosecution on the state statute.
- No, because the law student can show a genuine threat of enforcement against him, as evidenced by the arrest of his companions and prior warnings.
- Yes, the declaratory relief would be premature because the law student's fears of a future arrest are entirely speculative on his part.


Question: A man who owned a haberdashery placed an order by telephone from a wholesale supplier of cashmere and wool clothing, for "triple-dozen purple cashmere socks, size 10 13 at current resale price. " The supplier's sales agent orally accepted the order at the agreed price of $250 per dozen. In accordance with the supplier's customary business practice, the sales agent then mailed the following confirmation letter, which he signed and dated:"As per your telephone order, this letter serves to confirm the purchase of 36 dozen cashmere socks, color purple, size 10 13, at the agreed price of $250 per dozen. Total sales price: $9,000. "This letter was received by the man, who briefly glanced at it but failed to notice the "36 dozen" wording or the total price. The man placed the letter in his files and did not respond to it. Three weeks later, the supplier tendered 36 dozen purple cashmere socks, which the man rejected on the grounds that he had ordered only three dozen. The supplier resold the same purple cashmere socks to another buyer for a total price of $8,000. The supplier sued the man for the $1,000 difference. If the man pleads the statute of frauds as a defense, will such a defense be successful?

Choices:
- Yes, because the statute was not satisfied by the supplier's tender of the goods, which were rejected by the man, and the supplier did not rely on the oral agreement other than by attempting delivery.
- Yes, because the agreed price for three dozen socks was over $500, and the supplier's written memo incorrectly stated the quantity of goods ordered.
- No, because the supplier's written memo was sufficient to satisf' the statute as against the supplier, and the man, having reason to know of the memo's contents, failed to give notice of objection within 10 days of receipt.
- No, because the supplier's written memo operated as an acceptance, with proposals for additional terms that became part of the contract after the man failed to object to such additional terms within a reasonable time.


Question: On Thursday, March 7, an owner's home was destroyed by fire. The owner's house was insured against such fire loss by an insurance company. According to the policy contract, the insured was required to notify the insurance company within 10 days following any loss due to fire or other catastrophe. The owner sued the insurance company to recover $750,000, which was the face amount that his home was insured for. The insurance company admitted that the owner's house was insured for that amount, though the company denied liability because it claimed that it had not received notice of the fire within the 10-day period as required by the policy. At trial, the owner calls his bookkeeper to testify. The bookkeeper proposes to testify that on March 11, the owner handed her an envelope and told her it contained a notice form for the insurance company, and that she mailed the envelope on his behalf. If the bookkeeper intends to establish that the envelope that the owner handed her contained the notice of fire loss, her proposed testimony is

Choices:
- admissible, because the owner's statement to her is non-hearsay.
- admissible, because a letter properly mailed is presumed received in due course.
- inadmissible, because the owner's statement to the bookkeeper is not the best evidence.
- inadmissible, because the owner's statement to the bookkeeper is hearsay not within any exception.


Question: Sally Sobriety, owner of Greenacre and Blackacre, was a recovering alcoholic. Sally's only heir was her daughter Betty Boozer, a heavy drinker. In an attempt to encourage Betty to go on the wagon, Sally conveyed Greenacre to "Friend and her heirs, but if liquor is ever consumed on the property, then to Betty." Sally conveyed Blackacre to "Associate and her heirs, but if Associate ever consumes alcohol on the property, then to Betty." One year later, Friend and Associate both began hosting wine-tasting events on their properties, at which they each personally consumed substantial alcohol. Sally was so shocked that she had a stroke and died. The property interests of the following parcels of land should go to

Choices:
- Betty // Betty
- Friend // Betty
- Betty // Associate
- Friend // Associate


Question: A prisoner was serving a life sentence in a state prison as a result of his conviction for the murder of a child who had trespassed onto his farmland. The prisoner came from a family of farmers, dating back to at least 1750. His family believed that all nourishment comes from the ground and that one's soul will be saved only if his diet consists totally of natural, farm-grown food. The prisoner followed that belief and ate only fresh fruits and vegetables. He further believes that a higher power has commanded him to eat only vegetarian foods. When the prisoner entered the prison state prison officials agreed to grant his wishes and served him only fresh fruits and vegetables for his meals. After six months, deciding that catering to his special diet was overly burdensome and administratively unworkable, the officials decided to stop giving the prisoner special treatment and began to serve him the same food as served to the rest of the prison population. Although nothing physically prohibited the prisoner from eating and surviving on the general prison population's diet, he refused to eat the food that was not in conformity with his special diet. The prisoner's best constitutional argument to support his claim of the right to a fresh fruit and vegetable diet is based on

Choices:
- the First Amendment.
- the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as applied to the states.
- the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process clause.
- the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: A man and a woman who were friends decided to buy a car together. The man put $5,000 down and the woman's father co-signed on the loan of $10,000. The title was put in the woman's name and the man made the loan payments. They orally agreed that it was a shared ownership, with equal rights. After several months, their relationship deteriorated. They argued over ownership and use of the car. One day, the man attempted to leave with the car, but the woman climbed in and kept arguing as he was driving away. He then crashed into a pole and destroyed the car just to spite her, saying that if he couldn't have it no one would have it. The authorities arrested the man for auto larceny (stealing a car from the owner) and criminal mischief (damaging property of another or property shared with another). Assuming the accuracy of the foregoing facts beyond a reasonable doubt, which crime or crimes alleged can likely result in a sustainable conviction?

Choices:
- He can be convicted of larceny but he cannot be convicted of criminal mischief.
- He cannot be convicted of any crime.
- He can be convicted of criminal mischief only.
- He can be convicted of both larceny and criminal mischief.


Question: To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?

Choices:
- The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
- State durational residence requirements that are estab-lished for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
- Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
- State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: | Driveway--------------------------------------------------------------House | House |-------------------------------------------------------------- | Garage | House--------------------------------------------------------------LOT3 | LOT2 | LOT1 --------------------------------------------------------------(TEACHER) | (NEIGHBOR) | (CO-WORKER | | & BOSS)-------------------------------------------------------------On March 1, 1999, a landowner, the sole owner and occupant of lot 1, died and devised lot ito both his co-worker and his boss "as their community property. " The co-worker and boss were siblings, and neither was married. Lot 1 consisted of a single- family house with a yard, garage, and driveway. On May 1, 1999, the boss moved into the house on lot 1. One year later, the co-worker and the boss executed and delivered the following deed instrument to a neighbor ". . . hereby grant to (the neighbor) the northerly 30 feet of lot 1, consisting of the paved driveway now existing, to be used for the ingress and egress of motor vehicles, but should (the neighbor) or his heirs and assigns use said property for any other purpose, all the rights, privileges, and immunities herein granted shall cease and determine. " In consideration for the said deed, the neighbor paid the co-worker and the boss $2,000 (which they divided equally). The deed was never recorded by the neighbor. Because the boss didn't own a car, she never used the driveway. Similarly, the neighbor never used the driveway because he unexpectedly had his driver's license suspended shortly after executing the above instrument. The boss died intestate on May 1, 2001, leaving her daughter as her sole heir. Following her mother's death, the daughter moved into the house on May 2, 2001. On June 1, 2001 the neighbor sold lot 2 to a professor by a deed that contained no mention of the driveway located on lot 1. The neighbor and the professor assumed that the latter had the right to use the driveway, so they didn't insert any recitations in their deed instrument regarding the driveway. Immediately upon her taking possession of the premises, the daughter began to use the driveway on lot 1. Consequently, she objected to the professor's use of the driveway. After the daughter refused to permit the professor to use the driveway, he brought suit to determine his right to continue use of the driveway. The professor should

Choices:
- win, because he acquired an implied easement to use the driveway as owner of the dominant tenement.
- win, because the neighbor's easement to use the driveway was conveyed to the professor.
- lose, because the Statute of Frauds was not satisfied.
- lose, because the neighbor's non-use of the driveway effectuated an abandonment of the easement.


Question: A buyer signed a contract to purchase a newly built home from the builder-seller. After paying the sale price and taking occupancy, the buyer experienced drainage and interior flooding problems with the home. The city issued citations against the owner for not following code regulations regarding construction on a flood-prone slope. The buyer asked the seller to repair all of the defects at his own expense but the seller refused. The buyer brought an action in court alleging breach of warranty against the builder-seller. Will the court hold the builderseller liable to live up to any warranties in favor of the buyer?

Choices:
- No, the buyer had an obligation to make a full inspection and discover any defects prior to paying the full price and taking occupancy.
- No, the law regarding a building purchase is based on the premise "Let the buyer beware."
- Yes, every builder-seller warrants that a newly constructed home is built in a good and workmanlike manner.
- Yes, the seller has strict liability to the buyer for any defects that arise within one year of the sale.


Question: A 17-year-old boy was jostling with his 12-year-old brother. A pedestrian witnessed the boy shoving his brother and mistakenly believed that they were fighting. Acting as a Good Samaritan, the pedestrian approached the boys and tried to intercede. The boy stumbled and accidentally fell into the pedestrian, knocking him to the ground. The pedestrian broke his arm as a result of the fall. If the pedestrian sues the boy to recover damages for his injury, he should

Choices:
- prevail, because the pedestrian reasonably believed that the boy was about to injure his brother.
- prevail, based upon the doctrine of transferred intent.
- not prevail, because the pedestrian assumed the risk.
- not prevail, unless the boy was negligent.


Question: A defendant and his friend were drinking heavily one night at the friend's house. They both became intoxicated. After several hours, both the friend and the defendant passed out. In the middle of the night, the defendant awoke with a headache. He went down to the kitchen and poured himself another shot of whiskey. The defendant also felt hungry and decided to make himself some eggs. After fixing his snack, he inadvertently forgot to turn off the stove. A gas leak occurred, causing a fire that burned down the house. If the defendant is charged with arson, he will be found

Choices:
- guilty, because the defendant was reckless.
- guilty, because the defendant was criminally negligent.
- not guilty, because the defendant did not commit a felony.
- not guilty, because arson requires the presence of malice.


Question: In which of the following situations would the actions of the defendant(s) constitute a burglary?

Choices:
- A defendant, seeking shelter from a severe snowstorm, broke into a house. When he awoke the next morning, the defendant noticed a transistor radio, which he put into his pocket before fleeing the house.
- A defendant was walking past a home when he saw the homeowner sitting in a chair near the window. Angered at the homeowner for stealing his former girlfriend, the defendant picked up a large brick that was lying nearby and hurled it through the window, intending to kill the homeowner.
- Late one afternoon, two defendants were walking down the street when they noticed an open window at a doctor's office. The defendants crawled through the window, broke open his medicine cabinet, and stole various drugs.
- Late one evening as a guest was registering ata hotel, a defendant noticed that the guest wasa guy who owed him money from a bet. Afterthe guest had retired to his room, the defendantbroke into his room and threatened him regarding the money he was owed.


Question: Several states have enacted laws shielding reporters from being compelled to release the names of confidential sources. Now, Congress, under intense lobbying pressure from the press, proposes to enact legislation forbidding any state from requiring journalists to reveal the sources of their news articles in civil suits. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument in support of this proposed law?

Choices:
- Congress has the authority under the commerce clause to regulate the flow of news.
- Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land and take precedence over any conflicting state laws.
- Congress is essentially reaffirming the free speech guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the authority to secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.


Question: A state built a racetrack that was specially designed and constructed for thoroughbred horseracing. State bonds were issued to finance the construction of the racetrack. The bond agreement provided that for the first five years the racetrack was in operation, at least $2 from each admission charge would be used to repay the bond debt. The bond agreement further stipulated that if the proceeds from the admission charges during the first five years were not sufficient to repay the bondholders, then at least $1 from each admission charge for the next five years would be applied to make the necessary bond payments. After the racetrack was built and in operation for two years, the state legislature passed a bill requiring the racetrack to admit all senior citizens over the age of 65 for the discounted admission fee of 50 cents. This law is probably

Choices:
- constitutional, because it is a justifiable exercise of the state's police power.
- unconstitutional, because it denies citizens under the age of 65 the equal protection of the law.
- unconstitutional, because it impairs the obligation of the bondholders' contract.
- unconstitutional, because it is an ex post facto law.


Question: This jurisdiction has the following bribery statute in effect:"Any person who offers or gives a thing of value to a government officeholder in exchange for official action is guilty of bribery. "A real estate developer owned a large parcel of land in the suburbs. Although the developer wanted to build an office building on the property, the land was zoned residential. Due to the residential zoning, the developer could not pursue his planned development unless he received a variance from the building commission. The developer held a meeting with a member of the building commission to solicit his approval in securing a zoning variance. To do so, the developer gave the commission member $10,000 in exchange for his support in approving the zoning variance. Thereupon, the commission member voted to approve the variance, thus making it possible for the developer to commence construction of the office building. The developer was subsequently prosecuted for conspiracy to commit bribery. During the course of the trial, the commission member testified that he faked the agreement with the developer and would have approved the zoning variance regardless of whether the developer gave him any money. Furthermore, in his defense, the developer presented evidence that the other six members of the building commission voted affirmatively to approve the variance. If the jury believed that the commission member would have approved the variance even had he not received the $10,000, the developer should be found

Choices:
- guilty, because the commission member's agreement to accept the $10,000 was sufficient to form a conspiratorial objective.
- guilty, because he gave the commission member the $10,000 in exchange for his approval of the zoning variance.
- not guilty, because the commission member did not receive a thing of value, since he would have approved the variance regardless of receiving any payment from the developer.
- not guilty, because there was no true agreement between the parties.


Question: A defendant and a victim were roommates at college. The defendant was playing the role of a serial killer in the school play and asked the victim if she could leave their apartment for a few hours while she rehearsed. The victim agreed but returned to the apartment shortly thereafter because she was curious and wanted to see the defendant rehearse. The victim quietly came back into the apartment and hid behind some curtains in the dining room in order to watch the defendant rehearse. In her role, the defendant earned a large butcher's knife, with which she stabbed the curtains at her "victim. " Unknown to the defendant, the victim, who was hiding behind the curtain, was stabbed in the chest and killed. If the defendant is prosecuted for the victim's death, she should be found

Choices:
- guilty of murder.
- guilty of manslaughter.
- guilty of battery.
- not guilty.