Question: A man took money without permission from his employer to compensate himself for wages he honestly believed were owed to him. The authorities arrested the man for felonious larceny, a crime that is also called theft in some states. The man defended on the basis that he had no intent to steal and only wanted his rightful compensation. He filed a motion to dismiss, relying essentially on proof that he had no intent to steal because he believed in good faith that it was his own property. What will be the most likely decision of the court?

Choices:
- The charges will not be dismissed because his intent becomes irrelevant when he uses force to obtain possession of property.
- The charges will be dismissed because the intent to steal is a required element of both theft and larceny and this man did not intend to steal because he thought that he had a right to the money.
- The charges will be dismissed because he can raise the defense of necessity and it is always lawful to take what a person needs to survive.
- The charges will not be dismissed because the man's right to the money was disputed and therefore his intent is irrelevant as compared to the employer's intent and belief.


Question: A widget manufacturer and a widget retailer signed the following agreement:"The manufacturer promises to sell and the retailer promises to buy 10,000 widgets at $50 per 100. One thousand widgets are to be delivered by the manufacturer on the first day of each of the next 10 months. EACH MONTHLY DELIVERY ISA SEPARATE CONTRACT. Payment to be made within 10 days of receipt of each shipment. "The agreement between the manufacturer and the retailer may best be interpreted as

Choices:
- a divisible contract.
- an installment contract.
- 10 separate contracts.
- a requirements-output contract.


Question: A businessman was the owner of an idyllic lake and wooded area. In 1980, the businessman conveyed the land to the state "on the condition that" it be used as recreational property only. Two years later, the state decided that they wanted a small industrial park attached to the corner of the land. The state went ahead and developed a small portion of the land as industrial space, making it part of a larger industrial park that was adjacent to the land. The businessman notified the state that he was the owner of the property because the state violated the conditions of the conveyance, and that he was taking possession of the property back. What was the interest that was created by the conveyance and can the businessman get the property back?

Choices:
- The interest created is a reverter, and the property instantly reverts back to the grantor upon the occurrence of the specified violation.
- The interest created is a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent, and the original owner can get the property back only by taking affirmative steps to exercise his right of entry.
- The interest is a fee simple subject to an executory limitation, and if the condition occurs the property reverts in fee simple to a pre-designated third party.
- The interest created is an indefeasible estate, and the owner cannot do anything to enforce a condition that is against public policy and never enforceable in the first place.


Question: A retiree owned a 100-acre farm. For many years, the retiree grew tobacco on a 10-acre strip located in the northeast section of the property. In March, the retiree planted his annual tobacco crop, which he usually harvested in early October. In September, the retiree sold his farm to a tobacco grower for $100,000. At the time the retiree conveyed the property to the grower, the tobacco crop was well developed and quite mature. When the retiree and the grower entered into their land-sale agreement, there was no mention of the status or ownership of the tobacco crop. In early October, after the grower took possession of the property, the retiree contacted him and requested permission to harvest and remove the tobacco crop. The grower refused to allow the retiree to re-enter the property. The retiree brings suit against the grower seeking to re-enter the property and remove the tobacco crop that he had planted. Which of the following is correct regarding the respective rights of the parties?

Choices:
- The retiree is entitled to remove the tobacco crop, but he must pay the grower a reasonable value to enter the property, thus gaining access to the crop.
- The retiree is entitled to remove the tobacco crop and is not required to pay the grower for entering the property, thus gaining access to the crop.
- The retiree is not entitled to remove the tobacco crop and, thus, is not entitled to re-enter the property.
- The retiree and the grower each have a colorable title to the tobacco crop, and consequently, there should be an equitable division of the proceeds from the sale of the crop between both parties.


Question: A man purchased a house that needed substantial repairs. The man financed the purchase of the house by borrowing funds from a bank. He signed a note to the bank and secured repayment of the loan with a mortgage. After purchasing the house, the man borrowed money from his credit union to make the repairs. The man signed a note to the credit union; this note was also secured by a mortgage on the house. Both mortgages were promptly recorded in the order granted. The man was personally liable on both loans. The man moved into the house and made the necessary repairs. He later defaulted on the debt to the bank, and the bank initiated judicial foreclosure proceedings, naming both the man and the credit union as parties to the action. An outside party acquired the house at the foreclosure sale. After the expenses of the sale and the balance due the bank have been paid, $5,000 remains in the sale the bank have been paid, $5,000 remains in the sale proceeds. The outstanding balance of the credit union loan is $20,000. The man and the credit union both claim the $5,000. There is no applicable statute. Who is entitled to the $5,000?

Choices:
- The credit union, because the credit union has priority.
- The credit union, because the man is personally liable on the debt.
- The man, because of his equitable right of redemption.
- The man, because the outside party received title to the house subject to the second mortgage.


Question: A doctor is charged with the murder of his wife. The prosecution alleges that he murdered his wife by giving her a massive injection of succinylcholine while she was asleep. Succinylcholine is a drug used in small quantities by anesthesiologists as a muscle relaxant. The prosecution claims that the fatal dose given to the wife so totally relaxed her lung muscles that she suffocated. During the trial, a toxicologist, who had no previous knowledge of the case, sat in court and heard all of the evidence about the wife's death and autopsy. As part of the doctor's defense, his attorney calls the toxicologist to give his opinion on the cause of the wife's death. May the toxicologist so testify?

Choices:
- Yes, because he can identify the data upon which his opinion is based.
- Yes, because an expert may base his opinion on facts made known to him at the trial.
- No, because he has no personal knowledge of the wife's death.
- No, because the cause of death is an issue to be decided by the jury.


Question: A federal statute makes it a crime for anyone to "knowingly" use, transfer, acquire, alter, or possess food stamps in any manner not authorized by statute or federal regulations. A restaurant owner purchased food stamps from an undercover federal agent several times for a price below face value. At trial, the judge refused to charge the jury that this was a specific intent crime requiring proof that the defendant knew that he was acting illegally. The government urged that no mens rea, or "evil-meaning mind" had to be proved. The court simply told the jury that "knowingly" means that the Defendant realized what he was doing, and did not act through ignorance, mistake, or accident. The owner was convicted and appealed. What will the federal appellate court likely decide regarding the lower court's interpretation of the criminal intent required under the statute?

Choices:
- Some statutes are written without the need to prove any particular mens rea, and this statute appears to be one of them, making the court's instructions appropriate.
- Where all that is available regarding intent is the use of the word "knowingly", the prosecution must at least prove that the defendant knew his conduct to be unauthorized by statute or regulations.
- This is a strict liability crime that requires no proof of criminal knowledge or specific criminal intent.
- The prosecution must prove that the defendant had specific knowledge of the precise provisions of the federal food stamp law and the specific actions that were prohibited.


Question: A man was arrested and convicted of publishing paid newspaper advertisements giving information on how to get an abortion in another state and how to find a referral service. A criminal statute made it a crime to disseminate such information. Will the courts uphold the conviction?

Choices:
- No, the statute violates the sixth amendment right to privacy.
- No, the statute violates the First Amendment right to publish protected commercial speech.
- Yes, the right to an abortion does not include the right to publicize where to get one.
- Yes, there is no right to publish or disseminate speech that is commercial in nature.


Question: A first-year law student worked as a part-time law clerk at a prestigious law firm. He was permitted to borrow law books and legal treatises to take home for his own personal use. One afternoon, the law student was preparing a brief in the firm's law library when he noticed a book lying on the conference table. Making sure no one was watching him, he took the book and placed it in his briefcase. He planned to take the book home that night with the intention of not returning it. If the law student is subsequently charged with larceny of the book, which of the following claims, if true, would LEAST aid him in his defense?

Choices:
- The law firm had failed to give him his salary for two weeks, and he took the book as security for the debt.
- He intended to return the book after reading it.
- The law firm had given him possession of the book.
- The law firm had given him custody of the book.


Question: A defendant was indicted and arrested for bank robbery. The defendant had an initial appearance before a magistrate judge in which he was notified of the charges and told that counsel would be appointed for him the next day. The police then required the defendant to participate with other prisoners in a lineup in which each person had to wear a white T-shirt and say, "Put your hands in the air." At the lineup, witnesses to the bank robbery identified the defendant as the bank robber. The next day, the defendant was arraigned on the charges. The defendant argues that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when he was denied counsel at two critical stages of the proceeding: his initial appearance in court before the magistrate initial appearance in court before the magistrate judge and the lineup identification. Was the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated?

Choices:
- No.
- Yes, based only on the denial of counsel at the initial appearance.
- Yes, based only on the denial of counsel at the lineup.
- Yes, based on the denial of counsel at both stages of the proceeding.


Question: A well-established paper mill and a logging company signed a written contract in which the mill agreed to buy from the company all the logs the mill would need for one year. The company was unable to keep up with the mill's needs, and its log deliveries fell short by 10% to 15% in each of the four quarters of the year. The mill paid the company on time for all delivered logs. The mill paid an attorney $2,000 for advice concerning its options in enforcing the contract. It paid a broker a reasonable fee of $5,000 to find additional logs to make up for the company's shortfall. The mill also incurred reasonable costs of $25,000 to transport the additional logs to its facility. Despite the mill's efforts to mitigate damages, it sustained $200,000 in losses because of the company's failure to timely deliver enough logs. The mill has sued the company for breach of contract. If the court finds for the mill, how much should it award in damages?

Choices:
- $205,000.00
- $225,000.00
- $230,000.00
- $232,000.00


Question: A rider entered a subway car at the 42nd Street station. Because all of the seats were occupied, the rider stood in the subway car and grabbed a pole to secure his balance. As the subway car was proceeding downtown, the rider glanced at a girl standing next to him. Suddenly, the subway car made an unexpected stop. The rider momentarily lost his balance and grabbed the girl around the waist (to avoid falling). Once the rider regained his balance, he removed his hands from the girl's waist and grasped the pole again. In a civil action instituted by the girl against the rider, he will most likely be found

Choices:
- liable for battery.
- liable, because the rider believed that the girl consented to the contact under the circumstances.
- not liable, because the rider's conduct was socially acceptable under the circumstances.
- not liable, because the girl was not harmed by the contact.


Question: Base Electric Co. has entered an agreement to buy its actual requirements of copper wiring for six months from the Seymour Metal Wire Company and Seymour Metal has agreed to sell all the copper wiring Base will require for six months. The agreement between the two companies is

Choices:
- Unenforceable because it is too indefinite as to quantity.
- Unenforceable because it lacks mutuality of obligation.
- Unenforceable because of lack of consideration.
- Valid and enforceable.


Question: A buyer contracted to purchase a used car from a seller for $10000. On the date the sale was to take place, the buyer tendered a $10,000 cashier's check to the seller. The seller rejected the tender and refused to deliver the car to the buyer. If the buyer brings an action for breach of contract against the seller, the buyer is entitled to which of the following remedies?

Choices:
- Damages measured by the difference between the market price and the contract price for the car.
- Recovery of the contract price of the car.
- Specific performance.
- Recovery of the market price of the car.


Question: A 15 year-old minor who looks older than his years purchased a car from a private seller. The minor paid $2000 down and agreed to pay the remaining $4000 in installments over the next two years. The minor had to have the car for work because he had no other means of support. The minor later crashed the car in an accident. He disaffirmed the contract, returned the damaged car, and demanded his down payment back. Does the seller have a right to obtain any consideration in this matter?

Choices:
- No the seller must return the down payment because the minor has declared his disaffirmance of the contract.
- The seller cannot keep the down payment and cannot obtain any other benefit from the transaction.
- The seller can sue the minor for misrepresentation and fraud in not revealing his age prior to buying the car.
- The seller can obtain only the reasonable value of the use of the car in a restitution action.


Question: A pilot decided to fly his small airplane to another city for a weekend visit. He invited one of his best friends to join him as a passenger on the trip. Near the end of the flight, the pilot saw a cloud of fog ahead but decided that he could navigate through it. He got lost in the fog and crashed the plane into the side of a mountain. The pilot and his passenger were both killed instantly in the crash. If the passenger's family brings a wrongful death action against the pilot's estate, the most likely result is that the plaintiffs will

Choices:
- recover under strict liability, because the pilot engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
- recover under negligence, because the pilot failed to exercise reasonable care in the operation of his airplane.
- not recover, because the passenger did not pay to go on the flight.
- not recover, because the passenger unreasonably exposed himself to a known danger.


Question: A defendant worked as a short-order cook at a restaurant. After work, the defendant went out drinking with one of the other cooks, and they were commiserating about their lack of money. They decided that the only way out of their rut was to rob a local bank. They then agreed to carry out a bank heist on the following Friday. In accordance with their plan, the cook on Monday purchased two ski masks to be used in the robbery. On Wednesday, after learning that the cook had bought the masks, the defendant got cold feet and told the cook he was renouncing his involvement in the robbery scheme. On Friday, the cook carried out the robbery without the defendant's participation. This jurisdiction requires an overt act for the crime of conspiracy. Is the defendant guilty of conspiracy?

Choices:
- Yes, because the cook and the defendant did enter into an agreement to commit the bank robbery.
- Yes, because the purchase of the ski masks was a sufficient overt act in the furtherance of the crime.
- Yes, because the defendant did not thwart the cook from committing the robbery.
- No, because the defendant's withdrawal was effective.


Question: Congress enacted a statute wherein the government would purchase and operate all of the nation's airlines. In all likelihood, Congress's power to enact this legislation will derive from

Choices:
- its power to tax and provide for the general welfare.
- its power to raise and support an army and declare war.
- its power to regulate commerce.
- its power to make laws regarding territory and other property belonging to the United States.


Question: A brother and his sister, who was 15 years old, had just left a movie theater late one evening and were walking toward a dimly lit parking lot to get to their car. As they reached the car, a defendant, who was visibly intoxicated, emerged from behind a trash can and approached them. The defendant knocked the brother to the ground and hit him over the head with a trash can, causing the brother to lose consciousness. The defendant then forced the sister into the car and raped her. The defendant is charged with assault with intent to commit rape, based on his attack on the brother. The defendant's best defense would be which of the following statements?

Choices:
- Although the sister was only 15 years old, she appeared to be 16 years old to a reasonable man.
- The defendant did not intend to rape the sister.
- The defendant's intoxication at the time negated the required general intent.
- It is impossible to prove that the defendant was the perpetrator because the parking lot was dimly lit.


Question: An industrial town with a population of 100,000, is located on the north side of a river. On the south side of the river is situated a rural community with a population of 40,000. For many years, various civic groups have urged that both communities merge into one township with a single governmental body. Independent studies have indicated that such a merger would result in an enormous tax savings to the residents of both municipalities by eliminating the duplication of services. On one previous occasion, proponents of the merger pian succeeded in having the proposal appear as an election referendum in each community. Although the merger referendum passed in the industrial town by a sizable margin, the voters of the rural community rejected the measure, fearing the combined government would be dominated and controlled by its neighbor's larger representation. In order to alleviate the concern of the rural community's voters regarding under representation in a merged governmental system, the respective city councils of both municipalities appointed a steering committee to formulate a new proposal. Accordingly, the steering committee devised a merger scheme wherein the city council of the united city, would consist of eight members. Within this proposed new system of government, each former municipality would be divided into four districts. With respect to the industrial town, each district would consist of 25,000 persons and each would have one elected city council member. By the same token, the rural community would be divided into four elective districts, each containing 10,000 residents. One city council member would be elected from each of these districts as well. The mayor would be elected at large by a popular vote of all residents in the newly created eight districts. Before this merger proposal was placed on the ballot, the state attorney general issued an advisory opinion stating that the measure did not, in her opinion, violate any statutory or constitutional provisions. Thereafter, the proposal was placed on the ballot and was overwhelmingly passed by the voters in both municipalities. After the election, but before the merger had officially been carried out, two taxpayers from the industrial town initiated suit to enjoin the unification, attacking the constitutionality of the disproportionate representative districts. Which of the following represents the plaintiffs' strongest constitutional argument in support of their action?

Choices:
- The plaintiffs and other residents of the industrial town have been denied the equal protection of the law.
- The plaintiffs and other residents of the industrial town have been denied the due process of the law.
- The plaintiffs and other residents of the industrial town have been denied the privileges and immunities of citizenship as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 2.
- The merged city would not constitute a republican form of government.


Question: A complaint filed on behalf of a woman against a nursing home and an ambulance service included the following allegations: The woman, who was 86 years old and unable to speak after suffering a stroke, was picked up from her daughter's house by the ambulance service and taken to the nursing home to stay while her daughter was out of town. When the woman's daughter returned a few days later, the ambulance service picked up the woman from the nursing home and returned her to the daughter's house. The daughter was shocked to discover that the woman had shocked to discover that the woman had a broken leg; her leg had been uninjured when she left for the nursing home. A physician's report attached to the complaint stated that the woman's leg injury would not have occurred in the absence of negligence. The complaint further alleged that the woman was under the control, successively, of the ambulance service and the nursing home during the time when she must have sustained the injury, and that either the ambulance service or the nursing home must have negligently moved or handled the woman, causing the injury to her leg. Both defendants have argued that the allegations in the complaint are inadequate to support a negligence claim. What is the best response to the defendants' argument?

Choices:
- Both defendants owed a duty to the woman.
- One of the two defendants probably caused the injury, and the circumstances of the injury are primarily within the knowledge and control of the defendants rather than the woman or her representative.
- The defendants are concurrent tortfeasors, so each is vicariously liable for any tortious act committed by the other.
- There are grounds for the fact-finder to infer that both defendants were negligent.


Question: A man and a woman had a romantic relationship for one year, but the man ended it. The woman was unable to accept the breakup and continued trying to contact the man. The woman would call the man's home and cellphone many times each day, and also tried to visit the man's home and workplace frequently. The man tried to discourage the woman's behavior, but the woman persisted. If the man asserts a claim against the woman based on invasion of privacy, the most likely outcome is that the man will

Choices:
- prevail, because the telephone calls intruded upon his seclusion and solitude.
- prevail, but only if the man is able to prove malice on the defendant's part.
- not prevail, because the telephone calls did not cause the man to suffer any economic loss or hardship.
- not prevail, unless the woman's conduct was a crime in some respect.


Question: The defendant was caught in a thunderstorm while walking down the street. As the defendant was about to open an umbrella that she was carrying, a stranger to the defendant came up to her, snatched the umbrella out of the defendant's hand, and said, "You thief! That's my umbrella. " Enraged by being accosted in such a manner, the defendant grabbed for the umbrella with one hand and pushed the stranger with the other. The stranger hung on to the umbrella but fell over backward onto the sidewalk, which was wet and slippery. When the defendant saw the stranger hit the ground, she calmed down, decided the umbrella was not worth all the commotion, and walked off. As it turned out, the umbrella did in fact belong to the stranger, and the defendant had picked it up by mistake when she was left a restaurant earlier that day. A few moments later, the stranger got up in a daze and stepped into the gutter, where he was struck by a car that was passing another car on the right, in violation of a state law. The stranger died in the hospital two hours later. Which of the following is the most serious crime for which the defendant could be found guilty?

Choices:
- Battery.
- Larceny.
- Involuntary manslaughter.
- No crime.


Question: A professional football player was seriously injured when the football helmet he was wearing shattered as he was being tackled during a game. The player subsequently asserted a claim against the manufacturer of the helmet to recover damages for his injury. At trial, the player's attorney calls a former employee of the manufacturer to testify that three weeks after the player suffered his injury, the manufacturer devised a new design for its football helmets. The former employee's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible as an admission.
- admissible as circumstantial evidence that the player's injury was traceable to the defective design of the football helmet.
- inadmissible, because of the public policy behind taking safety precautions.
- inadmissible, because the former employee is no longer authorized to speak on behalf of the manufacturer.


Question: A man was charged with first-degree murder. Two lawyers were appointed to represent him because the prosecution planned to seek the death penalty. On the first day of trial, the air-conditioning malfunctioned in the courtroom, so the judge directed that the selection of the jurors take place in his chambers. Because of the large number of potential jurors, the judge directed that only one lawyer for the prosecution and one for the defense participate in the jury selection process. The defendant remained in the courtroom during the questioning of the jurors. Once the jury was selected, the trial was postponed until the next day, when the air-conditioning was again working. Did the court's jury selection process violate the defendant's federal constitutional rights?

Choices:
- No, because a defendant's confrontation rights are limited to witnesses rather than jurors.
- No, because there was good cause to conduct jury selection outside the defendant's presence.
- Yes, because excluding the defendant undercut the presumption of innocence.
- Yes, because jury selection is a critical stage at which a defendant is entitled to be present.


Question: A homeowner listed his home for sale with a real estate broker. The written six-month exclusive- right-to-sell listing agreement provided for the payment of a commission if the home sold. In accordance with the listing agreement, the broker promptly took reasonable steps to market the home, incurring expenses for her efforts. Five months into the listing period, without involving the broker, the homeowner accepted an offer to purchase from his cousin. The broker learned of the contract only when the sale of the home to the cousin closed, one month after the listing period had expired. Is the broker entitled to any payment?

Choices:
- No, because the broker engaged in no negotiations with the cousin.
- No, because the closing occurred after the listing period had expired.
- Yes, but only reimbursement for her expenses.
- Yes, the full commission, because the homeowner accepted the cousin's offer to purchase during the listing period.


Question: A man was prosecuted for the alleged murder of his estranged wife. At trial, the government was allowed to present the testimony of several women who testified to having flirtatious or sexual encounters with the defendant over the past 20 years prior to the homicide. None of the testimony showed any such activity within three years of the murder date, and none of it showed any violent tendencies of the defendant or intentions expressed that he wanted to kill his wife. The defendant had an alibi for the time of the crime and presented many alibi witnesses. The government claimed that it was showing motive by proving the defendant's proclivity for extra-marital affairs over the years and therefore his bad relationship with his wife. The jury convicted him after hearing the testimony of 10 women regarding defendant's various sexual contacts with them over prior years. The defendant appealed the murder conviction, claiming that the women's testimony was prejudicial and inflammatory and showed only bad character, which is not admissible under evidentiary rules. Will the appeals court likely reverse the conviction and order a new trial?

Choices:
- Yes, the trial was unfair in presenting testimony of women going back over 20 years; it would have been proper to admit such testimony only as to the five years preceding the crime.
- Yes, the defendant did not receive a fair trial; the testimony of the women only showed his bad character but because they were old incidents and not continuing, they did not allow a permissible inference that these affairs gave him a motive to kill his spouse.
- No, if the testimony was admitted in error it was harmless error that did not sway the jury one way or another and so the defendant got a fair trial in all other respects.
- No, the testimony was admissible because it tended to show a pattern of "transferred intent" that proved the defendant's great hostility to his wife, and his need to eliminate her from his life so that he could go back to having a wild life.


Question: A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liabilityaction in federal court against a manufacturer incorporatedand with its principal place of business in State B. The con-sumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer's product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer,the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint againstthe product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed boththat the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer's injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault. 7.After being fired, a woman sued her former employer in federal court, alleging that her supervisor had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. The woman's complaint included a lengthy description of what the supervisor had said and done over the years, quoting his telephone calls and emails to her and her own emails to the supervisor's manager asking for help. The designer is aware that the manufacturer did not follow all of the designer's specifications when making the product. Which of the following arguments is most likely to achieve the designer's goal of dismissal of the third-party complaint?

Choices:
- The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer and the designer are citizens of State B.
- The manufacturer failed to obtain the court's leave to file the third-party complaint.
- The manufacturer's failure to follow the designer's speci-fications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer's injuries.
- The manufacturer's third-party complaint failed to state a proper third-party claim.


Question: A husband suspected that his wife was having an affair. He found a letter in her car addressed to her boyfriend. When he confronted her with it she laughed derisively, admitted to the adultery in sordid detail, and taunted him with insults. He got into a rage and killed her on the spot. In the trial for first degree murder, defense counsel asked for a jury charge of voluntary manslaughter. The trial judge refused. On appeal will the husband prevail on an argument that the facts justified a charge of voluntary manslaughter?

Choices:
- No, voluntary manslaughter is only available when the adultery is witnessed in real time by the defendant.
- No, mere words are never a sufficient provocation to establish voluntary manslaughter.
- Yes, an admission of adultery always justifies a jury charge of voluntary manslaughter.
- Yes, there was sufficient provocation to justify a jury charge of voluntary manslaughter.


Question: A property owner held title in fee simple to a tract of 20 acres located outside the boundaries of the city. Thereafter, the property owner constructed a shopping center on the property and leased commercial buildings and parking facilities to various tenants. The shopping center, which was located near a public high school, attracted many teenagers who often loitered in the parking lot. The youths frequently harassed shoppers and damaged autos by breaking off windshield wipers and radio antennas. Customarily, the local police department patrolled the shopping center and drove by three or four times each day. This, however, did not prevent the teenagers from hanging out at the shopping center. One afternoon, a shopper was shopping at the center when an unidentified youth damaged her car by throwing a rock through the back window. The shopper brings an action against the property owner to recover for the damage to her auto. She will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, unless the person who was responsible for damaging her car can be identified.
- prevail, if the damage to her car could have been prevented had the property owner taken reasonable security measures.
- not prevail, because the car was damaged by the malicious acts of an independent third person.
- not prevail, because the local police had the primary duty to provide security protection at the shopping area.


Question: A homeowner gave his friend a mortgage on his property to secure a loan from the friend to the homeowner in the amount of $100,000. The homeowner then gives an investor a mortgage on the property to secure a loan from the investor to the homeowner in the amount of $80,000. The friend then records his mortgage. The homeowner then gives a bank a mortgage on the property to secure a loan from the bank to the homeowner in the amount of $50,000. The investor then records. The bank then records. The homeowner lost his job and was unable to pay the mortgages on the property. In a foreclosure proceeding in which the friend, the investor, and the bank were parties, the property sold for $160,000. The recording statute in this jurisdiction provided "unless recorded, all written instruments affecting title to land are void as to subsequent purchasers who paid value and without notice. "What dollar amount, if any, should go to the friend?

Choices:
- $0. 00
- $30,000. 00
- $80,000. 00
- $100,000. 00


Question: A buyer signed a contract to purchase a tract of land from a seller. The contract was signed on May 1, 2006, and the closing is set for June 15, 2006. The land was located in a jurisdiction that has in force the following statute:Statute of Limitations "an action to recover the possession of land shall be brought within twenty- one (21) years after the cause thereof accrued, but if a person who is entitled to bring such action at the time the cause accrued is within the age of minority (under 21) or of unsound mind, such action may be brought within ten (10) years after such disability is removed. "This statute was enacted in the jurisdiction in 1930. The land in question had been owned by a rancher in 1960. On September 1, 1960, the rancher died intestate, leaving his nephew as his only heir. The nephew had been born on October 1, 1954. In addition, there is a deed from the rancher's administrator to the seller dated November 1, 1960, which the latter recorded on the same date. During his title search, the buyer learned that the administrator had never obtained any license to sell the land in question; and also he (the administrator) never formally received the approval of any court with respect to the administration of the rancher's estate. Moreover, the buyer ascertained that the seller entered into possession of the land in question on November 1, 1960. On the assumption that there are no additional facts, the buyer should be advised that the seller became or will become the owner of the land in question

Choices:
- on November 1, 1960.
- on November 12, 1981.
- on October 1, 1985.
- when the nephew dies.


Question: On April 10, the owner of a golf course entered into an oral agreement with a gardener whereby the gardener promised to install all new sprinkler heads on the sprinkler system at the 18-hole golf course. In return, the owner promised to pay the gardener $2,400 upon completion of the job. Since a golf tournament was scheduled for the weekend of April 20 21, the gardener agreed to replace all the sprinkler heads no later than April 19. Before accepting the job, the gardener had inspected the golf course and determined that 240 sprinkler heads had to be replaced. By April 14, the gardener had installed 80 new sprinkler heads on the first six holes of the 18-hole golf course. That afternoon, however, the owner learned that the gardener had been adjudicated bankrupt on April 12, so he notified the gardener to discontinue the job. The next day, the owner hired a landscaper to complete the installation work at $8 per head. The landscaper installed the remaining 160 sprinkler heads and completed the work on April 19. Despite making reasonable efforts, the gardener was unable to find any gainful employment during the period. Also, the gardener's application for unemployment compensation was rejected at the same time. Which of the following statements, if found to be true, would provide the owner with legally justifiable grounds for discharging the gardener?

Choices:
- The gardener had been adjudicated bankrupt onApril 12.
- The gardener had only completed 33 percent of the installation work when he was discharged.
- The contract between the owner and the gardener was not in writing.
- Half of the sprinkler heads installed by the gardener were determined to be defective, and the gardener refused to replace the sprinkler heads.


Question: A defendant was on the first day of her new secretarial job when her boss called her into his office. The boss directly suggested that if the defendant did not go out on a date with him, she would be fired in one week. Every day during the remainder of the week, the boss approached the defendant with his demand, and the defendant refused to cooperate. At the end of the week, when the boss called the defendant into his office and again tried to pressure her to go out on a date with him, the defendant knocked him unconscious with a giant stapler and choked him to death. The defendant is tried for murder. In accordance with the following statute, the state relies at trial on the presumption of malice:"When the act of killing another is proved, malice aforethought shall be presumed, and the burden shall rest upon the party who committed the killing to show that malice did not exist. "If the defendant is convicted of first-degree murder and challenges her conviction on the grounds of the above statute, on appeal she will

Choices:
- win, because the statute is unconstitutional.
- win, because the statute violates due process.
- lose, because she failed to overcome the presumption.
- lose, because the presumption may be rebutted.


Question: A large man with red hair robbed a liquor store. Thereafter, a defendant was arrested and charged with the armed robbery. At the defendant's trial, several eyewitnesses testified that they had seen a large redheaded man pull out a gun and rob the owner of the liquor store. The defendant appeared at trial with a shaven head. The prosecution calls a corrections officer to testify that the defendant had red hair when he was first brought to jail. The defendant's counsel objects. The trial judge should rule the correction officer's testimony

Choices:
- admissible as a prior identification.
- admissible, for the limited purpose of clarifying the discrepancy in the witnesses' testimony.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible, because it is opinion testimony.


Question: A plaintiff, a management trainee, brought a sex discrimination lawsuit against her employer for wrongful termination of her employment. At trial, the plaintiff is prepared to testify that a janitor at the company told her that he had heard her supervisor say to other male coworkers about her, "Make it hard for her. Maybe she'll go home where she belongs." Is the plaintiff's proposed testimony admissible?

Choices:
- No, because the janitor's statement is hearsay not within any exception.
- No, because the statements of both the janitor and the supervisor are hearsay not within any exception.
- Yes, because the janitor's statement is a present sense impression, and the supervisor's statement is a statement of his then-existing state of mind.
- Yes, because the statements of both the janitor and the supervisor are statements janitor and the supervisor are statements concerning a matter within the scope of their employment.


Question: A couple were married, and four months later, they wished to obtain a divorce. However, the state in which they were married prohibits a couple from obtaining a divorce until they have resided in the state for at least 12 months. In an action by the couple challenging the constitutionality of the residency requirement of the state divorce law, the court will most likely declare the provision

Choices:
- constitutional, because the requirement promotes a compelling state interest.
- constitutional, because it is within the area of state action.
- unconstitutional, because it constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause.
- unconstitutional, because it constitutes a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, Section 2.


Question: The President may appoint which of the following with the advice and consent of the Senate?

Choices:
- Ambassadors
- public ministers and consuls
- justices of the Supreme Court
- all of the above


Question: A man who was emotionally upset due to marital problems voluntarily checked into a private medical facility for treatment. State law provided that if he tried to leave against medical advice, the hospital could hold him for 72 hours while trying to convince him to stay. During the stay, he told his medical providers that he was intensely angry at his wife, who was living with another man, and he wanted to harm her. Despite that knowledge, the hospital issued him an unrestricted weekend pass. When he got out he shot and killed his wife. The man's children sued the hospital for negligence. The hospital filed a motion to dismiss mainly because there was no privity with the decedent and no duty owed to her. Will the court grant the motion to dismiss?

Choices:
- No, because the hospital is strictly liable for releasing patients who it knows or should know represent an unreasonable danger to third persons.
- No, because the special relationship and the control between doctor and an in-patient mandates due care by the doctor to prevent a foreseeable danger to others.
- Yes, because there is no duty to control the conduct of another person to prevent that person from harming others.
- Yes, because the intervening acts of third parties are unforeseeable and cannot give rise to liability.


Question: A defendant was prosecuted for mail fraud. At trial, the defendant moved to have all witnesses excluded from the courtroom, and the court granted the motion. The government named the investigating FBI agent as its designated representative. Upon learning that the agent would be giving testimony during the trial, the defendant moved that the agent also be excluded from the courtroom. Should the defendantÕs motion be granted?

Choices:
- No, provided that the government can show that the agentÕs presence is essential to the presentation of its case.
- No, because the government has a right to have its designated representative remain in the courtroom through-out the trial.
- Yes, because the agentÕs testimony might be influenced by the testimony of other witnesses.
- Yes, because the defendant has a right to exclude all persons who may be called as government witnesses.


Question: The Secretary of Homeland Security administers and enforces the immigration laws. 8 U.S.C. Â§ 1103(a)(1). The Secretary has the discretion to implement "deferred action," which temporarily postpones the exportation of certain groups of undocumented immigrants. With 11.3 million people now here illegally, the Secretary implemented a program called the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The program deferred removal for two years of individuals who came to the United States as children, met certain eligibility criteria, and cleared a background check. A Sheriff in a county near the Mexican border, sued the Secretary, claiming that the policy would increase crime and drain resources in his county. The U.S. District Court dismissed the Sheriff's claim for lack of standing. On appeal, will the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likely affirm the dismissal?

Choices:
- Yes because the Sheriff is stressing a speculative possibility that his office may incur funding shortages and more enforcement problems at some undefined future time.
- Yes, because the Sheriff, as a part of the executive branch himself, is not legally qualified to bring a claim against the executive.
- No, because anyone has the right to object to the executive branch when it tries to legislate its own opinion into the existing law.
- No, because the Sheriff's county is near the border and it will in fact suffer an ingestion of more immigrants from the policy.


Question: A landlord is the owner in fee simple of a tract ofland on which is situated a studio. The landlordleases the land and building thereon to a tenant fora term of seven years, commencing on August 1,2001, and terminating at midnight on July 31, 2008. The lease contains the following provisions:"(1) The tenant covenants not to assign the leased premises without the consent of the landlord. "After three years of the lease had expired, the tenant, without the consent of the landlord, assigned the entire balance of the lease period to a dance instructor, who took immediate possession of the leased property. The landlord accepted rental payments from the dance instructor. Then in 2005, the dance instructor assigned his leasehold interest to a yoga instructor who went into possession. Assume for the purposes of this question only that the landlord, after learning of the dance instructor's assignment to the yoga instructor, brings suit against the dance instructor to have the assignment declaredvoid. The landlord will most likely

Choices:
- succeed, because the original leasehold agreement prohibited assignments.
- succeed, because the covenant prohibiting assignments did not run with the land.
- not succeed, because in accordance with the Rule in Dumpor's Case, where the landlord consents to one transfer, he waives his right to avoid future transfers.
- not succeed, because the privity of estate between the dance instructor and the landlord terminated when he assigned the leasehold to the yoga instructor.


Question: An incumbent was running for re-election as the mayor of a city. During one of his opponent's campaign speeches, he stated that the mayor had once propositioned a prostitute. A television correspondent who was covering the election was present when the opponent made the statement. She recorded the opponent's remark about the mayor in her notebook. In a stunning upset, the opponent defeated the mayor in the election. Many of the pollsters attributed the mayor's loss to the question of his moral character following the opponent's smear campaign depicting the mayor as a client of prostitutes. Following the election, the mayor sued the opponent for defamation, basing his suit on the opponent's statement that the mayor had "once propositioned a prostitute. " At trial, the mayor calls the television correspondent to testify concerning her recollection of what the opponent said during the campaign speech attended by the television correspondent. The television correspondent's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible, because the television correspondent recorded the opponent's statement in her business capacity.
- admissible, because the television correspondent had firsthand knowledge of the opponent's statement.
- inadmissible, because the notebook entry is the best evidence.
- inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: Doug Dogman had a domesticated golden retriever named Rover. Rover was a good, friendly dog who loved to run and chase cars but had never hurt anyone. One dark evening before the street lights turned on, Rover was chasing cars in the street, and Ginny Grandmother, aged 85, swerved to avoid hitting the dog. As she swerved, Ginny hit a parked car and suffered a head injury. If Ginny brings suit against Doug Dogman under a strict liability theory, the court will likely find for

Choices:
- Ginny, because Doug's dog was a cause in fact of Ginny's injuries.
- Doug, because Retriever is a domesticated animal.
- Doug, unless a statute or ordinance bans unleashed dogs on public streets.
- Doug, because the strict liability rule for dogs would not include dogs not displaying vicious propensities.


Question: One day, an 11-year-old boy came home from school with red lipstick stains on his collar. When the boy's mother inquired about the lipstick stains, the boy said that his teacher had kissed him. The mother then contacted the police, who subsequently conducted an investigation and arrested the teacher, charging her with two felony counts of child molestation. In accord with state law, a preliminary hearing was scheduled. After the boy was subpoenaed to testify at the preliminary hearing, the prosecution filed a motion to exclude the teacher from the courtroom during the boy's appearance. The motion, with supporting affidavits from a child psychologist, claimed that having the boy and the teacher in the same room would cause irreparable emotional and psychological harm to the alleged victim. The judge should

Choices:
- deny the motion, because a pretrial proceeding is an early stage of trial, and a defendant has a constitutional right of confrontation at every stage of the trial.
- deny the motion, because the teacher's exclusion from the courtroom would have prejudicial impact on receiving effective assistance of counsel.
- grant the motion, because the teacher's attorney still has an opportunity to cross-examine the witness despite the teacher's absence from the courtroom.
- grant the motion, because cross-examination at a preliminary hearing is not required by the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.


Question: A seller sold the eastern two-thirds of his land to a buyer, who soon thereafter constructed a house there. One year later, the buyer cleared a path from her home across the seller's retained land to a road that abuts the western boundary of the seller's land. The seller stood by and watched the buyer clear the path, but made no objection. This path is very convenient to the buyer's use of her land, and the buyer used it daily for several months. The path is readily apparent to anyone. Recently, the seller put a barrier across the path. The buyer now has brought an action to have the barrier removed. The theory giving the buyer her best chance of success would be that

Choices:
- the buyer has an easement by necessity. This would depend on the strength of the court's feeling about the use of the laid.
- the buyer has an easement by implication. This would depend on whether the convenience was sufficiently strong to amount to "reasonably necessary. "
- the buyer has an easement by prescription. This would depend on the length of time she used the path prior to the erection of the barrier.
- the buyer has an express easement.


Question: A state has a hit-and-run statute in effect that makes it a crime to leave the scene of an accident. One afternoon, a 9-year-old victim was riding her bicycle along the street. As the victim swerved into the southbound lane, her bicycle was struck by a car driven by the defendant. The victim was knocked off her bike and thrown onto the sidewalk adjacent to the street. Although the victim received some minor scrapes and bruises, she was not seriously injured. Following the accident, the car driven by the defendant sped away. Moments later, however, a tractor-trailer crashed into the rear of a car about 30 feet from where the victim was lying. The car almost instantly caught fire as its gas tank exploded. The victim, who was engulfed in the flaming wreckage, was killed. If the defendant is charged with involuntary manslaughter for the death of the victim, the defendant should be found

Choices:
- guilty, because she unlawfully fled the scene of an accident in violation of her statutory duty.
- guilty, because her failure to render aid to the victim would make the defendant criminally responsible for the victim's death.
- not guilty, because under the circumstances her failure to aid the victim cannot be a basis for imposing criminal responsibility for the victim's death.
- not guilty, because there was not a sufficient causal connection between her actions and the victim's death to impose criminal responsibility.


Question: A married couple signed a contract to sell their home, and in it they affirmed that they did not know of any structural defects in the home. Prior to the date of closing, the purchasers noticed peeling paint and plaster erosion in a corner of a ceiling near the fireplace. They also noticed water marks lining the interior wall in the basement. The sellers explained that these were old problems that had been fixed and they just didn't get around to doing the cosmetic repairs and painting. The parties went to closing and finalized the deal. On their first week in the house, the purchasers found a virtual flood plain in their basement and they confronted water gushing in at the corner areas near the fireplace. They hired a contractor who reported the need for extensive structural repairs. They sued the sellers for fraud, misrepresentation, and implied warranties of habitability, and they asked for the funds to fix the property. Do they have a valid cause of action against the sellers?

Choices:
- No, because the facts do not indicate an intention to deceive by the sellers.
- No, because buyers must always buy a used house in "as is" condition and they assume the risk of any hidden defects under the caveat emptor rule.
- Yes, the evidence indicates that the sellers made knowingly false representations of material fact to induce the buyers to rely thereon and buy the property.
- Yes, the sellers breached the contract of sale and must pay damages.


Question: A plaintiff has sued a defendant in a court of the state in which both parties reside. The plaintiff alleges only a cause of action arising under a federal statute, although state law provides a similar cause of action. The federal statute provides that claims under the statute can be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. The statute has not yet been interpreted by any federal court. Should the state court hear the case?

Choices:
- No, because cases arising under federal law must be decided in federal court.
- No, because state courts must abstain in cases arising under federal law until a federal court has decided the federal issue.
- Yes, because state courts may not discriminate against cases arising under discriminate against cases arising under federal law.
- Yes, because the parties cannot proceed in federal court since there is no diversity of citizenship.


Question: Which of the following types of regulations would not be reviewed under the strict scrutiny standard of review?

Choices:
- Gender
- Interstate travel
- Privacy
- Alienage


Question: A state is the only state that imposes a tax on the extraction of pitchblende. This black-colored mineral consists of massive uraninite and contains radium, which is the chief ore-mineral source of uranium. Minute quantities of plutonium are also found in pitchblende. This is particularly significant because plutonium undergoes slow disintegration with the emission of a helium nucleus to form uranium 235, and that is fissionable with slow neutrons to yield atomic energy. As such, pitchblende is vital to the economy of the entire country. Congress has recently enacted a statute forbidding any state from imposing a tax on the extraction of pitchblende. Because pitchblende is not mined in any other state, this federal legislation affects only the state. Thus, in practice, this federal law only limits the taxing power of the state. In light of the Constitution and this federal law, the state extraction tax on pitchblende is most likely

Choices:
- invalid, because when Congress exercises its plenary power over interstate commerce, the supremacy clause voids inconsistent state action.
- invalid, because Congress may use its general welfare power to prohibit state legislation that it deems harmful to the nation as a whole.
- valid, because Congress does not have the authority to interfere with the taxing policies of a state.
- valid, because Congress may not enact a law that places one state on an unequal footing with other states.


Question: Wendy Wholesaler sold merchandise to Roberta Retailer. A dispute has arisen between the parties and Roberta is trying to prove that Wendy is a ÛÏmerchantÛ as opposed to a "casual party." The least important factor indicating the status of a "merchant" is that Wendy

Choices:
- Is a wholesaler rather than a retailer.
- Deals in the goods sold to Roberta.
- Holds herself out as an expert in the goods sold to Roberta.
- Sells under 10 units a year to Roberta.


Question: A motorcycle collector and his friend had known each other for years. The collector sent a letter to the friend that said, "I am willing to sell you my oldest motorcycle for $4,000." The friend sent the collector an email saying, "I accept your offer." The collector owned three motorcycles: a 1985 model, a 1987 model, and a 1992 model. The friend did not know about the 1985 model, which was the one the collector intended to sell. The collector was unaware that the friend intended to buy the 1987 model. When the collector tendered the 1985 model, the friend refused to accept it. Is the friend likely to prevail in a breach of contract suit against the collector?

Choices:
- No, because by not inquiring further about the meaning of the phrase "oldest motorcycle," the friend assumed the risk of being mistaken.
- No, because neither the friend nor the collector had reason to know of the other's interpretation of the words "oldest motorcycle."
- Yes, so long as a reasonable person in the friend's position would have considered the letter as referring to the 1987 model.
- Yes, because the friend had no reason to know of the collector's meaning and the collector could have avoided the confusion by more careful drafting.


Question: A man borrowed money from a lender and mortgaged land that he owned to secure repayment of the loan. Before he had completely repaid the loan, the man conveyed the land to an investor, who expressly assumed the loan. The note and mortgage did not contain a due-on-sale clause. After the investor had made several payments on the loan, she defaulted on two payments. The lender notified the man and the investor of its intention to accelerate the loan pursuant to the terms of the note and mortgage unless the default was cured within 60 days. When neither the man nor the investor made the required payment, the lender accelerated the loan and initiated foreclosure proceedings, naming both the man and the investor as party defendants. The foreclosure sale resulted in a deficiency. The lender has sought a deficiency judgment against only the man, because the investor has become insolvent in the meantime. Will the court likely find the man liable for the deficiency?

Choices:
- No, because the investor's express assumption of the loan released the man from liability.
- No, because the lender must first seek to obtain a deficiency judgment against the investor.
- Yes, because even after the assumption, the man remains liable as a surety of the investor in the absence of a release from the lender.
- Yes, because the note and mortgage did not contain a due-on-sale clause.


Question: A march was held to call attention to the fact that minorities are still disenfranchised from the electoral process. A congressional report revealed that in the certain parts of the country, only 42% of minorities eligible to vote were, in fact, registered. The report also indicated that certain states had residency laws restricting a person's right to vote. As a consequence, Congress enacted a statute that makes any law denying minorities the right to vote shall be deemed unconstitutional. This federal statute will most likely be upheld under which of the following constitutional provisions?

Choices:
- Thirteenth Amendment.
- Fourteenth Amendment.
- Fifteenth Amendment.
- Twentieth Amendment.


Question: A state recently enacted a statute requiring the following of all construction companies that do business with and for the state (defined generally as selling goods or providing services to the state, its agencies, or subdivisions):Such businesses must purchase insurance only from insurance companies chartered in the state and thus be subject to regulation by the state insurance commissioner;  In hiring any unskilled laborers for employment in connection with state business, preference must be given to citizens of the state;Nonresident aliens shall be prohibited from engaging in any state related business activities;  All buildings constructed for the state must have roofs composed of adobe, which is composed of yellow silt or clay deposits found only in the state. The proposed statute's preamble recites that its provisions will ensure:  responsible insurance coverage for all those who do business with the state;an increased standard of living for the citizens who comprise the state's labor force;  the lowest possible expenditures by the state government; and  a beautiful, uniform aesthetic decor for all new state buildings. If the state statute is attacked as violating the commerce clause, which of the following statements is most accurate?

Choices:
- The statute is a valid exercise of the state's police power to legislate to protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its citizens.
- The statute falls within the reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment.
- The statute should be invalidated if there are nondiscriminatory reasonable alternatives available to serve legitimate local interests.
- The statute is a valid exercise of state action only if the federal government has not previously "occupied the field" in this area.


Question: Congress enacted a statute taxing the sale of automobiles. In an inseverable portion of that same law, the entire proceeds of the tax are appropriated on a continuing basis for direct payments to an education fund. The education fund is dedicated to educating people about the importance of mass transportation as an alternative to automobiles, which the fund considers a major source of pollution. As a matter of constitutional law, which of the following statements concerning the continuing federal appropriation to the education fund is most accurate?

Choices:
- It is constitutional because Congress could reasonably believe that such a subsidy to this particular museum will benefit the cultural life of the nation as a whole.
- It is constitutional because Congress can demonstrate that such a subsidy is rationally related to a legitimate public interest.
- It is unconstitutional because it is not apportioned among the several states on an equitable basis.
- It is unconstitutional because it advances the welfare only of thosepersons who are interested in cleanair.


Question: A hot-air balloon touring company operated near a golf course. The company's property was separated from the golf course by a fence on which the company had posted signs warning people not to enter the property because of the dangers of balloons landing. A golfer on the golf course hit an errant shot onto the company's property, ignored the warning signs, and jumped over the fence to retrieve her golf ball. At about the same time, one of the company's balloons experienced mechanical problems and had to make an emergency landing to avoid crashing. The balloon, which was out of control when it landed, struck the golfer and injured her. The jurisdiction has decided that hot-air ballooning is an abnormally dangerous activity. In an action by the golfer against the company, does the company have any affirmative defenses?

Choices:
- No, because the balloon was out of control when it struck the golfer.
- No, because the company was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
- Yes, because the balloon landed to avoid crashing.
- Yes, because the golfer assumed the risk by coming onto the company's property.


Question: A truck driver negligently changed lanes on the highway without checking to see if it was clear to do so. As a result, a car that was next to the truck was forced off the highway and crashed into a concrete barrier along the roadway. The driver of the car suffered a broken leg. An ambulance arrived and rushed her to the hospital. A doctor there examined the broken leg and ordered X-rays to be taken. The doctor carelessly misread the X-rays and set the broken bone improperly. As a result of the doctor's negligence, the driver's leg never healed completely, and the driver was left with a significant impairment of the use of her leg. If the driver of the car brings a negligence action against the driver of the truck, the most likely result is

Choices:
- the truck driver will not be liable for any damages, because the doctor's negligence constituted a superseding cause that relieved the truck driver of liability.
- the truck driver will be liable for the harm suffered by the plaintiff when her car crashed, but not the additional or enhanced harm resulting from the doctor's careless mistake.
- the truck driver will be liable only if his negligence is regarded by the jury as being more severe than the doctor's negligence.
- the truck driver will be liable for all the harm suffered by the plaintiff, although the doctor may be liable to some extent, as well.


Question: A woman was standing in the aisle of a subway car and put her purse on the seat next to her. A man approached the woman from behind and grabbed the purse off the seat. He then pushed the woman out of the way and ran out of the subway car while carrying the purse. The man was apprehended on the subway platform while in possession of the purse. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law with respect to criminal offenses, of what crime can the man properly be convicted?

Choices:
- Larceny, because force was not used until after he took the purse.
- Larceny, because he made no threat to use force.
- Robbery, because he physically took the purse from the woman's presence.
- Robbery, because he used force in leaving with the purse.


Question: An elderly woman was mugged and robbed on a public street. At the time of the offense, the victim only saw her assailant's eyes. A hooded sweatshirt and bandana concealed the rest of his face. A few days later, while the victim waited to be interviewed, she observed the defendant being escorted through the courthouse, in jail clothing, and restrained by handcuffs and leg irons. She identified him as the perpetrator shortly thereafter. Will the court allow that identification into evidence?

Choices:
- No, because it is not reliable enough and there was too much suggestion to make a reasonably accurate identification.
- No, because prior statements of identification are considered hearsay and never allowed into evidence.
- Yes, if the witness perceived the perpetrator by seeing his eyes, and made the identification on that basis it was reliable enough to be admitted.
- Yes, because the witness' recognition of someone is all that is needed; the reliability or credibility of it is subject to cross examination.


Question: A fifteen year-old boy was arrested for burglary. At a juvenile hearing, there was some circumstantial evidence presented but no direct evidence or eyewitness testimony. The juvenile court judge found the youth guilty and sentenced him to five years in a detention center. The juvenile's lawyer objected that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but the judge held that such proof was not required in a juvenile proceeding. Will the state's appellate court affirm the ruling of the juvenile court judge?

Choices:
- Yes, a juvenile does not get all of the rights enjoyed by adults and proof does not have to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
- No, a juvenile cannot be convicted of a crime in a juvenile proceeding except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Yes, the reasonable doubt standard does not in any event rise to a constitutional right under our system in which each state can declare its own constitutional mandates.
- No, a juvenile court proceeding is always followed by a de novo proceeding in adult court in which the reasonable doubt standard is guaranteed.


Question: A patient in a hospital was placed in a wheelchair with his broken leg extended straight out in front of him. As a nurse employed by the hospital was pushing the wheelchair through a set of automatic doors at a normal pace, the doors closed on the patient's foot, injuring it. The nurse attempted to pull the wheelchair back through the doors. This action caused the doors to close more tightly on the patient's foot, injuring it further. The patient sued the hospital, alleging improper maintenance of the doors. The patient has produced no evidence of specific conduct or neglect on the part of the hospital that would have caused the automatic doors to malfunction. The hospital has moved for summary judgment. Should the court grant the hospital's motion?

Choices:
- No, because a jury could find that there was a latent defect in the doors.
- No, because a jury could find the hospital liable for negligence based on res ipsa loquitur.
- Yes, because proof of an accident, by itself, does not establish that an injured person was a victim of negligence.
- Yes, because the nurse's action was a superseding cause of the injury.


Question: A customer sued a printing company for negligence, claiming that the holiday cards he specially ordered were of poor quality and had his name misspelled. At trial, the customer shows the court a printed statement from a printer's association defining the minimum standard of skill for the printing industry in the community. The customer asks the court to take judicial notice that the printed statement constitutes the applicable standard of care for printing companies in the area. The court should

Choices:
- grant the request, because it promotes expeditious and economical disposition of the proceedings.
- grant the request, because the standard of care is amply supported by information supplied to the court.
- deny the request, because judicial notice cannot be taken of matters that are ultimate issues in the case.
- deny the request if the judge determines that the statement is subject to reasonable dispute.


Question: A defendant went to a party at his friend's house. While he was there, the defendant drank a lot of beers and countless shots. The defendant eventually stumbled into the bathroom where he spotted a purse lying on the floor under the sink. Wondering vaguely if it might contain more beer, he opened it up and found his friend's wallet. He grabbed some money from the wallet and left the bathroom. As he was descending the stairs with the money in his hand, his friend spotted him. She was initially concerned he might tumble down the stairs but upon seeing the money in his hand, she asked him where he got it. The defendant responded, "Ha! Your money or your life!" Not taking him seriously, the friend let him pass by. It wasn't until later that she realized that the defendant had taken the money from her wallet. The defendant should be charged with which of the following crimes?

Choices:
- Larceny.
- Larceny and burglary.
- Larceny and attempted extortion.
- Robbery and extortion.


Question: A construction company, in preparing its bid for the construction of a new hospital, received a quotation of $120,000 from a subcontractor who offered to do the kitchen work in the new hospital. This bid was $30,000 lower than the construction company's next lowest bid for the kitchen work. As a result, the construction company lowered its bid by $20,000 before submitting it to the hospital board. After the construction company was awarded the construction bid and had accepted the subcontractor's offer, the subcontractor discovered that in his preparation of the quotation, he had overlooked some subsidiary kitchen installments required by the plans. Immediately thereafter, the subcontractor brought suit for rescission of the contract. It should

Choices:
- prevail, because of the unilateral mistake.
- prevail, because the mistake was an essential element of the bargain.
- not prevail, unless the construction company knew or should have known of the subcontractor s error.
- not prevail, because the computation mistake was antecedent to acceptance of the bid.


Question: On January 1, a manufacturer of widgets received an e-mail from a widget distributor about purchasing widgets. The manufacturer sent the following returh e-mail: "Have 1,000 widgets available at $10 each for February delivery. Be advised that this offer will remain open until February 1. "On January 31, the distributor sent the following fax to the manufacturer: "Your offer is hereby accepted, but request delivery of 500 widgets in February and 500 widgets in March. " The manufacturer received the fax the same day, but did not respond. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the legal effect of the distributor's January 31 fax?

Choices:
- It constitutes a counteroffer, because it contains different terms from those contained in the original offer.
- It constitutes a rejection, because the offer implied limited acceptance to the terms contained therein.
- It creates an enforceable contract with delivery of 500 widgets in February and delivery of 500 widgets in March.
- It creates a reformation integrating the terms of both writings.


Question: A wife is the beneficiary of a policy issued by an insurance company, insuring the life of her husband, now deceased. The policy contained a clause providing that double indemnity is payable in the event that death of the insured "results directly, and independently of all other causes, from bodily injury effected solely through external violent and unexpected means. "The husband was found dead in the chicken shed of his farm. His death resulted from wounds caused by a shotgun blast. The wife filed the necessary papers with the insurance company concerning proof of her husband's death. The insurance company admitted liability for the face amount of the policy but rejected the wife's claim for double indemnity. The wife then instituted suit against the insurance company demanding judgment according to the double indemnity provisions of the husband's insurance policy. At trial, the wife was called to testify about the events on the day of her husband's death. The wife said that she was in the kitchen when she heard a gunshot in the shed. As she rushed out of the house, she saw their neighbor running from the shed. The neighbor is present in court. As a witness, the wife was

Choices:
- competent, because she had personal knowledge of the matter.
- competent, because the neighbor is available to testify.
- incompetent, because she had a personal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit.
- incompetent, because she was testifying to facts occurring after her husband's death.


Question: A millionaire owned two adjacent 10-story commercial buildings. One building housed medical offices, and the other building housed dental offices. The first floors of both buildings were occupied by various retail establishments. The buildings' other floors were rented to professionals and used as offices. There was an enclosed walkway that connected the second floor of each building. Thus, shoppers and office staff could walk across the common walkway and gain access to each building. While the buildings were being used in this manner, the millionaire sold the dental building to an investor by warranty deed, which made no mention of any rights concerning the walkway. The walkway continued to be used by the occupants of both buildings. Thereafter, the walkway became unsafe as a consequence of wear and tear. As a result, the investor hired a contractor to repair the walkway area. When the millionaire saw the contractor removing the carpeting along the walkway, he demanded that the investor discontinue the repair work. After the investor refused, the millionaire brought an action to enjoin the investor from continuing the work. The most likely result will be a decision for

Choices:
- the millionaire, because the investor does not have rights in the walkway.
- the millionaire, because the investor's rights in the dental building do not extend to the walkway.
- the investor, because the investor has an easement in the walkway and an implied right to keep the walkway in repair.
- the investor, because he has a right to take whatever action is necessary to protect himself from possible tort liability from persons using the walkway.


Question: An insured business owner stored valuable property in an insured warehouse owned by the business. During night time hours, when there were no employees in the warehouse, the building and its contents burned to the ground by a raging fire. The fire department ruled that the fire had an incendiary origin. The fire report, however, did not identify a perpetrator. The insurer responded by rejecting coverage and accusing the business owner of starting the fire. The business owner sued the insurance company in federal court for the policy proceeds to cover its property damages claim. At the trial on the business owner's civil claim for insurance coverage, the owner attempted to put several persons on the stand to testify to the owner's good character, which was submitted as proof that the owner did not commit the arson. The trial court ruled that the character evidence would be excluded because it was inadmissible character testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 404(a). On appeal, will the fedeal appellate court likely affim the trial court's order?

Choices:
- Yes, because Rule 404(a) is firm in not allowing for character evidence in a civil trial.
- Yes, because the facts do not apply to any of the several exceptions available in a civil case.
- No, because Rule 404(b) permits the use of such evidence to show relevant prior bad acts.
- No, because a business owner has a constitutional right to present and admit character evidence.


Question: A manager's competitor sent a defamatory letter to the manager accusing him of professional incompetence and calling him one of the worst businessmen in town. It was addressed to the manager. He read it, put it in a private drawer, and did not read it again. Later, he tried to sue the competitor for defamation as a result of the letter. Will the court likely grant the defendant's motion to dismiss, and on what grounds? Base your answer on the common law definition of defamation.

Choices:
- Yes, it will dismiss on the basis that the publication is made to the manager alone.
- Yes, it will dismiss on the basis that the language is not damaging to the manager's reputation.
- No, it will not dismiss because the circumstances show that all of the elements of defamation are all present.
- No, it will not dismiss because a plaintiff in a defamatory action has an absolute right to a jury trial to prove defamation.


Question: A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions. Is this law constitutional?

Choices:
- No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.
- No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
- Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by other means.
- Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and therefore is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.


Question: A homeowner had a beautiful beach house overlooking the bay. Although the homeowner and his family lived in the beach house during the summer months, the house was left unoccupied for the remainder of the year. In order to protect the beach house from vandalism while it was vacant, the homeowner installed an automatic spring-gun device. The spring-gun was connected to the front door and calculated to automatically fire at chest level when the door was opened. No warnings were placed on the premises. A local man, knowing that the homeowner's beach house was unoccupied, decided to burglarize the home one evening. When the local man forced open the front door and was about to enter the premises, the spring-gun automatically discharged, killing him instantly. If the homeowner is subsequently prosecuted and charged with the local man's death, the most serious crime for which the homeowner will be found guilty is

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


Question: A driver was having trouble finding a place to park his car near a store at which he needed to make a quick stop to purchase something. He decided to just park along the road next to the store, even though there was not really a lane or space there intended for parking. The driver pulled his car as far off the roadway as he could and figured that it would be fine because he would only be in the store for a few minutes. While the driver was in the store, a car driven by a woman approached the spot where the driver had left his car. When the woman saw the driver's car and realized it was partially obstructing the road, she tried to avoid hitting it but crashed into it. The accident caused $5,000 worth of damage to the driver's car and $1,000 worth of damage to the woman's car. Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules and that the woman had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. How much, if anything, could the driver recover in a lawsuit against the woman for negligence?

Choices:
- $5,000, or the full amount of damages to his car.
- $4,000, or the full amount of his damages, minus the woman's damages.
- $2,500, or half of his damages.
- Nothing, because the driver was contributorily negligent for parking his car so that part of it stuck out into the street.


Question: A vehicle operator was driving on a highway at night. His girlfriend was in the passenger seat. They were returning from a college night class. She was smoking marijuana, blowing it out the open window, and not sharing it with the driver. The driver fell asleep, causing the car to veer off the highway and go into a ditch where it landed upside-down. Both the driver and passenger were seriously injured. She sued the operator for negligence. The operator filed a counterclaim asking for damages against the passenger by arguing that the passenger was herself negligent by "smoking weed" and causing him to fall asleep. Is the court likely to grant the passenger's motion to dismiss the counterclaim?

Choices:
- Yes, because the passenger was not actively participating in a joint enterprise and did not do enough to contribute to the cause of the accident.
- Yes, because a vehicle operator is always liable and a passenger cannot be made liable for the driver's actions under any circumstances.
- No, because the driver has properly alleged a joint enterprise situation where the passenger is liable for her share of the negligence in causing the accident.
- No, because the passenger was breaking the law, making her negligent per se.


Question: A plaintiff filed a civil action asking for damages resulting from a tortious assault that the defendant inflicted on him. During trial, plaintiff's counsel asked an opposing witness on cross examination: "At any time during the assault did anyone attempt to leave?" Defense counsel objected to the question. How will the court rule on the objection?

Choices:
- The objection will be sustained because the question is misleading.
- The objection will be sustained because the question is leading.
- The objection will be overruled because leading questions are allowed on cross examination.
- The objection will be overruled because the question is not leading or misleading.


Question: Neighbor says his home repair contract needs to be discharged because of frustration of purpose. Which of the following is not required for this to be discharged for this reason?

Choices:
- A supervening event.
- That was reasonably foreseeable at time of contract formation.
- Which completely or almost completely destroys the purpose of the contract.
- The purpose of the contract was understood by both parties.


Question: A boyfriend decided to rob a grocery store after he was let go during a labor dispute. The boyfriend asked his girlfriend to drive the getaway car, to which she agreed, on the condition that no loaded weapons were used during the robbery. On the day of the robbery, the boyfriend and his girlfriend drove to the grocery store. Unknown to the girlfriend, the boyfriend entered the store with a loaded gun. The boyfriend approached one of the cashiers and told him to fill a bag with all the money from the register. When the cashier refused, the boyfriend shot and killed him. He then turned to the next cashier and pointed his gun at her. The cashier suffered a heart attack and died. The boyfriend then took the money from the registers himself and exited the store. One of the customers had called the police, and they were waiting outside. A shootout ensued, and the boyfriend was killed by the police. If this jurisdiction follows the agency theory of felony murder, the girlfriend is guilty if how many counts of murder?

Choices:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- None.


Question: A store published the following advertisement in a local newspaper on Monday, March 12:"8 Brand New COWBOY HATS Beaver Felt,selling for $72. 50 . . . out they go . . . Sat. March 17,Each. . . $5. 1 Navajo Turquoise Necklace . . . worth $125, now selling for $40. "FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED"On the following Saturday, a man was the first person to arrive at Store and demanded the necklace. The store clerk refused to sell it to him, because it was a "house rule" that the necklace was intended for women only. If the man brings suit against the store for its refusal to sell him the necklace, the man will

Choices:
- lose, because the advertisement was intended only as an invitation to make an offer.
- lose, because the man did not notii' the store in writing that he intended to accept the offer.
- win, because the advertisement should be construed as a binding offer.
- win, because it is immaterial whether the man was the first customer to appear at the store to purchase the necklace.


Question: A railroad worker's widow brought a wrongful death action in federal court against the railroad, claiming that its negligence had caused her husband's death. At trial, the widow offered the testimony of a coworker of the husband. The coworker testified that he had seen the rail car on which the husband was riding slow down and the cars behind it gain speed. The coworker also stated that he later heard a loud crash, but did not turn around to look because loud noises were common in the yard. Three other railroad employees testified that no collision had occurred. At the close of the evidence, the railroad moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, and the case was submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict for the widow. The railroad has made a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. What standard should the court apply to determine how to rule on the motion?

Choices:
- Whether the evidence revealed a genuine dispute of material fact supporting the widow's claim.
- Whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
- Whether the widow presented a scintilla of evidence to support the verdict.
- Whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the verdict, resolving all disputed issues in the widow's favor.


Question: During a violent electrical storm one night, a bolt of lightning struck a public high school building and set it ablaze. The high school was severely damaged and needed to be rebuilt. As a consequence, the city council held an emergency meeting to determine what measures should be taken to locate an appropriate alternative facility in which to conduct classes. Thereupon, the city council passed the following resolution: "During restoration of the high school building, classes shall be conducted at the most suitable facility which submits the lowest bid. In determining a suitable' facility, the city council shall consider such factors as location and available classroom space. "Several bids were submitted. The lowest bid was submitted by a church. The church was located on the same block as the high school and contained sufficient seating capacity for all students. In addition, there were a sufficient number of separate rooms to allow different classes to meet at the same time. The city council voted unanimously to accept the church's offer. Furthermore, the church agreed to remove all religious symbols and paraphernalia from the classrooms utilized by the students. Only the main chapel was exempt, so that it could remain open for prayer. No high school classes or activities were to be held in the main chapel. A parent of one of the high school students is upset at this arrangement. On his son's behalf, the parent has filed suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of permitting public school classes to be held in a church. Judgment for whom?

Choices:
- The city, because the classroom arrangement does not inhibit or advance religion.
- The city, because the church was the lowest bidder in accordance with the emergency ordinance.
- The plaintiff, because the present arrangement for conducting classes in a church-owned facility constitutes excessive entanglement with religion.
- The plaintiff, because the emergency measure was not necessary to further a compelling state interest.


Question: Two women lived in a one-bedroom house with 20 dogs. A dog-walker who entered the house was appalled by their deplorable living conditions. The animals' excrement was deposited throughout the house, they were kept in tiny pens, and some of the animals were sick. The visitor called the SPCA, a private non-profit humane society. State law authorized humane societies to receive abused or neglected animals from animal control officers, to care for them and adopt them out. The SPCA took the animals designated by the officers. The officers then arrested the women for animal neglect. At a hearing, the prosecutor was unprepared, and the judge dismissed the charges. The women then sued the officers and the SPCA under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 for civil rights violations. The SPCA defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the absence of the "state action" on their part. Will the court likely grant the motion to dismiss?

Choices:
- Yes, because there was nothing that was done by the humane society that involved police action.
- Yes, because the SPCA personnel did not at any time act "under color of law" in their actions.
- No, because the SPCA was organized under a non-profit certificate of incorporation that was issued by the state.
- No, because the SPCA acted under the authority of the state statute and cooperated with state authorities to perform the authorized functions.


Question: A mother took her five-year-old child to a hospital emergency room for treatment. A doctor on the hospital staff molested the child while treating her. At the time, no one was in the treatment room except the doctor and the child; the mother had left the room to get a cup of coffee. Two weeks later, when the child told her mother what had occurred in the treatment room, the mother suffered severe emotional distress that caused her to become physically ill. In an action against the doctor by the mother on her own behalf to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, is the mother likely to prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the mother was contributorily negligent in leaving the child alone with the doctor during treatment.
- No, because the mother was neither the direct victim of the doctor's conduct nor a contemporaneous witness.
- Yes, because the doctor's conduct was outrageous.
- Yes, because the mother's distress was the natural and foreseeable consequence of the doctor's conduct.


Question: A state has enacted a statute imposing a tax on the extraction of all platinum in the state. The extraction of other minerals is not taxed by the state. This is true even though there is considerable mining of silver, turquoise, sulfur, and stone within the state. As a result, the largest platinum mining company in the state has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the state's platinum tax statute. Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion if the mining company attacks the statute as violating the equal protection of the laws?

Choices:
- The state must convince the court that the classification in the statute is rationally related to the advancement of a legitimate state interest.
- The state must convince the court that the classification in this statute is the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling state interest.
- The mining company must convince the court that the classification in this statute is not necessary to advance a compelling state interest.
- The mining company must convince the court that the classification in this statute is not rationally related to the advancement of a legitimate state interest.


Question: In a tavern, an intoxicated woman threatened to slash a man with a broken beer bottle. Another customer, who had not been threatened by the woman, forcefully grabbed the woman and locked her in the tavern's storeroom until the police could arrive. In the process, although the customer used reasonable force, the customer badly sprained the woman's wrist. Is the woman likely to recover in an action against the customer?

Choices:
- No, because the customer's conduct was privileged as a defense of others.
- Yes, based on battery only.
- Yes, based on false imprisonment only.
- Yes, based on both battery and false imprisonment.


Question: A federal grand jury was investigating a corporation whose tanker ship had spilled crude oil into environmentally sensitive waters. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the corporation to produce all emails and internal documents regarding the corporation's knowledge of the risks of an oil spill. The corporation has objected, citing its Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Can the subpoena be enforced?

Choices:
- No, because the corporation was not granted transactional immunity.
- No, because the corporation was not granted use-and-derivative-use immunity.
- Yes, because a corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege.
- Yes, because the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to the compelled production of documents.


Question: For which of the following preliminary questions of fact will the trial court judge, not the jury, determine admissibility?

Choices:
- Whether the voice on a sound recording is that of the defendant.
- Whether defendant's copy of a document accurately reflects the contents of the original writing.
- Whether a conspiracy existed and defendant and declarant were members of the conspiracy before admitting an alleged declaration by a co-conspirator.
- A plaintiff sues on a lost writing, and the defendant contends that it was not lost because it never existed. The question to be decided is whether the original writing ever existed.


Question: A well-known Washington newspaper columnist was researching the background of a lawyer who had been nominated to become attorney general of the United States and was awaiting confirmation by the U. S. Senate. One of the columnist's eager young apprentices concocted a plan that he hoped would enable him to gain the columnist's favor. Late one evening, without telling anyone, the apprentice broke into the lawyer's private office and copied several letters pertaining to "dirty tricks" perpetrated by the lawyer during the most recent presidential campaign. When the apprentice presented the columnist with the fruits of his diligent research, the columnist was quite impressed and immediately printed excerpts from the material. If the lawyer asserts a claim against the columnist for invasion of right to privacy, the plaintiff will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because the apprentice's action was an unlawful invasion of private facts.
- prevail, because the publication was not newsworthy.
- not prevail, because what the columnist printed was true, thus establishing there was no "false light. "
- not prevail, because the columnist was not involved in the burglary and did not conspire with the apprentice with respect to the burglary.