Question: After the close of the pleadings both plaintiff and defendant duly made motions for summary judgment. Which of the following statements is correct?

Choices:
- Summary judgment can be entered only after all discovery has been completed.
- Motion for summary judgment is the proper motion on the ground that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action.
- Since both parties have filed summary judgment motions that assert there are no genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment for plaintiff or defendant will be granted.
- If plaintiff's proofs submitted in support of his motion for summary judgment are not contradicted and if plaintiff's proofs show that no genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment will be granted even if defendant's answer denied plaintiff's complaint.


Question: A state labor code provided that no employer in the state shall knowingly employ an alien who is not lawfully residing in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful residents' right to work. A group of immigrant farm workers were continually refused employment contracts by the labor contractors in the state. Instead, the labor contractors had employed many alien workers since they would toil longer hours for less wages. The immigrant farm workers now bring suit in state court pursuant to the above-mentioned statutory provision. Which of the following determinations would most likely result as a consequence of the immigrant farm workers' lawsuit?

Choices:
- The court would declare the statute unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional as within the realm of rights reserved to the states by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The court would declare the statute unconstitutional since the regulation of immigration is preempted.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional since the states are not preempted in the area of economic regulation of illegal aliens.


Question: A defendant was charged with illegally selling arms to a foreign country without a government license. During the trial, the defendant admitted selling the weapons, which included missiles, rocket launchers, bazookas, and ammunition, to agents of the foreign country. In his defense, however, the defendant testified that he did not sell the arms as a private citizen, but rather for his employer, a federal agency. In rebutting the defendant's testimony, the government called a high-ranking official from the federal agency to the stand. He testified that if the defendant were, in fact, a member of the agency, that information would ordinarily be contained in the agency's employment records. Asked whether the defendant's employment records were on file with the agency, the official then testified, "I have searched the agency employment records diligently, but I haven't found any documentation that the defendant was employed by the agency. "Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the official's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible, because it shows the absence of an entry in the record of a public agency.
- admissible, because the official had firsthand knowledge of the information contained in the agency's employment records.
- inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible, because the agency employment records are the best evidence to substantiate whether the defendant was actually in the employ of the governmental intelligence agency.


Question: While on a camping trip, a defendant became intoxicated and decided to take a walk late at night. He was so drunk he could not find his way back to the campsite. He did, however, come across a secluded mountain cabin, in which he decided to take shelter for the night. Since the door to the cabin was locked, he broke a window and entered the structure. Once inside, he fell asleep on the sofa. When he awoke the next morning he was hungry. The defendant then found some food in the refrigerator, which he cooked and ate. Before leaving the cabin, the defendant looked around to see if there was anything worth stealing. He opened the door to the bedroom and found a gold watch on the nightstand. He placed the watch in his pocket and left the cabin. The defendant was later arrested and charged with burglary. The defendant's strongest defense would be that

Choices:
- he was drunk when he broke into the cabin.
- the crime was not completed until the morning hours.
- he did not have the requisite intent at the time of the breaking and entering.
- the cabin was empty when he entered it.


Question: A woman was the fee simple owner of a 20-acre tract of land. When the woman moved to another state, a man took possession of the tract. The man's possession has at all times complied with the requirements of the applicable adverse possession statute in effect. Twelve years after the man took possession, the woman died intestate, leaving her six-year-old son as her only surviving heir. Nine years after the woman's death, when the son was 15, the son's guardian discovered that the man was in possession of the tract. Assume that the statutory period of adverse possession is 20 years and the age of majority is 18. Which of the following correctly describes the state of title to the tract?

Choices:
- The man has acquired title by adverse possession.
- The man will not acquire title unless he continues in adverse possession for an additional three years, or until the son reaches the age of 18.
- The man will not acquire title unless he continues in adverse possession for an additional eight years, making a total of 12 years after the woman's death.
- The man will not acquire title unless he continues in adverse possession for an additional 12years, or nine years after the son attains the ageof 18.


Question: A state enacts a statute that will allocate funds generated by state taxes to pay for one-half of the annual salaries of teachers in private schools, whether the schools are public or private, as long as the schools satisfy the requirements established by the United States Department of Education. In an action brought by several state taxpayers, all avowed atheists, to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, the enactment will most likely be declared

Choices:
- unconstitutional, as violative of the First Amendment's establishment clause.
- unconstitutional, as violative of the First Amendment's establishment clause as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- constitutional, as nonviolative of the First Amendment's establishment clause.
- constitutional, as being within the area of compelling state interest.


Question: A police detective received an anonymous call that marijuana was being grown in someone's home, but no other details were given. She went to the home with an investigative team including a drug-sniffing dog. On the front porch of the home the dog began pacing back and forth frantically, which indicated smelling illegal drugs. The team retreated while some of them went to get a warrant. A warrant was issued based on the dog's behavior. The search inside revealed large quantities of marijuana. The homeowner was arrested. Through counsel, he filed a motion to suppress based on the assertion that the use of the dog was an illegal search without probable cause thus rendering the warrant invalid. Should the court suppress the evidence?

Choices:
- No, because the detective had probable cause after receiving the anonymous call, which justified the use of the dog for a valid search -- the warrant was thus valid and the evidence will not be suppressed.
- No, because the detective had a right to take the dog to make a reasonable search, which led to the finding of probable cause and the issuance of a valid warrant.
- Yes, because the anonymous call was insufficient cause to allow for a search of the front porch with the dog, which made the warrant invalid  the suppression motion will be granted.
- Yes, because the dog's reaction did nothing to tell them that there were drugs inside  a warrant can never be based on a dog's information.


Question: A purchaser signed an agreement of sale to buy real estate. It had a contingency clause requiring him to make a completed application for a mortgage within a specified time. It said that time was of the essence. The purchaser failed to apply but instead asked a mortgage broker friend for his opinion as to whether he would qualify. The seller told the purchaser that she rescinded the sale because there was no mortgage application within the agreed time. A few days later, the purchaser made a belated application and received approval, but the seller insisted on a rescission of the contract. Will the seller likely prevail in rescinding the transaction?

Choices:
- Yes, because the purchaser did not make a timely application and lost the protection of the contingency clause.
- Yes, because she rescinded the sale prior to his notifying her of the approval  the first notice communicated is the effective one.
- No, because the amount of time that he was late was a "de minimus" delay that should not preclude him from the benefit of the bargain.
- No, because the original request to his mortgage broker friend was a timely application within the spirit of the agreement.


Question: A man owned real estate in fee simple. He transferred a life estate in it over to a friend for the friend's lifetime. When the fee simple owner died, the life estate owner conveyed his interest to his children. The deceased fee simple owner's son sued the children on the basis that the life estate was now broken and he owned the property absolutely. Do the children of the life estate owner have an enforceable interest in the property?

Choices:
- No, the life estate was broken when the owner of the fee simple interest died.
- No, the life estate owner is not allowed to convey his interest to other persons.
- Yes, the life estate owner became the owner in fee simple when the original fee simple owner predeceased him.
- Yes, the life estate owner could convey his life estate to third persons.


Question: Loretta Landlord owned a commercial building in a commercial strip surrounded by a residential community. One of her largest spaces was rented on a month-to-month basis at $500 per month by a dance troop which held performances in the facility. The director of the dance troop moved to New York for a starring role Off-Broadway. Unfortunately the troop was unable to find another dance director, so it folded and vacated the space. Sally Sleazy learned of the closure and decided the location would be perfect for a topless strip joint. Sally rented the space from Loretta under a two-year lease at $1,000 per month without disclosing her intended use of the space. One month after the strip joint opened, the County Commissioners passed a new law prohibiting topless strip joints in that neighborhood. Sally told Loretta the new law made it impossible to operate the business, so she was leaving. If Loretta then sued Sally for breach of the lease contract, the likely outcome is a judgment for

Choices:
- Sally, because the law made performance of the lease contract impossible.
- Loretta, because the new law was passed after the lease was executed.
- Loretta, only if she did not know of the use Sally intended for the space.
- Sally, because the lease contract was discharged under impossibility of performance.


Question: A state statute contained reasonable provisions for the regulation, sale, possession and use of certain weapons for self-defense in one's home, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The statute stressed registration and the individual's personal characteristics. The law prohibited the issuance of a license to felons and mentally ill persons or others presenting a danger of violence. It prohibited the commercial sale of guns from residential locations and required a commercial permit. Certain semi-automatic weapons were prohibited. A citizen who wished to purchase and maintain various guns in a manner violative of the statute sued the state. He claimed that the statute was a violation of the Second Amendment, which provides for the "right to keep and bear arms." The case was accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. What will the Court decide?

Choices:
- The statute is a reasonable regulation that will not hinder the right to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home and the individual's lawsuit will be dismissed.
- The Second Amendment prohibits all forms of gun control because of the need for a strong militia, and the man's lawsuit will be successful.
- Semi-automatic guns cannot be restricted in any way and the lawsuit will be successful.
- The regulation of firearms for the safety of society is an absolute, unfettered right of the state governments and the individual's lawsuit is dismissed for that reason.


Question: A chef owned a summer cottage on the lake. In order to facilitate the access to the cottage, the chef entered into an agreement with a neighbor, an adjoining land owner, whereby the neighbor, in writing, granted the chef a right-of-way over a strip of land 30 feet in width and a quarter of a mile in length along the eastern margin of the neighbor's property. Without notifying the neighbor, the chef proceeded to improve the roadbed by having the road asphalted in order to make it more accessible for motor vehicle traffic. Several years later, the neighbor started a sand business, which required him to do heavy hauling that subsequently destroyed the asphalted surface on the road. Ten years after the neighbor started his sand business, the chef sold his lakefront property to his assistant. Shortly after the assistant took possession of the cottage and property, the neighbor erected wooden barriers across the roadway, thus obstructing the access to the assistant's property. The assistant's strongest argument in an action against the neighbor for removal of the barriers, which are obstructing his access to the property, would be that

Choices:
- an easement appurtenant is alienable in that any conveyance transferring possession of the dominant tenement also passes the easement privilege.
- the assistant, as a bonafide purchaser, is protected from the neighbor's obstruction, even though the easement was unrecorded.
- because the easement was created by implication, the chef's prior and continuous use gave rise to a prescriptive easement.
- the chef and the assistant, being in privity of estate, could "tack on" their successive use periods.


Question: A brother and a sister purchased land under a deed that conveyed title to them as joint tenants with right ofsurvivorship. Common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute in the jurisdiction. The purchase price was $50,000, of which the sister paid $10,000 and the brother paid $40,000. The sisterlater mortgaged her interest in the land. The brother then died testate, leaving his entire estate to a cousin. Thesister later paid off her mortgage debt, and the mortgage was released. At the present time, who owns the land?

Choices:
- The answer depends on whether the jurisdiction follows the lien theory or the title theory ofmortgages.
- Title is entirely in the sister as the surviving joint tenant.
- Title is in the sister and the cousin as equal tenants in common.
- Title is in the sister and the cousin as tenants in common, with the sister having a 20% interest and thecousin having an 80% interest.


Question: A husband and wife were unhappily married. The husband was an alcoholic who physically abused the wife when he became drunk. After the husband beat up the wife one night, she decided to kill him. The wife, who was experienced in firearms, planned to shoot her husband while he slept. Before carrying out her plan, the wife took out a $1,000,000 life insurance policy on her husband, naming herself as beneficiary. Shortly thereafter, the husband and wife celebrated their 10th wedding anniversary. They went out to dinner and had a truly enjoyable evening together. After a great night, the wife experienced a change of heart and decided she really loved her husband and didn't want to kill him after all. The wife confessed and told her husband about her plan, begging forgiveness. The husband was outraged. He proceeded to file for divorce and notified the police about his wife's plan. If the wife is charged with attempted murder, she should be found

Choices:
- guilty, because she purchased the life insurance policy.
- guilty, because she intended to kill her husband.
- not guilty, because she did not perform a substantial step in carrying out the murder.
- not guilty, because she effectively withdrew from the criminal endeavor.


Question: Two people who have been cohabitating decide to get married. The man asks the woman to agree that all of his property that he now owns will remain in his name if they ever get divorced. She agrees to that but demands a written document. However, they got married without having signed anything. Three months later, the husband leaves the wife for another woman. He sends her notice to vacate the home due to their prenuptial agreement. When she doesn't move, husband sues, asking for enforcement of the oral prenuptial contract. Will the court likely enforce the husband's claim?

Choices:
- Yes, because the consideration for the contract was the marriage and the consummation of the marriage made the contract complete and enforceable.
- Yes, because prenuptial agreements are given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to enforcement decisions.
- No, because a contract in consideration of marriage must be in writing and the prenuptial was therefore not legal as long as it remained oral.
- No, because husband did not live up to his promise to put the agreement in writing and therefore he was guilty of fraud.


Question: A hiker was enjoying a journey through a large forest when he was caught in an unexpected blizzard. As it grew dark and the snow continued, he realized he was completely lost. He felt sure that he would freeze to death during the night. When all hope seemed lost, he stumbled across a small cabin. He knocked on the door, but no one answered. He tried to open the door, realized it was not locked, and went inside. In the cabin, he found some food to eat and some blankets that kept him warm through the night. By the next morning, the snow had stopped, and he was able to make his way out of the forest. If the owner of the cabin sues the hiker, seeking to recover damages for the cost of the food and for the use of his cabin, what is the most likely outcome of the case?

Choices:
- The hiker does not owe anything because the importance of his survival outweighs the property interests of the cabin owner.
- The hiker must pay for the cost of the food and the rental value of the cabin for one night.
- The hiker must pay for the use of the cabin, but nothing else.
- The hiker must pay for the cost of the food, but nothing else.


Question: A woman owned a 10-acre tract of rural farmland in fee simple absolute. The woman agreed to sell the farmland to a man, and each signed a writing stating that the farmland was beitig sold: ". . . for $10,000, receipt of which is acknowledged. " In actuality, the man had not yet paid the woman the $10,000. At the date set for closing, the woman transferred a deed to the farmland to the man, who gave the woman a check for $10,000. Howevei, a few days after the woman deposited the check, she received notice from her bank that the check had not cleared, due to insufficient funds in the account. The woman then brought suit against the man. At trial, the woman seeks to testify that the man did not in fact pay her the $10,000 as recited in their written instrument. The man objects to the woman's proposed testimony. Will the trial court judge be correct in sustaining the man's objection?

Choices:
- No, because the parol evidence rule does not apply to events occurring after the forming of the writing.
- No, because the parol evidence rule does not operate to exclude evidence to show lack or want of consideration.
- Yes, because the written instrument appears to be a complete integration of the parties' agreement.
- Yes, because the doctrine of promissory estoppel will prevent the woman from denying her own signed acknowledgment that she received the $10,000.


Question: A man entered a store with a gun, planning to rob the store. He was unfamiliar with guns and thought that the safety lock was on. When the store manager refused to give him any money, the man shook the gun at her to scare her into cooperating. The gun fired, killing the manager. A clerk ran in from the back stockroom. The man fired a shot into the air to scare the clerk. Unbeknownst to the man, the clerk had a heart condition, and the fright caused her to suffer a fatal heart attack. Can the man properly be convicted of felony murder?

Choices:
- No.
- Yes, but only for the death of the store manager.
- Yes, but only for the death of the clerk.
- Yes, for the deaths of both the manager and the clerk.


Question: A man became ill while at work and decided to go home early. When he entered his bedroom, the man saw his wife engaged in sexual intercourse with a neighbor. The man grabbed a gun from a dresser drawer and shot and killed the neighbor. He was later charged and prosecuted. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law for homicide offenses, which crimes should the court instruct the jury on?

Choices:
- Murder and involuntary manslaughter.
- Murder and voluntary manslaughter.
- Murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.
- Voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.


Question: A preacher and his posse make a habit of showing up at funerals of soldiers suspected to be gay, carrying obnoxious signs and yelling out hurtful epithets. Finally, the parents of one dead soldier has enough and sues the preacher, and the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Would the Court likely find in favor of the preacher or the father?

Choices:
- The father, as a funeral is a private affair.
- The preacher, because it involves a matter of public interest.
- The father, because time, place, and manner restrictions should have been in place.
- The father, because the First Amendment does not include protection for vicious verbal assaults such as this.


Question: A prominent judge lived next door to a father. Recently, the judge had sentenced the father's son to six months in prison on a narcotics charge. One afternoon while the judge was mowing his lawn, the father decided to avenge his son's conviction. The father set up his water sprinkler behind some shrubbery separating their adjoining properties. As the judge was mowing his lawn and came within reach of the water sprinkler, the father turned on the sprinkling device. The judge did not see the water coming toward him. The water hit the judge in the back and drenched him. The judge would be able to recover against the father for which of the following tort or torts?

Choices:
- Negligence and battery.
- Battery and assault.
- Negligence and assault.
- Battery and trespass to land.


Question: A plaintiff filed an action in federal district court and served the defendant with the summons and complaint. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Instead of opposing the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action and filed a new action, alleging the same claims but also addressing the pleading defects outlined in the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant then moved to dismiss the second action, and the plaintiff again voluntarily dismissed the second action instead of filing opposition papers. The plaintiff then filed a third action, alleging the same claims but also including additional allegations that were responsive to the defendant's second motion. The defendant has moved to dismiss the third action; the plaintiff opposes the motion. Is the court likely to grant the defendant's motion?

Choices:
- No, because the plaintiff has promptly and diligently attempted to address the pleading defects.
- No, because the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed each previous action before the defendant filed an answer or moved for summary judgment.
- Yes, because the plaintiff failed to seek a court order dismissing the second action.
- Yes, because the plaintiff's previously dismissed actions asserting the same claims dismissed actions asserting the same claims operate as an adjudication on the merits.


Question: A professor, being fee simple owner of an apartment building, made a conveyance thereof in these words, "I hereby convey my apartment building to my son and daughter as tenants in common. " In the deed instrument, which was properly executed, the professor reserved a life estate to himself. The professor then told his children of his conveyance and put it in the family vault in the library for safekeeping. Thereafter, the son married a doctor. The professor, who disliked the doctor, then executed another deed that he labeled "a correction deed. " In the "correction deed," the professor conveyed the apartment building "to my son and daughter as joint tenants with right of survivorship. " According to the new deed, the professor again reserved a life estate to himself. Both children accepted delivery of the "correction deed. " Six months later, the son died intestate, leaving the doctor as his sole heir. Title to the apartment building is in

Choices:
- the daughter and the doctor as tenants in common.
- the daughter subject to the professor's life estate.
- the daughter and the doctor as tenants in common, subject to the professor's life estate.
- the daughter and the doctor as joint tenants with survivorship rights, subject to the professor's life estate.


Question: A housing corporation owned a tract of land and prepared a development plan to divide the land into 100 lots and create a residential community on the property. The Declaration of Covenants created the community association, an administrative entity that would administer and enforce the regulations' and restrictions recited in the Declaration of Covenants. One of the restrictions reads:"There shall never at any time be erected, permitted, or maintained upon any part of the property any structure designed for or used as a saloon or place for the sale or manufacture of malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors. "The Declaration of Covenants was duly recorded and was included in the deed taken by a psychologist when he purchased lot 24 in the housing development. The psychologist recorded his deed. The psychologist gave his lot to his son. The deed conveying lot 24 to the son contained no reference to the Declaration of Covenants or any of its provisions. The deed provided that "these premises are conveyed to (the son), his heirs, and assigns, as long as they are used for residential purposes only. " The son did not record his deed. The son was unaware of the Declaration of Covenants. The son started a home business selling imported wine from his home. A geologist, the owner of lot 26, which was situated next to the son's lot, brought an action of ejectment against the son. Which of the following is the best argument for the son?

Choices:
- The deed to the son created a fee simple determinable with a possibility of reverter, giving the psychologist, but not the geologist, the right to sue the son.
- Not having been recorded, the condition cannot be enforced against the son.
- The geologist is entitled only to an injunction against the son.
- The law prohibits a fee simple determinable.


Question: A defendant went to a convenience store intending to rob it. The defendant had a gun inside his coat pocket. When the defendant entered the store, the owner saw that he had his hand in his coat pocket. Although the owner did not actually see the gun, he noticed a bulge in the defendant's coat pocket. Paranoid because of a rash of recent robberies, the owner said, "Please don't hurt me 11 do anything you want. " The owner then fainted and fell to the floor. The defendant walked behind the counter and opened the cash register. He took the money from the register and left the store. If the defendant is charged with robbery, he should be found

Choices:
- guilty, because the owner was placed in fear.
- guilty, because the defendant entered the store with a gun in his possession.
- not guilty, because the defendant did not make any threat of force.
- not guilty, because the defendant did not take any money from the victim's person.


Question: A city enacted an ordinance prohibiting the singing and chanting of songs from 1:00P. M. to 1:00A. M. by two or more persons if such noise is audible off the premises where the singing takes place. The ordinance expressly exempted from its purview the singing or chanting of religious songs. After the ordinance was enacted and went into effect, several college students were walking down the street on their way to a victory celebration following a big college football game. They began loudly chanting, "We're number 1. . . we're number 1. " One of the residents who lived on the street was greatly disturbed by the noise and reported the incident to the police, who were immediately summoned to the scene. The students who engaged in the chanting were arrested and charged with violating the ordinance. The students who were prosecuted now bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the city ordinance. Which of the following would constitute their WEAKEST argument against enforcement of the city ordinance?

Choices:
- The ordinance deprives persons of their freedom of expression, in violation of the First andFourteenth Amendments.
- The ordinance deprives persons of their liberty without due process of law because the ordinance is not related to any legitimate community interest.
- The statutory language of the ordinance is vague and overbroad since it attempts to encompass all forms of singing.
- The ordinance deprives the persons of the equal protection of the laws by impermissibly distinguishing between religiously inspired singing and all forms of singing.


Question: A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries that the plaintiff suffered when he was struck by the defendant's car. At trial, the plaintiff testified that he was walking across the street inside a crosswalk at the time the defendant's car hit him. This action takes place in a jurisdiction that has a statute in effect requiring all motorists to stop and permit pedestrians to cross streets at designated crosswalks. The defendant contended that the plaintiff ran into the street outside the crosswalk. Furthermore, the defendant testified that he immediately applied his brakes when he saw the plaintiff dart into the street, but couldn't stop his car in time to avoid hitting him. In support of the defendant's testimony, the defendant calls a neighbor to testify that she has observed the plaintiff frequently during the years that she has lived on that street, and that the plaintiff "always crosses the street outside the crosswalk. "The neighbor's testimony is likely to be

Choices:
- admitted, because it tends to show that the plaintiff was careless.
- admitted, because it is probative of the plaintiff's habit of crossing the street outside the crosswalk.
- excluded, because the neighbor was not an eyewitness to the accident.
- excluded, because her testimony is impermissible evidence of character to show defendant's plaintiff's conduct on a particular occasion.


Question: A defendant shot and killed a victim at close range with a revolver. After the shooting death, the defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. In this jurisdiction, first-degree murder is defined as "knowingly or willfully causing the death of another human being. "Which of the following situations, if believed by the jury, would most likely result in the defendant's acquittal of the first-degree murder charge?

Choices:
- The victim, who was the defendant's brother, suffered from an incurable case of cancer and asked the defendant to kill him to put an end to his pain and suffering.
- The killing was not done with premeditation or deliberation.
- The defendant intended to kill himself, but the bullet grazed his head and struck and killed the victim.
- The defendant intended to kill another man, but the victim unknowingly stepped in front of the other man and was struck and killed by the bullet.


Question: A defendant was wearing a black leather jacket when he entered a deli for lunch. He placed his jacket on a coat rack located in the front of the deli. After his meal, the defendant picked up a similar black leather jacket, believing it to be his own. The jacket he took, however, belonged to another customer. The defendant left the deli and walked a short distance before realizing he had taken the wrong jacket by mistake. He then returned to the deli and placed the jacket back on the coat rack. He found his own jacket, which had been partially hidden under a stack of other coats. If the defendant were arrested and charged with larceny of the other customer's jacket, he will most likely be acquitted because

Choices:
- there was a mistake of fact.
- he returned the jacket after discovering his mistake.
- he lacked the requisite state of mind.
- there was no fraudulent conversion.


Question: A plaintiff domiciled in State A brought a wrongful death action in a federal court in State A against a State B parent corporation and one of its foreign subsidiaries. The plaintiff alleged that a tire manufactured by the subsidiary in Europe had caused his wife's death in an automobile accident in Europe. The parent corporation does significant business throughout the United States, including in State A. The subsidiary conducts no business and has no employees or bank accounts in State A. The no employees or bank accounts in State A. The subsidiary manufactures its tires for the European market, but 2% of its tires are distributed in State A by the parent corporation. The subsidiary has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the subsidiary's motion?

Choices:
- No, because 2% of the subsidiary's tires entered State A through the stream of commerce.
- No, because of the general personal jurisdiction established over the parent corporation.
- Yes, because the accident did not occur in the United States.
- Yes, because the subsidiary lacks continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with State A.


Question: The State of Florida is prosecuting a former police officer for extortion of money from prostitutes. One of the State's witnesses is Sally. Sally has an adult conviction for vehicular homicide. She was charged with driving a car in a reckless manner resulting in the death of her sister, a passenger in the car. Sally pleaded nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty and received a suspended sentence although she could have received a sentence of state imprisonment up to 5 years. At trial, evidence of this conviction is

Choices:
- admissible to impeach Sally because vehicular homicide carries a maximum penalty in excess of 1 year.
- inadmissible to impeach Sally because she never admitted her guilt since she entered a plea of nolo contendere.
- inadmissible to impeach Sally because she received a suspended sentence.
- inadmissible to impeach Sally because she is only a witness and not the criminal defendant.


Question: A manufacturer of widgets sent a letter to an international widget retailer offering to sell ten truckloads of construction-quality widgets for $1,000 per truck. The retailer emailed a note back saying "Please send 10 truckloads as promised." No shipment was sent, but four months later when the market demand for widgets skyrocketed, the retailer sued the manufacturer for breach claiming that the retailer suffered damages by not having received the shipment of ten trucks as agreed. Does the retailer have a legal right to collect damages under these facts?

Choices:
- Yes, there is a specific and detailed enough offer, followed by an unequivocal acceptance, indicating an intent to form a contract.
- No, the parties do not set a date for delivery, which always invalidates a contract between merchants for the delivery of goods.
- No, the retailer never called back and asked for the widgets, which means that the contract was not finally confirmed and legalized.
- Yes, the retailer is entitled to collect damages because the manufacturer violated the doctrine of avoidable consequences.


Question: The Traditional Religion Advocacy Party (TRAP) has successfully lobbied the State of Texarkana for a statute named "Equal Rights for All Religions." The law requires broadcasters that air segments discussing Christianity to allow equal time for segments on Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The American Atheism Association (AAA) has put together a broadcast segment about atheism, rejecting all religions, but four of the five Texarkana stations have declined to air the segment because they believe it would violate the statute. AAA has filed suit against the state, challenging the constitutionality of the statute. What is the strongest argument AAA can make in support of striking down the Equal Rights for All Religions statute?

Choices:
- The First Amendment prohibits government interference with freedom of the press.
- The fact that the statute involves only broadcast media and not print media is an Equal Protection violation.
- The First Amendment prohibits government interference with the free exercise of religion.
- The statute is not narrowly tailored to promote a compelling governmental interest.


Question: A car manufacturer produced a car that was sold nationwide. Problems with the car's brakes allegedly caused several accidents and injuries. Two individual buyers of the car each filed a class action, in different states, against the manufacturer, asserting the same products liability claims on behalf of all buyers nationwide. One class action was filed in federal court and the other was filed in state court. The parties in the federal action reached a court- approved settlement, and the court entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. The manufacturer's attorney has moved to dismiss the state court action on the basis of res judicata (claim preclusion). Should the state court look to federal or state law to decide the effect of the judgment?

Choices:
- Federal law, because the judgment was entered in federal court.
- Federal law, because the judgment was the result of a nationwide action governed by the federal class action rule.
- State law, because the judgment is being asserted in a state court.
- State law, because there is no general federal common law and preclusion is a common law doctrine.


Question: A state was facing a fiscal problem. In order to raise funds, the state decided to consider the creation of a state postal service that only its residents may use for intrastate mail. The price for stamps printed by the state postal service would be half the cost of stamps printed by the U. S. Postal Service and would always be guaranteed to arrive within 24 hours. In addition, any employees of the state would be able to send their mail for free through the state postal service. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument against the proposed legislation?

Choices:
- It constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws, because employees of the state receive personal benefits that are not enjoyed by employees of other states.
- The negative implications that flow from the delegation to Congress of the power to establish a post office prohibit such a state postal service.
- It denies citizens of the state who are not state government employees their rights under the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- It interferes with the sovereign autonomy of the U. S. Postal Service to operate as an independent federal agency.


Question: In 1993, a rancher had good record title to a 20-acre orange grove in fee simple absolute. In 1994, the rancher delivered to his son, for a sum of $1,000, a deed signed by the rancher, naming the son and his heirs as grantee, and appearing valid on its face. The son neglected to record the deed. In 1998, a farmer, aware of the existence of the rancher-to-son deed, sought out the rancher and asked to buy for $10,000 a deed to the orange grove from the rancher to the fanner and his heirs. The rancher executed such a deed, and the fanner promptly recorded it. The farmer's intent was to acquire color of title and obtain ownership of the orange grove by adverse possession. In 1998, the farmer constructed a fence around the orange grove. In 1999, the son presented his deed of the orange grove to a retiree, and for $15,000, paid by the retiree, signed and delivered a deed of the orange grove in favor of the retiree and his heirs. After receiving the deed, the retiree made no effort to search the title, to examine the property, or to record the deed. In 2003, a buyer paid the fanner $20,000, and the farmer delivered to the buyer a deed of the orange grove in favor of the buyer and his heirs. The buyer had examined the property, had searched the title, and had no knowledge of the farmer's awareness of the prior rancher-to-son instrument. Although the buyer did not reside on the property, he regularly visited the orange grove twice a week. The buyer recorded his deed. In 2007 for $25,000 paid by an orange grower, the retiree signed and delivered adeed of the orange grove naming the orange grower and his heirs as grantees. Before the grower had paid the retiree and taken his deed, the grower visited the orange grove and observed the fence. However, the buyer was not present when the grower visited the property and nothing suggested who if anyone was using it. In any case, the grower did not attempt to search the title before making his purchase. This jurisdiction uses Grantor Grantee Indices and has no Tract Index. In 2008, what is the present state of title to the orange grove if the jurisdiction's recording act provides: "Every conveyance of real property shall be invalid as against any person, except the grantor, his heirs, and assigns, having actual notice thereof, unless it is recorded as provided by statute"?

Choices:
- In a notice jurisdiction, the grower, as a subsequent bonafide purchaser, is only chargeable with notice of what appears in his chain of title and, therefore, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
- In a race notice jurisdiction, the farmer would acquire equitable title to the orange grove, because he erected the fence and failed to inform the buyer of the prior rancher-to-son instrument.
- In a race notice jurisdiction, the buyer, as subsequent bonafide purchaser without notice of the prior rancher-to-son instrument, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
- In a notice jurisdiction, the retiree would acquire record title to the orange grove even though he failed to record his deed.


Question: A young boy and a young girl were playing with a football on the sidewalk next to a street. They were laughing as they pushed and pulled each other, trying to get the ball and keep it away from each other. Just as a car approached on the street, the girl lost her balance and fell off the sidewalk and into the street. The driver of the car tried to swerve to avoid her, but ran over her leg. The girl suffered a broken leg. If the girl's parents assert a claim on her behalf against the driver to recover damages for her injuries, they will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, unless the driver was driving his vehicle within the posted speed limit.
- prevail, unless the girl fell because the boy negligently pushed her toward the street.
- not prevail, unless the driver was driving negligently when the accident occurred.
- not prevail, unless the driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident


Question: Each year, the local boys' and girls' club sponsors a "Baseball Card Bonanza. " During the three- day event, collectors of baseball cards gather, exchanging and swapping old cards. A boy and a girl, both 12-year-old youngsters at the bonanza, were looking at each other's cards when they were approached by a 32-year-old collector. The collector asked the boy and girl if he could look through their baseball cards. The boy and girl nodded affirmatively. As the collector was flipping through the boy's cards, he found a 1948 card featuring Branch Rickey, the former owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The collector, who knew the card was worth more than $500, offered the boy 50 cents for the card. The boy thought the card had very little value because he knew that Rickey was not a major league baseball player. The boy accepted the 50 cents and gave the Rickey baseball card to the collector. The next day the boy found out that the baseball card was worth$600. If the boy asserts a claim against the collector for deceit, will the boy prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the collector did not disclose the true value of the card.
- Yes, because the boy was the true owner of the card and was entitled to the benefit of the bargain.
- No, because the collector made no false representations of fact.
- No, because the boy was not justified in relying on the collector's offer.


Question: On January 31, a supermarket entered into a written contract with a produce company to purchase oranges. The contract contained a provision wherein the supermarket promised to purchase "as many oranges as required, but at a minimum 100 bushels per month at a price of $20 per bushel for the next year. " The agreement also provided that any modifications must be in writing. On February 1, the produce company shipped the supermarket 70 bushels of oranges, which were accepted and paid for. On March 1, the produce company tendered 80 bushels of oranges, which the supermarket accepted and paid for. On April 1, the produce company delivered 100 bushels of oranges to the supermarket. This shipment was accepted and also was promptly paid for. On April 2, the manager of the supermarket became concerned because a Florida drought had resulted in a sharp increase in the price of oranges. Consequently, the manager consulted the supermarket's attorney, who advised him to demand adequate assurances that the produce company would perform its obligations under the terms of the contract. Heeding the attorney's advice, the manager sent a letter on April 3 to the produce company, expressing his concern and requesting an adequate assurance of due performance for the balance of the contract. This letter was received by the produce company on April 4. Which of the following best states the supermarket's legal rights against the produce company?

Choices:
- Cancel the contract on May 1, cover immediately and then sue for damages.
- Wait until the May 1 shipment; if it doesn't comply, demand adequate assurances, and not obtaining them, then sue for damages.
- Wait until the end of the contract and then sue for damages.
- Wait a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days; if adequate assurances are not received, cancel the contract, cover immediately and then sue for damages.


Question: A uniformed United States Park Policeman pulled over a motorist for going through a red light. The man reacted gruffly, telling the officer that he had no authority to stop him. There was a brief scuffle, and the officer issued two more charges, for disorderly conduct and failure to obey an officer. Eventually, the defendant pled guilty to the red light citation and the other two charges were dismissed. He then filed a federal court action against the park policeman in which he asserted a Bivens civil rights claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The first legal theory was that the park officer lacked authority to stop the plaintiff on a New York street and arrest him for a state traffic violation. He claimed that the officer was outside of his federal park land jurisdiction. Will the court likely uphold the authority of the park police under these facts?

Choices:
- The U.S. Park Police have the authority to make a warrantless arrest for a state law violation because of statutory grants of authority from the various states.
- All federal officers can make arrests for all criminal offenses within a state's geographical jurisdiction under the priority status of federal law and federal law officers.
- The federal officer was way outside his scope of authority and he clearly cannot make an arrest outside of the confines of the federal park systems.
- The federal officer is allowed to arrest for homicide and serious felonies but cannot make traffic arrests within a state's geographical jurisdiction.


Question: An avowed corrimunist was elected vice president of a union. A senator, in his investigation of communist infiltration of national labor unions, found a provision in a statute passed by Congress, which makes it a crime for a member of the communist party to act as an official of a labor union. After a subsequent legislative hearing, the communist is dismissed from his position by the union. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the applicable rule of constitutional law regarding the aforementioned provision of the statute?

Choices:
- The statutory provision is a form of unconstitutional prior restraint on a person's First Amendment right of free association.
- Making it a crime for a Communist to hold a union office is a suspect classification, which violates the equal protection clause.
- The statutory prohibition is a reasonable method of discrimination since the benefit to the public outweighs the injury or restrictions that would be inflicted upon the person.
- The statutory provision in the act is a form of legislative punishment violative of the Constitution as a bill of attainder.


Question: A bakery incorporated and headquartered in State A had a dispute with a mill incorporated and headquartered in State B over the quality of the flour the mill had delivered to the bakery. The bakery sued the mill in a federal court in State A for breach of contract, seeking $100,000 in damages. The contract between the bakery and the mill contained a clause designating State B courts as the sole venue for litigating disputes arising under the contract. Under precedent of the highest court in State A, forum-selection clauses are unenforceable as against public policy; under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such clauses are enforceable. The mill has moved to transfer the case to a federal court in State B, citing the forum-selection clause in the parties' contract and asserting the facts that the flour was produced in State B and that the majority of likely witnesses are in State B. Is the court likely to grant the mill's motion?

Choices:
- No, because State A law treats forum- selection clauses as unenforceable.
- No, because the mill should have instead filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue.
- Yes, because federal common law makes the forum-selection clause controlling.
- Yes, because federal law governs transfers of venue, and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B.


Question: A 16-year-old boy was bullied regularly at school by several older boys. The 16-year-old was developmentally disabled and his mannerisms were a magnet for malicious bullies. One day the boy stole his father's licensed handgun and shot one of the bullies dead. The district attorney announced prosecution of the teen as an adult and asked for the death penalty due to aggravating circumstances. The trial court certified the boy over to adult criminal court. The boy was convicted and sentenced to death. An appeal was taken on his behalf all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the merits. Will the Court affirm the sentence of death?

Choices:
- Yes, children aged 14 and older are treated as adults and, as adults, they are subject to the same capital punishment penalty as other adults.
- No, a minor under 16 cannot be tried in adult court because the Eighth Amendment clause against cruel and unusual punishment forbids it, and the whole prosecution was unconstitutional.
- Yes, when a crime is committed by malice aforethought, the age of the perpetrator doesn't matter because the same criminal intent requires the same punishment.
- No, the Court applied the bright-line test that forbids capital punishment of youth under the age of 18 because there are distinct differences between an adolescent and an adult.


Question: A recent law school graduate took and passed the bar examination. Before the swearing-in ceremony, however, the graduate received a letter from the bar examiners indicating that his admission would be delayed until a character fitness investigation had been completed. The examiners also requested information as to whether the graduate had ever been arrested, convicted, or placed on probation for a criminal offense. The graduate had been arrested as a juvenile for possession of marijuana. He was placed in a special drug education program for first- time juvenile offenders and was told that the arrest would be expunged. Since the graduate believed that he had been totally exonerated of criminal liability, he didn't report the arrest on his bar application form. The bar examiners had, in fact, received an anonymous letter making reference to the graduate's juvenile arrest and suggesting that he was not morally fit to be admitted as an attorney. In addition, the letter provided detailed information about the facts related to the offense. As a result, the examiners hired a special investigator, to look into the matter. As part of the investigator's inquiry, he went to the clerk of the juvenile court where the offense occurred and demanded access to the records concerning the graduate. The clerk refused, citing a state statute that required all court and police records relating to juveniles be sealed. After all other attempts to gain access to the records proved futile, the bar examiners filed suit in federal district court demanding access to the relevant documents. The court should rule that, as applied to this case, the state statute regarding the sealing of juvenile records is

Choices:
- constitutional, because juveniles are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
- constitutional, because the state has a strong and legitimate interest in rehabilitating juvenile offenders, and this is furthered by protecting them from embarrassment in later life through revelation ofjuvenile offenses.
- unconstitutional, because the bar examiners, as a quasi-judicial agency, is entitled to haveaccess to all relevant public documents.
- unconstitutional, because it hinders the interests of justice by preventing the bar examiners from determining the fitness of candidates to practice law.


Question: A construction worker sued an insulation manufacturer in federal court, claiming that he had developed a chronic health condition as a result of 20 years of exposure to the manufacturer's insulation at his work sites. The manufacturer answered, denying all liability and stating that it had never supplied its insulation to the worker's employer. The worker's attorney deposed the manufacturer's president, and the manufacturer's attorney deposed the worker. Immediately thereafter, the manufacturer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the worker had no evidence showing that the insulation had ever been used by the worker's employer. What would be the worker's best response to the motion for summary judgment?

Choices:
- Argue that more time is needed for additional discovery to show the manufacturer's liability, and attach a declaration describing the desired discovery.
- Argue that the motion should be denied, because a central issue in the case will be the manufacturer's credibility on the question of its distribution of the insulation, and only a jury can decide questions of credibility.
- Argue that the motion should be denied, because the manufacturer failed to attach any evidence to its motion to show that the insulation was not used by the worker's employer.
- Make a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the manufacturer has introduced no evidence to show that its insulation did not harm the worker.


Question: Two days before his home was to be sold at a foreclosure sale, a homeowner obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court that prevented his lender from proceeding with the sale for 14 days or until a preliminary injunction hearing could take place, whichever was sooner. When a preliminary injunction hearing could not be scheduled within the original 14-day period, the court extended the TRO for another 30 days. The lender appealed the court's order extending the TRO. The homeowner has moved to dismiss the appeal. Is the appellate court likely to dismiss the appeal?

Choices:
- No, because a TRO is immediately appealable.
- No, because the 30-day extension makes the TRO equivalent to a preliminary injunction and therefore appealable.
- Yes, because a TRO is not appealable under the interlocutory appeals statute.
- Yes, because there is no final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.


Question: A woman was seven months pregnant with her first child. One afternoon, the woman was in the kitchen of her home preparing a snack when she glanced out the window and saw a horrible crime being committed. The woman watched in horror as a local gang member pulled out a handgun and used it to shoot the victim, a member of a rival gang. The gang member did not know anyone was witnessing his act of shooting the victim. The woman watched as the victim collapsed and fell dead on her neighbor's front lawn. As a result of her shock from viewing this horrible incident, the woman suffered a miscarriage. If the woman asserts a claim against the local gang member who shot the victim, the woman will

Choices:
- recover, because she suffered a physical injury, rather than just emotional harm.
- recover, because the gang member acted intentionally in shooting the victim.
- not recover, because the woman was not within the zone of danger.
- not recover, because the gang member was unaware that the woman was watching.


Question: A man allowed his friend to borrow a debit card to buy a computer. When the friend refused to return the card during a later conversation in a bar, the man pointed a handgun at the friend, held his finger on the trigger, and said, "Give it back!" A bystander screamed and threw a beer bottle at the man. The bottle struck the man's hand and caused the gun to discharge, killing the friend instantly. The man was convicted of murder in a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide. On appeal, he argues that the evidence, which essentially set out the facts above, was insufficient to support a verdict of murder. Should the man's conviction be reversed?

Choices:
- No, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of depraved-heart murder.
- No, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of felony murder.
- Yes, because the evidence showed that the man did not intentionally pull the trigger.
- Yes, because the evidence showed that the man's intent was not to kill the friend, but to take property from him under a claim of right.


Question: "An assault is an unlawful attempt, with or without present ability, to commit a battery on the person of another. It is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to six months. "A defendant was a lawyer who worked in a law firm located in the state. The defendant, who had a reputation of being a prankster, decided to play a practical joke on the senior partner of the law firm. The defendant donned a cowboy mask and entered the senior partner's office. As the senior partner was talking on the phone with his back to the door, the defendant pulled out a toy cap gun and said, "This is a stickup . . . give me your wallet or I'll shoot. " When the senior partner turned around to face the defendant, he pulled the trigger of the gun. This caused the toy pistol to make a loud noise. Although the senior partner was not frightened, he fired the defendant because of the incident, citing unprofessional conduct. The defendant was subsequently charged with criminal assault under the above mentioned statute. At trial, the defendant testified that he was only playing a practical joke on the senior partner and was trying to scare him as a harmless prank. If the jury believes the defendant, they should find him

Choices:
- guilty, because he intended to frighten the senior partner.
- guilty, because the statute does not require the present ability to commit a battery.
- not guilty, because the defendant did not intend to cause physical injury to the senior partner.
- not guilty, because the facts state that the senior partner was not frightened.


Question: After a severe thunderstorm had struck the area, a homeowner discovered that her roof had suffered extensive damage. She telephoned a roofer to inquire about having the necessary repairs done to her roof. The roofer agreed to finish the work within 30 days, and the homeowner promised to pay$10,000. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

Choices:
- The performance of the roofer would be a constructive condition precedent to the performance by the homeowner.
- The performance by the homeowner would be an implied condition subsequent to the performance by the roofer.
- The performances of the homeowner and the roofer would be constructive concurrent conditions.
- The contract would be unenforceable, because it was oral.


Question: A county owns a large expanse of land next to the ocean. Four years ago, in order to enhance the recreational aspects of the land, the county leased most of it to a private company. The lease required the company to construct and operate a first-rate golf course and country club complete with bar, restaurant, and private marina and to pay the county 15% of its net profits as rent. The company set up bylaws, which were reviewed and approved by the county at the time the lease was negotiated. According to the bylaws, the golf course and country club, complete with its restaurant and bar, would be open to members only, and the membership committee is empowered to set up strict membership "standards," as well as the cost of membership fees and dues. Upon completion of the facilities, the state granted the company a license to sell alcoholic beverages in its restaurant and bar. The membership committee announced that the membership fee is $5,000 and the monthly dues $75 per month. Furthermore, the membership committee had a policy of approving only membership applications for Latino Men, while disapproving and denying all applications of women, African Americans, white Americans, and other minorities. A white resident of the county, upon denial of membership, brings an action against the company seeking injunctive relief to compel his admission claiming that denial of membership to white residents violates his right to equal protection. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

Choices:
- The company will prevail because its denial of membership lacks the requisite state action.
- The plaintiff will win because even though the company is a privately owned corporation, the state has affirmatively encouraged or facilitated its discriminating acts.
- The company will win, because the plaintiff lacks standing to assert the rights of discrimination against white Americans as a group.
- The plaintiff will win, because denial of membership to white residents cannot be justified by a rational basis.


Question: A national distributor of windows selected a retailer to sell its windows in a specified geographic area. The parties negotiated a written distribution agreement, which stated that any order for windows placed by the retailer would be binding on the distributor "only when expressly accepted by the distributor." For the next two years, the retailer forwarded orders to the distributor, and the distributor always filled the orders. In the third year, the distributor accused the retailer of overcharging customers to install the distributor's windows. The retailer responded that the distributor had no control over the retailer's installation prices. When the distributor received the retailer's next order for windows, it refused to fill the order. If the retailer sues the distributor for breach of contract, will it be likely to prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the retailer's forwarding of orders to the distributor did not give rise to an obligation on the distributor's part to fill the orders.
- No, because the retailer's practice of overcharging customers excused the distributor's refusal to fill the order.
- Yes, because the distributor's claim regarding overcharging customers is independent of its obligation to fill the retailer's order.
- Yes, because the parties' course of dealing binds the distributor to fill the retailer's order.


Question: One evening, a defendant set fire to an occupied house. As a result of the blaze, the homeowner's daughter was killed. The defendant was charged with felony murder on the first count and arson on the second count of the two-count indictment. The jury found the defendant guilty on the first count, but returned a not guilty verdict on the second count. The defendant's attorney's motion to set aside the guilty verdict on the felony murder charge will be

Choices:
- granted, because the guilty verdict is plain error that adversely affects the defendant's constitutional rights.
- granted, because the verdicts are legally inconsistent and should lead to an acquittal of both charges.
- denied, because the verdicts do not amount to a reversible error.
- denied, because the defendant's proper remedy is to seek an appellate review for a non-constitutional error.


Question: A housing corporation owned a tract of land and prepared a development plan to divide the land into 100 lots and create a residential community on the tract of land. The Declaration of Covenants created the community association, an administrative entity that would administer and enforce the regulations and restrictions recited among the covenants. One of the regulations set forth in the Declaration of Covenants reads:"Each purchaser, by the acceptance of a deed therefore, promises to pay the community association an annual assessment or charge to be determined on the basis of the valuation of each individual lot and the improvements thereon. Nonpayment of any annual assessment or charge when due shall result in a lien upon the parcel of the property. "A gardener, the owner of lot 29 in the development, sold his land to a landscaper with a deed containing no restrictions. The community association, pursuant the Declaration of Covenants, sues the landscaper to collect the annual assessment for lot 29. Which of the following is the best argument for the landscaper?

Choices:
- There is not privity of contract between the housing corporation and the community association.
- Because the charge constitutes a lien, there is no personal obligation on the landscaper's part.
- There is no privity of contract between the gardener and the landscaper.
- There is no privity of estate between the gardener and the landscaper.


Question: A creditor loaned his friend $15,000 to help pay for the friend's daughter's college tuition. Six months later, the friend lost his job and was unable to repay the loan to the creditor. After learning of his friend's situation, the creditor sent his friend the following letter on June 1:"I promise to discharge the $15,000 debt which you owe me upon delivery of your autographed baseball bat if you promise to deliver the bat to me by August 1 . "After receiving this letter, the friend telephoned the creditor and accepted the offer. The friend's verbal acceptance of the creditor's offer most likely effectuated

Choices:
- a bilateral executory accord.
- an accord and satisfaction.
- a substituted compromise agreement.
- a novation.


Question: A father died leaving a will by which he devised a 100-acre tract to his daughter. At the time of the father's death, he believed that he owned all of the 100-acre tract. However, the father actually owned 95 acres of the tract. The other five acres were owned by a farmer. After taking possession of the tract, the daughter executed and delivered a warranty deed to a buyer, purporting to convey all 100 acres of the tract. The agreed purchase price was $100,000. According to the terms of the sale, the buyer paid the daughter a down payment of $25,000, with the unpaid portion of the purchase price (i. e. , $75,000) secured by a mortgage. The mortgage instrument described the property interest as covering all 100 acres of the tract. After the daughter buyer transaction was completed, the farmer came forward and informed the parties that she was the true record owner of five acres of the 100-acre tract. Upon the farmer's threat to sue to quiet title, the daughter negotiated a deal whereby she paid the farmer $5,000 for the five-acre tract. As part of their agreement, the farmer executed and delivered a quitclaim deed quitclaiming to the buyer all of her interest in the five-acre parcel. Thereafter, the buyer defaulted on the mortgage debt, and the daughter properly consummated foreclosure proceedings, becoming the purchaser of the tract at her own foreclosure sale. The description of the deed in the foreclosure sale referred to the tract as consisting of all 100 acres. After the foreclosure sale was finalized, the buyer brought suit claiming title in fee simple to the five-acre tract, formerly owned by the farmer. In an appropriate action to determine the title to the said five-acre tract, the buyer will

Choices:
- lose, because the daughter did not have good and marketable title at the time she purported to convey the 100-acre tract to the buyer.
- lose, because the doctrine of after-acquired title controls.
- win, because the deed from the farmer to the buyer was a quitclaim deed.
- win, because the quitclaim deed from the farmer to the buyer was subsequent to the deed from the daughter to the buyer and to the mortgage.


Question: A woman owned a four-unit apartment building and lived in one of the units. When one of her tenants vacated his apartment, the woman placed an advertisement in the local paper that read as follows: "Large two-bedroom apartment available for rent. White male preferred." The woman's preference was motivated by the fact that she liked to have a mix of tenants of both genders and from various racial and ethnic backgrounds in her building, and of the remaining rented units, one was rented to an African American man and the other to a Pacific Islander woman. Based upon these facts, which of the following statements is true?

Choices:
- The federal Fair Housing Act makes it illegal for the woman to refuse to rent her units to prospective tenants because of their race or gender.
- The woman's motive absolves her from any liability under the federal Fair Housing Act.
- There are no violations of any federal laws under these facts.
- Under the federal Fair Housing Act, the woman was not permitted to state a racial or gender preference in the advertisement.


Question: An owner had a record store in the downtown business area of a city. A famous rock group was scheduled to perform at the local civic center and the owner featured the band's records in a special sale for the two weeks prior to the concert. In order to promote his sale, the owner installed loudspeakers on the outside of his store window so that he could play the band's records for people walking by to hear. It was the owner's hope that when they heard the records, the passersby would turn into customers and buy the band's records. Subsequently, the owner was cited for violating a city ordinance which provides that:"An owner of property located within the city limits shall not permit to be used on his property any device which causes sounds, other than clock chimes, to be heard upon the street or sidewalk. Violation of this ordinance shall subject the property owner to a fine of $50. 00 for each occurrence. "If the owner is successful in challenging this ordinance in court, the court would most likely reason that

Choices:
- the ordinance violates equal protection because some sounds are permitted, while others are not.
- the ordinance violates the owner's rights of freedom of speech, because there is not valid interest to support the ordinance.
- the ordinance violates the owner's rights of freedom of speech, because a municipality may not regulate the use of sound amplification equipment.
- the ordinance violates the owner's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, because it is vague in defining unpermitted sounds.


Question: A doctor parked her car in a public parking lot in a downtown area. A construction company was using a large crane to build a new office building next to the parking lot. When the crane was manufactured, some of the welding of its parts was done improperly. No one had ever noticed this manufacturing defect in the crane. The defect caused the crane to break and topple over. Part of the crane fell on the doctor's car. The doctor's car was completely destroyed. The car was valued at $35,000. The doctor had auto insurance, and the insurance company promptly paid the doctor $35,000 under the insurance policy. If the doctor brings suit against the manufacturer of the crane, will the doctor prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the doctor had auto insurance, so she suffered no loss.
- No, because the manufacturer was unaware of the defect in the crane.
- Yes, because the manufacturer sold a product with a dangerous defect.
- Yes, because the manufacturer failed to inspect the crane adequately before selling it.


Question: During a hotly contested gubernatorial election, a local newspaper endorsed the candidacy of a corporate official of a chemical company. Inspired by a progressive revolt against the chemical company's domination of the state government, the corporate official's opponent, won by an extremely close margin. After the new governor took office, he vowed to get back at the company that owned the local newspaper for its newspaper's endorsement of the corporate official. Using his influence, the new governor was instrumental in getting the state legislature to pass a bill that imposed a special tax on the sale of ink and paper used in the publication of newspapers and periodicals of general circulation. The tax bill was signed into law by the governor. The strongest constitutional basis upon which to challenge the validity of the tax would be the

Choices:
- equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- bill of attainder provision under Article I, Section 10.
- privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- First Amendment, as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.


Question: A legislative assistant to a state senator approached various wealthy lobbyists without the senator's knowledge to solicit illegal campaign contributions for the senator's upcoming re-election campaign. The assistant dictated several letters requesting such contributions, which the senator signed without reading, along with a pile of other correspondence. Before the letters were mailed, however, the senator discovered what had happened and then immediately terminated the assistant's employment. Later that same evening, after being notified that he was fired, the assistant returned to the senator's office and used his keys, which had not yet been returned, to enter. The assistant made copies of the letters in question. The following day, the assistant turned over the copies of the letters to an investigative reporter from the local newspaper in the area. The reporter had heard about the assistant's dismissal from another staff member and was curious about all the underlying circumstances. After the assistant provided the reporter with all of the pertinent facts, the reporter wrote a news story regarding the senator's solicitation of illegal campaign contributions. Although the reporter's story was printed in the newspaper, he did not reveal the source of his information. As soon as the publication was made, the FBI initiated an investigation of the senator's campaign finances. If the senator asserts a claim based on invasion of privacy against the newspaper for the publication of the article concerning the solicitation of illegal campaign contributions, the most likely result is that the senator will

Choices:
- prevail, because the newspaper story placed him in a "false light in the public eye. "
- prevail, because the newspaper disclosed private facts about the plaintiff.
- not prevail, unless he is able to prove malice on the defendant's part.
- not prevail, because the newspaper was acting in the public interest by printing the news story.


Question: The prime minister of a foreign country was assassinated by a group of right wing extremists. The prime minister's death triggered a civil war between rival factions within the country. To prevent U. S. involvement in this country's political crisis, Congress passed an appropriations bill prohibiting any funding for U. S. military operations in this foreign country. The appropriations bill was passed over a presidential veto. Thereafter, the President issued an executive order directing U. S. Navy and Army troops to the foreign country to restore order. Is this executive order constitutional?

Choices:
- Yes, because the President, as commander- in-chief of the armed forces, has the power to authorize such military expeditions.
- Yes, because the President has inherent power to regulate foreign affairs as long as there is no formal declaration of war.
- No, because the President cannot usurp Congress's spending power by taking action that supersedes a congressional appropriations bill.
- No, because the executive order was neither authorized by federal statute nor ratified by the Senate.


Question: A young man called his casual friend to get together after work to go to a nearby ski lift. They each went up on the lift individually, because neither liked to share. Close to the top of the mountain, the friend fell off of his ski lift, and sustained injuries. The young man then decided he had had enough of skiing, but his friend called out, "...you have to help! You have to call someone! I cant walk and it is your fault I am up here!" The man did not respond and went home. His friend froze to death with no help ever coming to him. The people on the lift behind them both heard and saw everything, and the prosecutors office investigated the incident as a possible negligent homicide. What is the most likely decision of the prosecutor?

Choices:
- The prosecutor will not file charges because the two men were not related to each other in a way that might create a duty, nor was there a special relationship that would create a duty.
- The prosecutor will not file charges because the man broke no laws when he walked away and it does not matter what the relationship was between them.
- The prosecutor will file charges because there are eyewitnesses who will testify to the young man's callous behavior to his friend.
- The prosecutor will file charges because their friendship was a special relationship that created a legal duty for the man to act.


Question: A woman owned an extensive art collection that she displayed in a special room of her home. While the woman was away on a vacation, there was a burglary at her home, and her favorite painting was stolen. Although the painting was insured for $1,000,000 by an insurance company, it had a market value of over $1,500,000. When the woman returned from vacation, she met with a detective employed by the insurance company to investigate the theft. During their meeting, the woman told the detective that she would pay him an extra $50,000 if he recovered the paihting. For the next three weeks, the detective investigated the theft as part of his job responsibilities with the insurance company. Within the course of this investigation, the detective learned who was responsible for the burglary. As a consequence, the culprit was apprehended, and the painting was recovered and returned to the woman. The detective then requested the $50,000 that the woman had promised to pay him. After the woman refused to make the payment, the detective sued the woman for breach of contract. Who is most likely to prevail?

Choices:
- The woman, because her promise was gratuitous.
- The woman, because the insurance company owed her a pre-existing duty to find the painting.
- The detective, because he did the act necessary to constitute an acceptance of the woman's offer.
- The detective, because the market value of the painting exceeded its insured value, so there was sufficient consideration to support the woman's promise.


Question: A defendant was charged with and tried for murder. At trial, the defendant testified that he had acted in self-defense. The trial court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he had acted in self-defense. The defendant objected, arguing that this instruction violated the constitutional requirement that the prosecution prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the trial court's instruction violate the defendant's federal constitutional rights?

Choices:
- No, because due process does not preclude requiring a defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
- No, because due process does not regulate the burdens of proof in criminal cases.
- Yes, because due process precludes placing any evidentiary burden on a criminal defendant.
- Yes, because due process precludes requiring a criminal defendant to bear the burden on an issue that would make an act lawful.


Question: After learning that a new housing development was about to be built, a developer began looking for property near the housing development on which he could build a shopping center. After an extensive search, he purchased a three-acre undeveloped tract of land for the purpose of developing a small shopping center. At the time the sale was finalized, the developer told his plans to the seller of the three-acre tract, and also mentioned that he was worried whether he had sufficient funds to complete the project. The seller agreed to lend money to the developer to allow for completion of the project. The seller then wrote out the following contract:"In order to help the developer with his plans for development of a shopping center on the three- acre tract he has this day purchased from me, I will lend him $50,000 at 10 percent interest provided he signs a contract with a builder for construction of the shopping center on this tract. Repayment to me at the rate of $5,000 per year to be secured by a mortgage on the three-acre tract. "Both parties then signed the contract. The seller's promise to lend $50,000 to the developer is

Choices:
- a condition precedent in form but subsequent in substance to the developer's duty to enter into a building construction contract.
- a condition subsequent in form but precedent in substance to the developer's duty to enter into a building construction contract.
- a condition subsequent to the developer's duty to enter into a building construction contract.
- not a condition, either precedent or subsequent, to the developer's duty to enter into a building construction contract.


Question: A shopper purchased a can of sardines, which had been produced by a fish company. A short while later at home, the shopper was preparing a sardine sandwich when she opened the can and, to her astonishment, she saw a decomposed mouse. The shopper became nauseated and vomited upon seeing the mouse. After consulting her attorney, the shopper initiated a strict liability action against the company. At trial, the shopper presented into evidence the sardine can with the company's label, along with other corroborating evidence. The attorney representing the company objected to the introduction of the label on the can. The trial court should

Choices:
- overrule the objection, because the label is self-authenticating.
- overrule the objection, because the label is the best evidence showing that the can was produced by the company.
- sustain the objection, because there is no corroborating evidence that the company placed the label on the can.
- sustain the objection, because the shopper's proper cause of action is for infliction of emotional distress, not strict liability.


Question: A man wants to sell his bungalow for $10,000. His neighbor wants to buy it so he can make his yard bigger and use the structure as a storage space, so he agrees to buy the bungalow in a written agreement. The sale is to be complete on October 14. On October 10, the neighbor realizes he cannot pay $10,000, and offers to pay $8,000 instead. The man agrees, and the exchange takes place on October 14. The man then sues for the remaining $2000. Would he likely prevail in getting the additional $2,000 that is part of the signed contract?

Choices:
- No, the modification of the sales price was accepted and therefore both parties are bound to the $8000 price.
- Yes, there was a lack of additional consideration under the pre-existing duty rule so that the modification was invalid and the original price was still valid.
- No the original contract was a unilateral contract that could not be modified and had to be performed at the original price.
- No, there was full performance of the contract.


Question: A worker was injured when a machine he was using on the job malfunctioned. The worker brought a federal diversity action against both the machine's manufacturer and the company responsible for the machine's maintenance. At trial, the worker submitted a proposed jury instruction on negligence. The court did not accept the proposed instruction and instead gave a negligence instruction that the worker's attorney believed was less favorable and legally incorrect. The attorney did not object to the negligence instruction before it was given. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The worker has moved for a new trial on the ground that the court's negligence instruction was improper. What argument has the best chance of persuading the court to grant the motion?

Choices:
- Issues of law can be raised at any time.
- The court's negligence instruction was incorrect and the worker's objection to it was preserved when he submitted his it was preserved when he submitted his proposed negligence instruction.
- The court's negligence instruction was plain error that affected the worker's substantial rights.
- The need for a formal objection to a judicial ruling in order to preserve an argument has been eliminated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


Question: A city imposes a municipal excise tax of $200 per year on commercial artists' studios in that city. It also imposes an excise tax of $100 per year on every itinerant commercial figure drawer for the privilege of using the streets and sidewalks. A credit is allowed against this latter tax for any excise tax paid to the city by the drawer or his employer in respect to the maintenance of an artist's studio in the city. A gallery, located in a neighboring state, has been sending two itinerant artists into the city. Their practice is to draw a picture of a pedestrian, ask him to order a finished painting, and collect a payment of $2. 00. The drawing is sent to a studio, which frames it and mails the framed painting to the customer. The neighboring state does not impose a tax on artists' studios. The gallery challenges the constitutionality of the $100 per year excise tax that is imposed upon its itinerant artists in the city. The court will most likely declare this tax

Choices:
- constitutional, as a valid ad valorem tax on interstate commerce.
- constitutional, since the tax was levied not on the commercial art business as a whole but on the local activity of drawing pictures.
- unconstitutional, since a state or municipality may not impose a license tax on orders for goods or services to be perfonned in another state.
- unconstitutional, as a discriminatory privilege tax.


Question: A man informed the police that he wanted to confess to a murder. After they read him his constitutional rights, he insisted that he was acting voluntarily. He then took them to the scene of the murder where they found the victim's body. By the next day, the man claimed that "voices" had ordered him to confess and he didn't act voluntarily. A physician verified that the man suffered from hallucinations that impaired his volitional abilities, preventing a voluntary confession. Will the court suppress the statements?

Choices:
- Yes, he was insane and could not have given a voluntary confession.
- Yes, the police overreached by not having him mentally evaluated before questioning him.
- No, there was no police misconduct or overreaching, and as a result the confession is voluntary.
- No, a confession is admissible when accompanied by actions by the defendant that prove the truth of the statements.


Question: A law bookstore entered into a written contract to purchase from the publisher 100 copies of the latest edition of a certain casebook for $10 per book. Three days after the contract was formed, but prior to delivery of the casebooks, the publisher called the owner of the law bookstore and informed him that, because of a calculation error, the price for the casebooks should have been $11 per book, and the shipment could not be delivered unless the owner promised to pay that amount. The owner reluctantly agreed. The owner's agreement to pay $11 per book is

Choices:
- enforceable, because it was not supported by any new consideration.
- enforceable, under the principle of promissory estoppel.
- unenforceable, because it is violative of the statute of frauds.
- unenforceable, because the error resulted from the publisher's computational error.


Question: A state has had a tremendous influx of retired people in recent years. There has been considerable concern among state health officials who foresee that many of the senior citizens will become victims of price gouging on certain medical supplies and services. In an attempt to curb such fraudulent sales practices, the state legislature has enacted a law prohibiting the sale of hearing aids by non-physicians. The measure provides, however, that all non-physician sellers who are presently engaged in the business of selling hearing aids will not be affected. Assume that after the statute goes into effect, a non-physician moves to the state and wants to open a business selling hearing aids. After being advised that the state law prohibits him from doing so, he brings suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The most likely result is that the state law will be declared

Choices:
- constitutional, because there is a rational basis for distinguishing between non-physicians are not so engaged.
- constitutional, because a state has the power to regulate any phase of local business, even though such regulations may have some effect on interstate commerce, provided that Congress has not enacted legislation regarding the subject matter.
- unconstitutional, because it denies non- physicians who are not presently engaged in the business of selling hearing aids the equal protection of the law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- unconstitutional, because it violates the commerce clause, since Congress has plenary power to regulate any activity that has any appreciable effect on interstate commerce.


Question: Under the Establishment Clause, if a government regulation or statute has no sect preference, it may then be deemed to be valid after it first passes an additional three-pronged test under traditional analysis. Please choose which of the following concepts will NOT help a statute or action to be free from establishment of religion suspicions.

Choices:
- It must have a nonspiritual legislative purpose.
- The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
- The statute must prohibit purely secular considerations.
- The statute must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion.


Question: A woman was hired by a restaurant as a cashier under an at-will employment contract. On the woman's first day at work, she noticed a sign in the kitchen area that read:"IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEESEmployees are not permitted to smoke during working hours. Any employee who is found to be in violation of this policy will be fined $50 for the first offense; $100 for the second offense; and fired for the third violation. "The woman, who was a smoker, read the notice, but did not object or make any comment regarding the restaurant's nonsmoking policy. For six months, the woman worked at the restaurant and never smoked during business hours. One afternoon, the woman was working when an armed robber stormed into the restaurant. He pointed a pistol at the woman and demanded all the money from the cash register. Frightened and panic stricken, the woman handed over the money and then collapsed. Moments later, she regained consciousness and then smoked a cigarette while she regained her composure. Thereafter, the woman resumed her duties for the rest of the day. The next week, however, when the woman received her pay check, she noticed that the restaurant had deducted $50 from her check. A note was attached indicating that the woman was being fined for smoking during business hours. Although the woman protested, the restaurant refused to make any waiver and stood by its policy. In an action by the woman against the restaurant to recover the $50, which of the following is the best argument in the woman's favor?

Choices:
- The restaurant's nonsmoking policy concerned a collateral matter that was not incorporated within the terms of their employment contract.
- The restaurant impliedly waived the nonsmoking provision by permitting the woman to continue working for the rest of the day.
- The nonsmoking provision constituted a constructive condition subsequent that was excused because of temporary impracticability.
- The nonsmoking provision concerning disciplinary action is unenforceable, because it attempts to impose a penalty instead of reasonably liquidating the damages, if any, sustained by the restaurant.


Question: A state assemblyman made a visit to a foreign country. To protest U. S. foreign policy, the assemblyman and the foreign country's leader issued a joint statement criticizing the United States' involvement in the political affairs of neighboring countries. Following the assemblyman's return to the United States, he was prosecuted under a federal criminal statute making it unlawful for any citizen not specifically authorized by the President to negotiate with a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the foreign government in relation to a dispute with the United States. The law further provides that "any citizen who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets a foreign government in a dispute with the United States. . , shall, upon conviction. . . be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both fine and imprisonment. . . . "Which of the following is the strongest constitutional basis for upholding the validity of the aforementioned federal statute?

Choices:
- Federal criminal laws dealing with international affairs need not be as specific as those dealing with domestic affairs.
- Under its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of U. S. foreign affairs.
- The President's inherent power to negotiate for the U. S. with foreign countries authorizes him to punish citizens who engage in such negotiations without permission, even in the absence of statutory authorization.
- Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress concurrent power with the President to regulate external affairs with foreign countries.


Question: A mother has an 11-year-old daughter. The mother is legally separated from her husband and has filed for divorce. The mother and her husband own their home in joint tenancy. One night, the mother went out to dinner and left her daughter at home. Upon leaving the house, the mother locked the door to her bedroom. While the mother was gone, the daughter found a spare key to her mother's bedroom and opened the door. While rummaging through her mother's dresser, she found a bag containing white powder. Concerned that the bag might contain drugs, the daughter called her father to ask his advice. The husband instructed her to call the police. The daughter then telephoned the police station and reported what she had found. A patrol car was immediately dispatched to her home. The daughter allowed the police to come inside and led them to her mother's bedroom. She gave the officers the bag, which they took to the station house for a lab test. After the results confirmed that the bag contained cocaine, the mother was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a controlled dangerous substance. The mother's attorney has filed a motion to prevent the cocaine from being admitted into evidence. The motion should be

Choices:
- denied, because the daughter, and husband, as co-owner, had the authority to allow the police inside the home and make the seizure.
- denied, because the daughter lived with her mother and had equal control over the premises.
- granted, because the daughter, as a minor, did not have apparent authority to permit the police to enter the home.
- granted, because the daughter did not have apparent authority to permit the police to enter her mother's bedroom.


Question: On November 1, Beeson contracted to purchase from Sloan for $250,000 certain property located in the City of La Mirada. In the contract of sale, Beeson and Sloan agreed that the property was to be used for the purpose of building a commercial shopping mall. The contract required Beeson to pay Sloan a deposit of $12,500, with the balance of the purchase price payable at closing a month later on December 1. On November 24, the city council rezoned the property so that it could be used only for single-family residential purposes. As a consequence, Beeson refused to honor the contract. Sloan now brings an action for specific performance arguing that the doctrine of equitable conversion places the loss on the buyer. Beeson argues that to enforce the contract would be harsh and oppressive to him. If judgment is for Beeson, it will most likely be because

Choices:
- Sloan assumed the risk.
- Sloan would be unjustly enriched.
- legal title remained in Sloan.
- equity will relieve Beeson of a bad bargain.