Question: A man conveyed land by quitclaim deed as a gift to his cousin, who did not then record the deed or take possession of the land. Six months later, when the man was still in possession, he conveyed the land by quitclaim deed as a gift to a friend, who knew nothing of the deed to the cousin. The friend did not record his deed. The man then vacated the land, and the friend took possession. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides as follows: "No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice, who shall first record." Recently, the cousin learned about the friend's deed and possession, immediately recorded her deed, and sued the friend for possession and to quiet title. The friend then recorded his deed and raised all available defenses. For whom is the court likely to decide?

Choices:
- For the cousin, because she was first in time and the friend was not a purchaser.
- For the cousin, because the friend failed to first record.
- For the friend, because a subsequent good- faith donee has priority over a prior donee who fails to record.
- For the friend, because he was first in possession.


Question: During a drunken quarrel between a husband and a wife, the husband pointed his gun at his wife and said, "If I didn't love you, I'd kill you. " The husband thought the gun was unloaded but, in fact, earlier that day his son had loaded it. As a joke, he fired the gun at his wife, wounding her in the shoulder. The husband is later charged with committing a battery upon his wife. If the husband attempts to prove that he was so inebriated he could not have formed a criminal intent, this would constitute a

Choices:
- good defense, because the charge requires a specific intent.
- good defense, because at least a general criminal intent is required for every offense.
- poor defense, because voluntary intoxication is not a valid defense to battery.
- poor defense, because the husband was not aware that the gun was loaded.


Question: A driver has been charged with leaving the scene of an accident. The driver allegedly hit another car in a parking lot and drove away without leaving proper insurance and contact information. A bystander wrote down her license plate number and called the police. At trial, the driver proposes to testify that the day after the accident, she met with the police officer investigating the accident, and told him that she did not leave until after she had inspected both cars and determined there was no damage. The bystander is not available to testify at trial. The driver's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible, because it is the statement of the witness herself, who is subject to cross-examination.
- admissible, because it is a statement based on firsthand knowledge.
- inadmissible, because the bystander is unavailable and, therefore, cannot contradict the driver.
- inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: A defendant was prosecuted for assault and battery after he admitted striking the victim with a pool cue during a barroom argument. The defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense after he was attacked by the victim, who was drunk and belligerent. At trial, the defendant called a witness who testified that the victim was the aggressor in the altercation. On cross-examination of the witness, the prosecuting attorney asked the witness the following question:"Isn't it true that when you filed your federal income tax return last year, you failed to report the interest income from your savings accounts?" The prosecuting attorney was informed of this fact by the witness's accountant. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the prosecutor's question is

Choices:
- improper, because it is not relevant to the issues in the case.
- improper, because the defendant has not been convicted of any crime in connection with the tax return.
- within the court's discretion to allow, because filing a false income tax return is an act that bears on the witness's truthfulness.
- within the court's discretion to allow, because federal income tax evasion is a crime punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year.


Question: A commissioner of a sports league was charged with embezzling funds by increasing the amount of his allocated travel expenses without the approval of a majority of the team owners. In accordance with the bylaws of the league's charter, the commissioner was required to obtain the approval of at least half the owners before raising his expense allocation. At trial, the commissioner seeks to testify that his predecessor told him that he had authority under the league's charter to raise his expense allocation. The commissioner's testimony is

Choices:
- admissible, to show that the commissioner lacked criminal intent.
- admissible as evidence of the routine practice of an organization.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible, because the league's charter is the best evidence.


Question: While riding her bicycle along the street, a woman was struck by a vehicle that she didn't see. Subsequently, the woman sued the driver of the vehicle to recover damages for her injuries. At trial, the woman calls a police officer to testify that a few minutes after the accident, a driver stopped him and said, "Hey, officer, I just saw an accident involving a red truck that hit this girl who was riding a bicycle. The truck left the scene of the accident and I followed it to a warehouse. " The police officer then testified that he immediately drove to the warehouse and saw the defendant sitting in a red truck that was parked in the lot. The driver is available to testify at trial. Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the police officer's testimony regarding the driver's statement should be

Choices:
- admissible as a statement of recent perception.
- admissible as a present sense impression.
- inadmissible, because the driver was available to testify at trial.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: A man was in an accident while driving his car on July 3. The other driver sent him a notice of injuries and demanded damages. The man notified his insurance carrier but was told that his policy had lapsed on July 2. He had earlier received a renewal notice with a bill listing a due date of June 28 and an expiration date of the policy on July 2. The notice welcomed payment by mail, and did not say that renewal was conditioned on actual physical receipt of the check. He had put the check and form in the U.S. mail on June 28, but the insurer did not receive it until July 5. The insurer reinstated the policy as of July 5, leaving a coverage gap from July 2 through July 5, according to the company. Will the courts likely hold that the policy was still effective on July 3, the date of the accident?

Choices:
- Yes, because the renewal premium was placed in the mailbox before the date of expiration, and the notice did not say that the check had to be received physically before there could be a renewal.
- Yes, because a policy cannot be lapsed for nonpayment without a final 30 day notice of impending lapse being sent.
- No, the man knew that the policy would not be renewed if did not get the payment into the insurer's possession by the due date of June 28.
- No, because the mail box rule is not applicable in a situation where an insurance policy must be renewed.


Question: A man brought a federal diversity action against his insurance company, alleging that the company had breached its duty under his insurance policy by refusing to pay for his medical expenses resulting from a mountain-biking accident. At the jury trial, the man presented evidence that he had paid all premiums on the insurance policy and that the policy cov-ered personal-injury-related medical expenses arising from accidents. After he rested his case, the company presented evidence that a provision of the policy excluded payment for injury-related expenses resulting from an insured's Òunduly riskyÓ behavior. The company also presented a witness who testified that the accident had occurred in an area where posted signs warned bikers not to enter. The man did not cross-examine the witness. After resting its case, the company moved for judgment as a matter of law. Should the court grant the motion?

Choices:
- No, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief.
- No, because whether the man's behavior was unduly risky is a question of fact for the jury to resolve.
- Yes, because the company's uncontradicted evidence of the man's unduly risky behavior means that no reason-able jury could find that the policy covers his injuries.
- Yes, because the man waived his right to rebut the company's evidence by not addressing the Òunduly riskyÓ policy provision in his case-in-chief.


Question: A toxicologist employed at the state crime laboratory testifies at a murder trial about the autopsy he performed on the victim. His testimony is that he detected traces of succinic acid and choline, the components of succinylcholine, in the victim's brain tissues. Over defense objections, he testified further that, in his opinion, the victim's cause of death was succinylcholine poisoning. On cross-examination, the toxicologist admitted that up until his findings, it had been universally accepted in the medical community that succinylcholine would be undetectable in the brain within a few minutes of its injection. He also admitted that his methods of detecting succinylcholine were experimental and that his results were not presently publishable because they were not complete enough. The defense attorney then makes a motion to strike the toxicologist's testimony regarding the cause of death. The court will most likely

Choices:
- grant the motion, because the toxicologist's opinion could not be substantiated.
- grant the motion, because the toxicologist was not properly qualified as an expert.
- deny the motion, because the toxicologist was qualified as an expert in medical matters.
- deny the motion, because he was qualified to give an opinion on the ultimate issue of the case.


Question: The defendant has been charged with murder in the killing of his wife. The defense attorney is preparing a defense to show facts sufficient to support a verdict of voluntary manslaughter. Counsel has to prove all of the necessary elements during trial in order to support a voluntary manslaughter charge to the jury. Which of the following would not be proper proof to establish a voluntary manslaughter charge to the jury?

Choices:
- The defendant acted several days after the provoking events.
- The defendant acted in an overpowering heat of passion.
- The defendant was provoked by accidentally seeing his wife having sexual relations with his best friend.
- The defendant acted without deliberation and premeditation.


Question: A state has the following recording statute in effect:"No conveyance is good against a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration and without notice, unless the same be recorded prior to subsequent purchase. "An owner is the fee simple the owner of a 20-acre tract of unimproved land, situated in the state. On May 1, the owner sold the tract to a buyer for the purchase price of $40,000 under a quitclaim deed. The owner delivered the deed to the buyer who did not record the deed. After the sale to the buyer, the owner found himself in desperate need of money because he lost his job. So the owner, in consideration of the sum of $75,000, conveyed the tract to an investor by warranty deed. This transaction took place on August 1. When the investor acquired title to the tract, he had no actual knowledge of the buyer's deed (which was still unrecorded). On August 10, the buyer recorded his deed to the tract. The investor did not record the deed he received from the owner until August 15. In an appropriate action to quiet title to the tract, in which all interested parties have been joined, title will be found to be in

Choices:
- the buyer, because his deed preceded the investor's deed.
- the buyer, because his deed was recorded prior to the investor's deed.
- the investor, because he is protected by the recording statute.
- the investor, because he took title by warranty deed and the buyer took title by quitclaim deed.


Question: A citrus grower was the owner in fee of two adjacent parcels of land in a city: an orange grove and a lemon grove. The grower's title to the lemon grove was subject to an unrecorded 20-year mortgage given to the mortgagee, a bank, in 1990 to secure repayment of a loan for $100,000. Beginning in November 1993, the following events occurred:November 1993: The grower died, leaving all of her real property to her husband. The grower's will was admitted to probate. No mention was made of the mortgage given to the bank. December 1993: Having heard about the grower's death, the bank recorded its mortgage to the lemon grove. August 1994: The husband executed and delivered to his sister a mortgage deed on the orange grove, which the sister immediately recorded. The mortgage instrument contained the following recitations: "This mortgage is secured by the orange grove and all other real estate that I may own in the city or have an interest in. " The husband defaulted on his mortgage obligation to the sister; the amount due on the debt was $100,000. February 2009: The bank brought suit against the husband to foreclose its mortgage on the lemon grove. The applicable recording statute provides in part:"No deed or other instrument in writing, not recorded in accordance with this statute, shall affect the title or rights to, in any real estate, of any devisee or purchaser in good faith, without knowledge of the existence of such unrecorded instruments. "Judgment should be for

Choices:
- the husband, if he was unaware of the existence of the mortgage at the time he acquired title to the lemon grove.
- the husband, only if the lemon grove was not subject to the mortgage when he acquired title.
- the bank, because the husband assumed the mortgage when he acquired title to the lemon grove.
- the bank, because property once mortgaged remains mortgaged as against the mortgagor's successors in interest.


Question: On the basis of scientific studies showing a causal relationship between the consumption of "red meat" (principally beef) and certain forms of cancer, a federal statute prohibits all commercial advertising of red meat products. The statute does not, however, restrict the sale of red meat products. Producers of red meat have challenged the statute as a violation of their free speech rights protected by the First Amendment. Is the court likely to find the statute constitutional?

Choices:
- No, because it does not serve a substantial government interest.
- No, because it is more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest in preventing certain cancers.
- Yes, because it does not affect speech protected by the First Amendment.
- Yes, because it serves a legitimate government interest in protecting public health.


Question: Two cars were driving within the legal speed limit as they approached an intersection. There are no traffic lights, stop signs, or warnings posted at this intersection. Both vehicles entered the intersection simultaneously and collided. In the accident, one of the drivers suffered a broken pelvis and internal injuries. Although the other driver's truck was slightly damaged, he did not suffer any physical injuries. Thereafter, the injured driver sued the city for negligence, claiming that the city failed to provide adequate warning at the intersection, which she contended was particularly dangerous and heavily traveled. At trial, the city attorney offers evidence that the intersection has been the same for 14 years, and no other accidents have occurred during that time. Upon objection by the injured driver's attorney, this evidence should be

Choices:
- admitted as relevant evidence of a fact of consequence to the action.
- admitted, provided that the jury is instructed about the danger of inferential negative evidence.
- excluded, because it is improper negative evidence.
- excluded, because the dangers of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues may tend to mislead the jury.


Question: A widow was the owner in fee simple of an apartment building. The widow drafted a will by which she devised the apartment building to her granddaughter with residue to her friend and her assistant. One year later, the granddaughter died intestate and was survived by her son who was her sole heir at law. This jurisdiction has the following statute in effect:"If a devisee of a grandparent or lineal descendant of a grandparent dies at the time of execution of the will or fails to survive the testator, the issue of the deceased person shall take the decedent's share under the will. "The widow then died and her will was admitted to probate. A dispute arose among the friend, the assistant, and the son regarding ownership of the apartment building. Is the son entitled to any share or interest in the apartment building?

Choices:
- Yes, because under the anti-lapse statute, the granddaughter's interest passes to her son.
- Yes, because rules relating to lapse of class gifts do not apply to specific devises.
- No, because intestate succession is inapplicable to devolution of title to specific devisees.
- No, because the granddaughter predeceased the widow, title to the apartment building passes to the friend and assistant under the residuary clause of the will.


Question: A small town police officer pulled over a driver for speeding. He believed that the driver was acting irritable and fidgety, but he had no articulable reason to think anything was wrong. He searched the car anyway and found two cartons of freshly canned peaches, which were owned by the driver's neighbor and reported stolen off of her porch 24 hours earlier. Authorities charged him with theft under the state criminal code. His motion to suppress the evidence because of an unlawful search was denied. On appeal, will the appellate court likely reverse the lower court decision denying the motion to suppress?

Choices:
- Yes, because the search was unconstitutional due to the officer having no reasonable suspicion that would justify searching the car.
- Yes, because when a car is pulled over for speeding, the officer must always obtain a search warrant prior to making any search.
- No, the stop and the search were within the normal bounds of propriety for a speeding stop.
- No, because driver being fidgety is enough for a probable cause full search of the vehicle.


Question: A heroin addict voluntarily entered a residential treatment center. A government undercover agent introduced himself and struck up a friendship with him. The agent asked the addict to obtain heroin for him, but the addict refused. For several weeks the agent continued to plead with and beg the addict to get him drugs; finally, the addict gave in to the pressure and got the drugs. The police promptly arrested him. At trial, the defendant raised the defense of government entrapment. Will the trial court likely dismiss the case based on that argument?

Choices:
- Yes, because this was entrapment in that the intent to commit the crime originated with the government.
- No, this was not entrapment because the addict was predisposed to want to obtain drugs due to his status as a drug user.
- No, this was not entrapment because the addict went voluntarily to get the drugs; he could have refused.
- Yes, this was entrapment because as soon as the agent asked a second time, he had established entrapment under the majority rule.


Question: An owner of a large, three-story office building planned to renovate the building and requested several contractors to submit bids to perform the work. One of the contractors in turn sought bids from several subcontractors to determine the overall cost of the job. An electrician submitted a bid to do the electrical work to the contractor, which the contractor used in computing the bid he sent to the owner. The contractor notified the electrician to that effect. Two weeks later, the contractor submitted his bid to the owner, in which he offered to perform the renovation work for $75,000. The next day, the electrician notified the contractor that he was unable to perform the electrical work on the owner's project. Two days later, the owner sent the contractor a signed confirmation letter wherein she stated, "I hereby accept your offer to perform the renovation work for the quoted cost of $75,000. "Thereafter, the contractor hired another electrician to complete the electrical work at a cost of $5,000 above the first electrician's bid. The contractor explained the situation to the owner and informed her that the overall cost of the job would have to be increased to $80,000. The owner responded that she would hold the contractor to his original bid of $75,000 and would not be responsible for any additional costs. The contractor then performed the renovation work, but the owner has not yet paid him anything. In an action by the contractor against the owner for the services rendered, the contractor will probably be able to recover

Choices:
- only in quantum meruit, because of the doctrifle of commercial frustration.
- only in quantum meruit, because by demanding $80,000 the contractor, in effect, repudiated his contract with the owner.
- $75,000 only, because that was the contract price.
- $80,000, because the contractor reasonably relied to his detriment on the electrician's bid in formulating his job estimate.


Question: A web designer decided to purchase and download a software program online to assist in the technological aspects of her webpage design business. On the software's web page, she clicked a "download" button and downloaded the product successfully. She did that without seeing or clicking to any information about the software's contractual licensing terms. If she had first scrolled down to the next visible screen, she would have seen the following invitation: "Please review and agree to the licensing terms of this software program." She used the program for several months until she discovered that it was applying tracking technology to surreptitiously send dozens of third-party promotional offers to her clients. The company ignored her requests to stop doing this. She sued it to stop the unauthorized tracking but the company responded by citing to its licensing terms which require all disputes be submitted to private arbitration. Will the federal district court likely dismiss the web designer's complaint and order arbitration as required by the software licensing terms?

Choices:
- Yes, because the designer got the benefit of the program and it required compliance with its licensing terms.
- No, because the designer did not have sufficiently clear notice that she must accept the licensing terms prior to downloading and using the product.
- Yes, because the terms were obvious enough for anyone to find and she would have seen the notation if she had looked in a reasonable manner.
- No, because contracts formed online must be signed and executed with the same formality as paper contracts.


Question: A man wearing a jacket and jeans walked along a city street at night in a high crime area known for drug trafficking and gun violence. He saw two police officers walking toward him. The officers were checking on a 911 call from a resident who observed a man in jeans and a jacket apparently selling drugs to people on the street. When the police first saw him, he was walking alone, in the area that the woman identified. As they approached, he suddenly crossed the street by jaywalking. They followed, and approaching from behind, asked him to stop. He started walking faster, away from them. The officers saw what appeared to be a heavy object bulging in his pocket as he moved. The officers, with over 10 years of foot patrol experience, stepped up and stopped him. They patted him down and found a concealed, unlicensed handgun in the jacket pocket. They then made a full search and found 50 packets of heroin. He filed a motion to suppress the gun and drug evidence. Will the court likely suppress the evidence?

Choices:
- No, because the accumulation of factors all added up to reasonable suspicion for a stop and articulable suspicion for a frisk.
- No, because the police had probable cause to make an arrest when the man began to walk away from them and walk even faster as they followed him.
- Yes, because they didn't know if this was the same man, they observed nothing illegal except jaywalking, and he had a right to avoid them under the circumstances.
- Yes, because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the man simply because he crossed the street and walked faster away from them.


Question: An architect agreed with a developer to design a large residential development. Because the architect had a history of substance abuse problems, the parties agreed that the developer's duty to accept and pay for the plans was conditioned on the architect's abstaining from drinking alcohol during the six months it would take to do the work. After two months, the architect began having several alcoholic drinks each day. The developer became aware of the architect's drinking before the architect showed the developer the preliminary plans. When the developer saw the preliminary plans, the developer told the architect that the concept was impressive and that he looked forward to seeing the final plans. The architect continued to have several alcoholic drinks each day and completed the plans within the specified contract period. However, the developer declined to review, accept, or pay for the final plans and stated that it was because of the architect's continued use of alcohol. The architect has sued the developer for breach of contract. Which of the following arguments best supports the architect's claim?

Choices:
- The alcohol use was not a material breach of contract by the architect, since it did not affect the quality of the work.
- The developer waived the condition of no alcohol use.
- The no-alcohol term was functionally a penalty clause and therefore was unenforceable.
- The no-alcohol term would be interpreted as a promise and not a condition.


Question: A homeowner died in 1985. His will devised his estate in a southern state to his uncle and his best friend "to share and share alike as tenants in common. "At the time of the homeowner's death, the uncle lived in a different part of the southern state (in which the estate was located), while the best friend resided in a northern state. After the homeowner's funeral, the uncle returned to his own residence, but the best friend decided to occupy the estate. He put his name on the mailbox and has paid the taxes and maintenance expenses. To earn extra money, the best friend rented a small house on the property to a teacher and received a monthly rental payment from her. The best friend also grew fruits on the property and sold them at a stand on Fridays. The uncle has been generally aware of this, but because he cared little about the estate, the uncle has never pressed the best friend about the property. Since 1985 the uncle has not paid any rent or other compensation to the best friend, nor has the best friend requested such payment. In January 2010, a series of disputes arose between the uncle and the best friend for the first time concerning their respective rights to the estate. The state in which the property is located recognizes the usual common law types of cotenancies and follows majority rules on rents and profits. There is no applicable legislation on the subject. The uncle brings an appropriate action for a portion of the proceeds that the best friend received from his fruit stand and a portion of the rent that the teacher paid. If the best friend contests the apportionment of the monies he received, judgment should be for whom?

Choices:
- As a cotenant in possession, the best friend retains the profits from his crops and the rents paid by the teacher.
- As a cotenant in possession, the best friend retains the profits from his crops, and the uncle is entitled to a share of the rent paid by the teacher.
- The uncle is entitled to a share of the rent that the teacher paid and the profits from the best friend's crops.
- The uncle is entitled to no share of any of the monies raised because the uncle's lack of contact with the best friend will be deemed a waiver.


Question: A defendant who is an accountant has been charged with fraud for allegedly helping a client file false income tax returns by shifting substantial medical expenses from one year to another. The defendant has pleaded not guilty, claiming that he made an honest mistake as to the date the expenses were paid. At trial, the prosecutor offers evidence of the defendant's involvement in an earlier scheme to help a different client falsify tax returns in the same way. Is the evidence of the defendant's involvement in the earlier scheme admissible?

Choices:
- No, because it is impermissible character evidence.
- No, because it is not relevant to the issues in this case.
- Yes, to show absence of mistake.
- Yes, to show the defendant's propensity to commit the crime.


Question: On Thanksgiving Day, a father was carving a turkey for his family when he seriously cut his hand. The knife severed an artery, causing the father to lose a lot of blood. The mother telephoned their family doctor, who instructed her to drive the father to the local hospital. The doctor indicated that he would meet them there. A short time later at the hospital, the doctor treated the father and bandaged his hand. However, due to the fact that the father had lost a considerable amount of blood, the doctor ordered an immediate blood transfusion. After determining that the father's blood type was A-positive, the doctor orally instructed a nurse, who was employed by the hospital, to obtain the necessary blood for the transfusion. The nurse followed the doctor's instructions and telephoned the hospital's blood bank department and ordered a unit of A-positive blood. The person in the blood bank who received the nurse's call correctly wrote down the order for A-positive blood. However, someone working at the blood bank, whose identity cannot be determined, made an error in filling the order and labeling the unit of blood for the father. As a result, the blood bank sent a unit of B-positive blood mislabeled as A-positive blood. After being administered the wrong blood, the father died. The hospital has a written rule in effect whereby all orders for blood transfusions must be made in writing by the physician in charge of the patient's treatment. Although the doctor was aware of the hospital rule, he, like many other doctors at the hospital, frequently ordered blood transfusions by oral instructions. If the mother asserts a wrongful death action against the doctor, she will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because the doctor would be responsible for the blood bank's error in administering the wrong blood.
- prevail, because the doctor did not follow the hospital's rule regarding blood transfusion orders.
- not prevail, because the doctor acted in the same fashion as many other doctors at the hospital.
- not prevail, because the unidentified person in the blood bank who was responsible for sending the wrong blood type was not an employee of the doctor.


Question: A defendant was playing cards with a group of friends at their weekly poker game. Earlier in the evening, one of the players handed the defendant a gun and told him it was unloaded. As a joke, the defendant pointed the gun at one of his friends and pulled the trigger. Unknown to the defendant, the gun was loaded and it discharged. The bullet grazed the friend's shoulder, slightly wounding him. The defendant was charged with assault with intent to kill. In this jurisdiction, battery is a lesser included offense of assault. At trial, the defendant requested that the court instruct the jury that if his mistake was honest, whether reasonable or unreasonable, it would be a valid defense to assault and the lesser included offense of battery. Conversely, the prosecution wanted the court to instruct the jury that in order for the defendant's mistake to be a valid defense for either crime, it must be reasonable. Regarding the jury instructions, which of the following statements is most accurate?

Choices:
- The defendant is correct with respect to assault, and the prosecution is correct with respect to battery.
- The defendant is correct with respect to battery, and the prosecution is correct with respect to assault.
- The prosecution is correct with respect to both the battery and assault charges.
- The defendant is correct with respect to both the battery and assault charges.


Question: An employee successfully negotiated a lucrative contract for her employer. As a result, her employer orally promised her a $10,000 bonus payable at the end of the year because of the employee's "good work. " At the end of the year, the employer informed the employee that the company's profits were not as large as he expected, so the promised bonus would not be paid. Which of the following is the legal effect of the employer's promise to pay the bonus to the employee?

Choices:
- It is enforceable, because the employee conferred a material benefit on the employer by negotiating the lucrative contract.
- It is enforceable, because the employer was morally obligated to pay the bonus.
- It is unenforceable, because it was not supported by legally sufficient consideration.
- It is unenforceable, because it was not in writing.


Question: The police were called to a domestic dispute. The wife told police that her husband was abusive and that he was a heavy cocaine user. The husband was present and denied the allegation. Police asked for permission to search the premises for drugs, which was consented to by the wife. The husband, however, refused to consent to the search. The police went ahead anyway and found drugs in the husband's belongings. After being arrested on drug charges, the husband filed a motion for suppression of the evidence based on lack of consent. What should be the likely decision of the trial court?

Choices:
- The search was invalid and the evidence must be suppressed because the co-occupant of the premises was present and specifically refused to give consent to the search.
- The search was valid because the cases say that one occupant's consent to the search overrules the other occupant's refusal to consent.
- The search was valid because the wife's statement established probable cause that a crime was being committed  this created exigent circumstances for the search.
- The search was invalid because, even though consent was given, the police must first attempt to get a search warrant to enter a home.


Question: One Sunday afternoon, a sports fan went to a professional football game. While standing in line at a concession stand, he got into an argument with three men ahead of him in the line. The three men were friends attending the game together. One of the men punched the sports fan in the mouth. A fight ensued. During the fracas, one of the other three men hit the sports fan over the head with a bottle, which caused him to suffer a serious concussion. The sports fan does not know for certain which of the three men struck him with the bottle. If the sports fan asserts a claim against the man who punched him in the mouth to recover damages for the head injury, will the sports fan prevail?

Choices:
- Yes, because the man who punched him in the mouth was the instigator who struck the first blow that started the fracas.
- Yes, because the man who punched him in the mouth and the other men were acting in concert.
- No, because the man who punched him in the mouth did not actually strike the sports fan with the bottle.
- No, because the sports fan cannot offer proof as to which of the men struck the sports fan over the head with the bottle.


Question: The Native American Party was founded and chartered in a state to promote the political power of Native Americans. Members pledged themselves to vote only for candidates nominated by the party. At first, membership was open to any voter who pledged himself to those tenets, but after a defeat in an election, the Party expelled all non- Native-American members upon the grounds that experience showed that only Native Americans could be trusted to honor the obligation to vote only for the Party's nominees. Membership is currently confined to Native Americans. In every election since, the Party's nominees have easily won election in the Sixth Congressional District, an area encompassing a large number of outlying reservations. Subsequently, the Executive Committee proposes that the Party choose its own "Native American Power" candidate for governor of South Dakota in the upcoming election. It will put its slate for U. S. representatives, governor, and U. S. senator before Party members for mail ballot, along with any rival candidates who qualify for the poll. A former non-Native American member of the Party is now challenging his exclusion from the Party. Which of the following constitutional provisions would furnish the former member's best ground for challenging his exclusion from the Party?

Choices:
- The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The right of assembly as guaranteed by the First Amendment.
- The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The voting provisions of the Twenty Fourth Amendment.


Question: An inventor developed a prototype of an automobile. engine that she believed was going to revolutionize the automotive industry because of the engine's fuel-efficient properties. As a wedding present to the inventor's brother, the inventor wrote on a wedding card she gave to her brother:"I hereby assign to you 20 percent of the net profits realized from the production and distribution of my automobile engine within the first year of production. "The inventor then borrowed money from creditors and began to promote her automobile engine. She was contacted by a major automobile manufacturer about the possibility of using the engine in a new line of cars the manufacturer intended to release during the next calendar year. While on her way to meet with the representatives of the manufacturer, the inventor was killed in an automobile collision. The manufacturer then contracted with the executor of the inventor's estate to license the use of the automobile engine design for a 10-year period for $500,000, payable to the estate. The creditors from whom the inventor borrowed the money to promote her automobile engine have now attached the proceeds from the licensing agreement, which have so far been paid into the estate. The brother also asserts his assigned rights to a share of the proceeds. In subsequent actions by the creditors and the brother, the court will most probably hold in favor of

Choices:
- the brother, because the rights of an assignee are superior to a lien against the assignor subsequently obtained by legallequitable proceedings.
- the brother, because any proceeds of the assigned right received by the assignor thereafter are held in constructive trust for the assignee.
- the creditors, because the inventor's assignment to the brother was unenforceable as a defective assignment.
- the creditors, because the rights of creditors/lienors are superior to those of a donee beneficiary.


Question: The state registrar of elections refused to put a candidate's name on the ballot because the registrar believed that the candidate was not a resident of the state. The registrar contended that Article I, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution specifically required a candidate for the House of Representatives "be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. " As a consequence, the candidate filed suit in state court against the registrar of elections seeking to have her name placed on the ballot. The state court ruled in her favor and determined that the candidate did, in fact, qualify as a resident of the state. The registrar appealed the decision to the state supreme court which, in turn, affirmed the lower court ruling. Thereafter, the candidate's name was placed on the ballot. After a hotly contested election, the candidate narrowly defeated the incumbent. However, at the time that the candidate was to be seated as a House member, the House of Representatives held hearings on her qualifications and eligibility. By a two-thirds vote, the House determined that the candidate was not a resident of the state at the time of her election and refused to seat her. The candidate then brought suit in federal district court against the Speaker and other officers of the House, seeking back pay and an order that she be seated in the House of Representatives. The defendants demurred, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument supporting the defendants' demurrer?

Choices:
- There is no case or controversy between the candidate and the officers of the House of Representatives.
- The case presents a nonjusticiable political question.
- The suit should have been brought as an original action in the U. S. Supreme Court.
- Under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts are not empowered to render advisory opinions.


Question: A child was riding his bicycle on a street, heading from north to south. As he went down a hill, he came to an intersection. At that moment, a car was coming toward the intersection, heading from east to west. When the driver saw the child on the bike, he slammed on his brakes in an attempt to avoid hitting the child. Meanwhile, the child realized that he was in danger of colliding with the car, so he applied the hand brakes on his bike as hard as possible. As a result of trying to stop so suddenly, the child flew over the handlebars of the bike and onto the ground. Neither the child nor his bike touched the car, but the child suffered injuries from falling off the bike. If the child's parents, on behalf of the child, assert a claim against the driver to recover damages for the child's injuries, they will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, if the child would have been injured even more severely if he had crashed his bike into the car, rather than falling off the bike.
- prevail, because the child's action in trying to stop the bike was foreseeable.
- not prevail, because the driver and his car never touched the child or bike.
- not prevail, unless the driver negligently created a risk of harm that caused the child to fall off the bike.


Question: Jack and Jill began to negotiate for the transfer of a business. Their negotiations continued for some time. J ack is asserting that Jill made an offer and promise which he accepted with a return promise. Jill asserts that the agreement was not what she intended. In determining whether a contract has been created, the courts look primarily at

Choices:
- The fairness to the parties.
- The objective intent of the parties.
- The subjective intent of the parties.
- The subjective intent of the offeror.


Question: A defendant is on trial for possession of heroin. During the prosecution's case-in-chief, a police officer testifies that he watched another officer seize a bag of white powder from the defendant and seal it in an envelope, which both officers initialed and dated and then placed in the police property room. The prosecutor then calls a chemist to testify that she obtained, intact from the property room, the dated, sealed envelope with the initials of both police officers, whose handwriting she recognized police officers, whose handwriting she recognized from previous experience, and that testing disclosed that the powder therein was heroin. The defendant argues that the prosecutor has not sufficiently authenticated the powder tested by the chemist as the powder that was seized from the defendant. Is the chemist's testimony admissible?

Choices:
- No, because the chemist lacks firsthand knowledge that the powder came from the defendant.
- No, unless the envelope and powder are produced in court or their absence is explained.
- Yes, because an object in official custody is self-authenticating.
- Yes, because the powder is sufficiently identified as having come from the defendant.


Question: A witness lived next door to a victim. Late one night, the witness overheard the victim scream, "The defendant, please don't do it!" The next day the victim was found dead in her bedroom. The defendant was arrested and charged with murdering the victim. At trial, the witness proposes to testify to the victim's statement. Upon objection by defendant's counsel, the court should rule the witness's testimony regarding the victim's statement

Choices:
- admissible as a dying declaration if the jury determines that the victim believed that her death was imminent.
- admissible as a dying declaration if the judge, by preponderance of the evidence, determines that the victim believed that her death was imminent.
- inadmissible, because the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: In order to raise revenue, a city required home- repair contractors who performed work within the city limits to pay a licensing fee to a city agency. A contractor who was unaware of the fee requirement agreed to perform home repairs for a city resident. After the contractor completed the work, the resident discovered that the contractor had not paid the licensing fee, and she refused to pay for the repairs, which were otherwise satisfactory. If the contractor sues the resident for breach of contract, how is the court likely to rule?

Choices:
- Although the contract violates the law and is void, the court will require the homeowner to pay the contractor the reasonable value of the work accepted.
- Although the contract violates the law, the court will find that public policy does not bar enforcement of the contract, because the purpose of the fee is merely to raise revenue.
- Because the contract violates the law and is void, the court will not enforce it.
- Because the purpose of the fee is merely to raise revenue, the court will find that the contract does not violate the law but will allow the contractor to recover his costs only.


Question: Susan Seller mailed a letter to Bobby Buyer after Bobby called her inquiring if her antique 1932 Ford Roadster was for sale. The letter stated, "I want to sell my antique Ford Roadster for a price above $20,000. If you are interested please contact me." Three days later Bobby sent a letter to Susan stating "I agree to pay your asking price of $20,000 for the 1932 Ford Roadster." The next day Susan sold the car to Harriet Higherprice for $25,000. If Bobby brings suit against Susan for breach of contract, the likely outcome is

Choices:
- For Bobby, since her acceptance was timely under the mail box rule.
- For Susan, because her letter to Bobby was not an offer.
- For Susan, because the sale to Harriett was made before Susan was aware that Bobby had accepted.
- For Bobby, because her communication met the full price which Susan was asking for the automobile.


Question: A defendant, an indigent, was arrested and charged with attempted murder. The defendant, who had a history of psychiatric problems, had been diagnosed as being paranoid schizophrenic. The defendant was represented by a court-appointed attorney. In trying to prepare for trial, the attorney met with the defendant on numerous occasions. The attorney, however, found it difficult to communicate with the defendant, who, due to his paranoia, distrusted the attorney and believed he was working with the prosecution to convict him. The defendant was subsequently convicted. After the defendant was sentenced, the attorney filed an appeal seeking to overturn the conviction and have a new trial ordered. The appeal, in part, challenged the constitutionality of a state statute that placed the burden of proof on the defendant by requiring him to prove mental incompetency by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, the appeal claimed that the attorney was unable to provide adequate representation because there was a failure of communication between the defendant and his attorney. The appeal will most likely be

Choices:
- granted, because the prosecution has the burden to prove the defendant's competency by a preponderance of evidence.
- granted, because the defendant has the burden to prove mental incompetency by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence.
- denied, because it is constitutionally permissible to place the burden on the defendant to prove mental incompetency by clear and convincing evidence.
- denied, because the defendant cannot base an appeal on ineffective assistance of counsel due to his own failure to communicate with his lawyer.


Question: Congress recently enacted a statute permitting a governmental agency to make a gift of federal property to private individuals or organizations, provided that it be used "to further good relations and better understanding with foreign governments. "The Secretary of Defense planned to give an old military cargo plane to a national organization who supports future pilots. Before making the gift, the Secretary was approached by the head of a church. The church leader indicated that he would be sponsoring a worldwide crusade and suggested to the Secretary that such an undertaking would serve to strengthen relations with foreign governments. The Secretary donated the plane to the church instead of the organization. Who would have the best standing to challenge the Secretary's action?

Choices:
- A citizen of the United States.
- A taxpayer of the United States.
- The national organization.
- A state within the United States.


Question: On Friday night, a driver was injured in an automobile accident after his vehicle was sideswiped by an unidentified motorist. Following the accident, the driver was admitted to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries. While at the hospital, the driver was diagnosed with a broken back. He was put in a body cast and then placed in traction. The driver's physician assembled the traction apparatus and positioned the driver's left leg in an overhead stirrup at a 40-degree angle. The driver was instructed to lie on his back on the bed. On Saturday morning after breakfast, the driver requested a bedpan from a nurse. She was placing the bedpan under the driver's body when the stirrup, which was holding his leg, broke. This caused the driver's leg to fall against the metal framing along the side of the bed, fracturing his tibia. The traction apparatus was defective because the manufacturer had not included a safety latch on the stirrup device to prevent its falling off if not securely fastened in place. If the driver asserts a claim against the manufacturer, he will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because the stirrup broke while the traction apparatus was in normal use.
- prevail, because the manufacturer's failure to include a safety latch made the traction apparatus defective.
- not prevail, because the traction apparatus was no longer within the control of the manufacturer.
- not prevail, if the physician did not properly attach the stirrup when assembling the traction apparatus.


Question: To preserve the appearance and accessibility of its capitol building, a state enacted a law prohibiting "the display of any sign on any portion of the public sidewalk surrounding" the building. A group of five demonstrators who wanted to protest inadequate state funding for children's services applied for a permit to march single file on the sidewalk surrounding the capitol building. Each demonstrator planned to carry a two-foot-square sign that would read, "Our lawmakers do not care about our children." The group's permit application was denied pursuant to the state law, and the group has filed an action challenging the law's constitutionality. Should the court uphold the law's constitutionality?

Choices:
- No, because even though the sidewalk at issue is not a public forum, the prohibition against the display of signs is more restrictive than needed to serve a legitimate government interest. government interest.
- No, because the sidewalk at issue is a public forum, and the prohibition against the display of signs is not narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.
- Yes, because even though the sidewalk at issue is a public forum, the prohibition against the display of signs is necessary to serve a compelling public interest.
- Yes, because the sidewalk at issue is not a public forum, and the prohibition against the display of signs is reasonable.


Question: A business purchased a computer from a seller's web site. The purchase form had a prominent hyperlink connection to a page that contained "important additional terms and conditions of sale," but the purchaser did not access that page. The delivered product included the additional terms in writing, along with a bold-lettered notice requiring the purchaser to return the product within 30 days if it did not accept the stated terms and conditions. After 35-days, the business became dissatisfied with the computer, and sued the seller for breach of contract. The seller demanded that the dispute be decided by private arbitration as per the additional terms and conditions to the agreement. Is the purchaser legally bound to participate in arbitration?

Choices:
- Yes, because by not returning the computer within 30 days, the purchaser was bound to the additional terms and conditions that were a part of the contract.
- Yes, because federal law requires that arbitration must be used to attempt an initial resolution with respect to sales that take place on the internet.
- No, because there was no contract formed due to the purchaser's lack of assent to the additional terms and conditions.
- No, because federal law requires that a company give 90 days for return and the 30-day provision was null and void.


Question: A lumber supplier and a fence company signed the following agreement on May 1:"The supplier promises to sell and the fence company promises to buy 7,000 sections of redwood stockade fence at $30 per section. Each section is to be made of good quality split redwood poles and is to be 7 feet long and 6 feet high; 1,000 sections are to be delivered by seller on or before June 1, and 1,000 sections by the first day in each of the following six months. Payment for the sections to be made within 10 days of delivery. "The first shipment of 1,000 sections arrived on May 27, and the fence company sent its payment on June5. The second shipment arrived on July 1, and the fence company made payment on July 5. The August shipment arrived on the afternoon of August 1. After the initial inspection, the redwood poles were found to be 7 feet long and 6. 25 feet high. The manager of the fence company then called the president of the lumber supplier. During their conversation, the president told the manager that the lumber supplier could not replace the August shipment but would allow a price adjustment. The manager refused the president's offer. The next day, the manager sent the president a fax stating that he was hereby canceling all future deliveries and returning the last shipment because of nonconformity. If the lumber supplier sues the fence company for breach of contract, the court will most likely hold that the lumber company will

Choices:
- succeed, because all deliveries to date have been timely.
- succeed, because the president offered to adjust the price for the August shipment.
- not succeed, because the president refused to replace the nonconforming poles.
- not succeed, because the deviation impaired the value of the entire contract.


Question: A teenage girl was walking on a street in a retail area. She was carrying a purse and shopping bags. A police officer noticed her and, on a hunch, conducted a random search. He found a variety of jewelry with price tags and no receipts. A jewelry store owner in the vicinity stated that the jewelry was stolen a few minutes earlier, and the girl may have been a customer at that time. She was arrested for theft. The girl's counsel filed a motion to suppress the evidence. Will the judge likely order suppression of the evidence?

Choices:
- Yes, there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the officer to stop and search her.
- No, authorities are always allowed to stop and frisk' anyone to see what they are carrying.
- No, the search was legal because a teenager carrying bags on a downtown street is a suspicious person.
- Yes, the officer did not get a search warrant even though he had probable cause.


Question: A state built a baseball stadium and issued bonds to finance its construction. The bond agreement provided that for the first five years the stadium was in operation, at least $2 from each admission charge would be used to repay the bond debt. The bond agreement further stipulated that if the proceeds from the admission charges during the first five years were not sufficient to repay the bondholders, then at least $1 from each admission charge for the next five years would be applied to make the necessary bond payments. Assume that three years after the stadium had been in operation, a subsequent session of the state legislature passed a bill entirely prohibiting baseball because four players were killed in playing mishaps. This statute is probably

Choices:
- constitutional, because it is a justifiable exercise of the state's police power.
- constitutional, because of the clear and present danger of baseball playing in the state.
- unconstitutional, because it impairs the obligation of the bondholders'contract.
- unconstitutional, because it violates the due process rights of the baseball team owners.


Question: A senator, had been a state senator for three years. During that period of time, it had been his regular practice to stay at a hotel in the state's capital while the legislature was in session (namely from September through March). As a general rule, the senator stayed at the hotel each and every night during that seven-month period. When the senator checked into the hotel on September 1, 2007 for the 2007 2008 term, the hotel manager quoted the senator his usual senatorial discount rate of $50 per night. Although nothing was said regarding payment terms, the senator customarily paid the bill in weekly installments. During the months of September and October, he paid the hotel at the end of each week $350 plus tax and other accumulated expenses. On the last day of October, the senator made his usual weekly payment covering the rental period from October 25 to October 31. Then, on the morning of November 4 (before checkout time for that day), the senator decided to suddenly move out of the hotel and register at a new motel located two blocks away. He notified the manager at the hotel of his intent to check out and tendered a check for $150 plus tax and other incidental charges incurred from November 1 through November 3. When the manager noticed that the senator was paying only for three days, she remarked, "You still owe us $200 plus tax for the rest of the week and $350 plus taxes for an additional week because you didn't give us a week's notice that you planned to vacate. " The senator refused to pay the additional charges. If the hotel brings suit against the senator to recover for the unpaid balance, how many additional days lodging will he be required to pay for?

Choices:
- None.
- Four.
- Seven.
- Eleven.


Question: Question 13. A buyer sent a signed letter to a seller that stated: "Ship 100 boxes of nails at $3 per box, the price quoted in your circular." The seller mailed the buyer a signed form acknowledgment that agreed to the buyer's terms and stated on the reverse side: "Disputes regarding quality shall be arbitrated." The buyer did not reply to the seller's acknowledgment, and the seller shipped the nails. When the buyer received the nails, it found their quality to be unsatisfactory and sued the seller for breach of warranty. The seller has asked an attorney whether the parties' contract requires arbitration of the buyer's claim. What is the best advice the attorney can provide?

Choices:
- A contract was formed pursuant to conduct when the buyer received the nails, and a court would exclude the arbitration provision from the contract.
- A contract was formed when the seller mailed its acknowledgment, and the arbitration term became part of the contract. arbitration term became part of the contract.
- A contract was formed when the seller mailed its acknowledgment, and the court must decide whether the arbitration term should be excluded as a material alteration of the contract.
- No contract exists, because the arbitration term in the seller's acknowledgment created a counteroffer that the buyer never accepted.


Question: A woman broke her leg while skiing. She was taken to a hospital where she was treated by a doctor who determined that the woman would need surgery to set the broken bones so that they would heal properly. During the surgery, the doctor inserted several metal screws into the woman's leg to hold the bones together. Although the hospital charged the woman a substantial fee for the doctor's services, the bill did not include a separate charge for the cost of the bone screws. A few months after the surgery, the woman's leg still was not fully healed. The doctor eventually concluded that the screws that were inserted into the woman's leg had been defective. The woman was forced to have a second surgery to replace the defective screws. If the woman asserts a strict tort liability claim against the doctor and the hospital for using defective screws in her surgery, she will most likely

Choices:
- prevail, because the doctor and the hospital provided a product to her that was defective and unreasonably dangerous.
- prevail, because the doctor and the hospital probably would have realized the screws were defective if they had carefully examined them.
- not prevail, because the doctor and the hospital did not manufacture the screws and, therefore, the defect in the screws was not their fault.
- not prevail, because the doctor and the hospital will be treated as service providers rather than product sellers.


Question: A 13 year old boy was walking home from school. On the sidewalk, he was confronted and threatened by a stranger - a large bald man covered with tattoos  who was holding a serrated butter knife. The man came close to the boy's face and in an angry voice said "I am going to fillet you like a fish with this butter knife," and gestured in a menacing fashion. The boy took his army knife out, stabbed the man in the leg, and ran. The police officer who reviewed the matter decided that the man's threat was not objectively credible and that the boy had no authority to react. She arrested the boy for assault with a deadly weapon. The trial judge instructed the jury that the knife was a simple household utensil and not a deadly weapon. The boy was convicted at trial. Will the appellate court likely uphold the conviction?

Choices:
- No, because a butter knife can be as deadly as any other knife for the purpose of inflicting bodily harm, and the boy was conservative in his response to the situation.
- No, because a person of that age in that factual situation could have reasonably been placed in fear of immediate bodily harm, and thus be entitled to act in his own defense.
- Yes, because the boy had no right to react when he knew or should have known that someone could not be filleted with a butter knife.
- Yes, because the response was disproportionate to the threat.


Question: A woman engaged in adulterous sexual intercourse with her paramour, but did not know that he had a venereal disease. Soon thereafter, she had sex with her husband, who contracted the disease within a few days. The woman revealed the source to her husband, and he then sued the paramour for negligence in failing to tell the woman that he had the disease. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. What will the appellate court decide?

Choices:
- There is a cause of action because one who transmits a sexually communicable disease is strictly liable to all who contracts it.
- There is no cause of action because the wife assumed the risk that the paramour had a sexually transmittable disease.
- There is a cause of action because a person with a venereal disease has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid infecting others.
- There is no cause of action because the paramour's negligence was cut off by the wife's intervening negligence which became a superseding cause.


Question: Expecting an increase in business for the holiday season, an owner of a retail store decided to hire another employee. On October 31, the owner entered into a written contract with a worker that provided that the worker would be employed for the months of November and December to work at the retail store for $2,000 per month. At the end of November, the owner noticed that business had not increased as much as he had expected. The owner informed the worker that unless he agreed to take a cut in his salary, he would be fired. Reluctantly, on December 1, the worker orally consented to a salary reduction of $500 for the month of December. Which of the following statements regarding the December 1 agreement between the owner and the worked is most accurate?

Choices:
- It effectuated a valid reformation of their original written contract.
- It effectuated a valid modification of their original written contract.
- It effectuated a novation of their original written contract.
- It did not alter the rights and obligations of the parties under the terms of their original contract.


Question: A man kidnapped a victim in State A and transported the victim across the state border into State B. These actions violated the kidnapping laws of both states, which are identical. A jury convicted the man in a State A court, but the trial judge gave what prosecutors in State B deemed an unduly lenient sentence. The state prosecutor in State B then commenced a kidnapping case against the man for violating State B's kidnapping statute. The man's lawyer has filed a motion in State B to dismiss the charge based on the double jeopardy protection against a second prosecution for the man's single act of kidnapping. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?

Choices:
- No, because the double jeopardy protection only prohibits a second prosecution following an acquittal for the same offense.
- No, because the man's conduct violated the laws of two different states, and each has the right to enforce its laws. right to enforce its laws.
- Yes, because the double jeopardy protection prohibits a second prosecution following a conviction for the same offense.
- Yes, because the government is collaterally estopped under the double jeopardy protection from prosecuting a defendant a second time for the same conduct that led to an earlier conviction.


Question: A criminal defendant went to trial and was convicted. After exhausting his appeals, he filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had been deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. He established that his counsel had not advised him of the benefits of plea bargaining, and had withheld several offers for guilty pleas from the government. The offers expired for lack of a response. The sentence he received was at least seven to eight years more than if he had entered a guilty plea. Will the court likely decide that the defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel?

Choices:
- Yes, because plea bargaining is a critical stage of a criminal case and an attorney who ignores that process is constitutionally ineffective.
- No, because plea bargaining is not a critical necessity in a criminal case and counsel has no duty to discuss such options with the defendant.
- When the defendant indicates he wants to fight the charges, there is no need for counsel to relay plea offers or discuss the options with him.
- Because this defendant was convicted at a fair trial he didn't lose any rights and was not prejudiced by his lawyer's mistakes.


Question: A landlord was the owner of a large, high-rise apartment building in a Midwestern city. On June 1, 2007, two tenants took possession of a three- bedroom apartment in the landlord's building under a three-year lease at a rental of $1,200 per month. Their lease (as all other leases given by the landlord) contained the following provisions:"The term of this lease shall be three years from the date hereof as long as all the agreements herein shall be faithfully performed. "The two tenants lived in the apartment for two years. On June 10, 2009, however, a fire destroyed the apartment building. As a result, all the apartments in the building were rendered uninhabitable. After the two tenants were dispossessed from their apartment, the landlord brought suit against them to recover the rent due for the balance of the lease. The two tenants claim that they are no longer liable for rent or any other obligations under the lease. The landlord  tenants leasehold contract contained no provision regarding liability for fire. If the decision is in favor of the two tenants, it will most likely be because

Choices:
- there was nothing in the lease regarding liability for fire.
- the two tenants did not own an interest in the property.
- the jurisdiction has rejected the common law view on the tenant's duty to pay rent.
- the landlord did not contract to convey the property to the two tenants.


Question: In which one of the following situations would the defendant most likely be found guilty of felony murder?

Choices:
- A baseball fan traveled all night to the stadium, planning to purchase tickets from a scalper at the stadium. However, the fan arrived at the stadium after the game had started, and no tickets were available. He proceeded to sneak around the guard at the entrance gate and illegally entered the stadium. He watched the remainder of the game in the standing room only section. The fan became so enraged when the opposition took the lead in the ninth inning that he pulled out a gun from under his jacket and aimed it at the section of spectators in front of him. Before he could be subdued he had fired three shots, killing one person and severely injuring another.
- A customer was in a bank filling out a deposit slip when a robber entered. The robber went to the teller's window and quietly slipped a note to the teller, demanding everything in the cash drawer. The customer, who was unaware of the robbery taking place, went to the adjoining teller's window and made his deposit. Upon obtaining his receipt, the customer suddenly collapsed and died of a heart attack. When the robber saw this, he panicked and left the bank before the teller could comply with his demand.
- Two men planned to rob a luncheonette during the noontime rush. At 12:30 p. m. , as planned, one of the men entered the luncheonette and pointed a gun at the cashier, who handed over the money. The man left to meet the other man outside as he was standing guard as a lookout. As soon as the man ran out of the door, a police officer tried to grab him. The man evaded the officer for a brief moment. Thinking that the other man had double-crossed him and informed the police of their plans, he fatally shot the other man.
- A man and a woman had been feuding for years. In order to show him a thing or two, the woman decided to set fire to the man's house. Before dawn one morning, the woman went to the man's house and lit a match to gasoline she had poured at the man's front door. The house caught fire and quickly spread to the man's bedroom, where the man was able to leap out of the window without injury. A police officer who was driving by saw the woman running away one block from the man's house. The police officer pulled his car up to the woman to determine if she was involved in setting the fire. Upon seeing the officer, the woman starts to flee the scene. As she is running away, the woman pulled out a revolver and started shooting indiscriminately behind her. The police officer was struck by one of the shots and was killed.


Question: While a ski lift was ascending the mountain, the overhead cable broke, dropping a skier 15 feet to the ground. The skier suffered a broken pelvis on account of the fall. Thereafter, the skier sued the ski resort alleging negligent maintenance of the ski lift machinery. The ski resort's skier's attorney took a discovery deposition of a witness who was seated behind the skier at the time of the accident. The witness died shortly after the deposition. At trial, the skier offers the witness's deposition testimony into evidence. Upon objection by the ski resort's attorney, the deposition is

Choices:
- admissible as former testimony.
- admissible, provided that the witness's statements are more probative on the point than any other evidence the skier can procure through reasonable efforts and that the skier has given the ski resort reasonable notice that she would offer the deposition.
- inadmissible, because it violates the ski resort's right to confront the witnesses against itself.
- inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment. If the court grants the company's motion, what is the likely explanation?

Choices:
- Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist's action against the company.
- Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the company's lack of negligence.
- The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of remedies.
- The state-court judgment is the law of the case.


Question: A defendant worked as a patent attorney in a law firm. Late one evening, she left the office and walked outside to her car. While in the parking lot, she noticed a gold watch lying on the ground. When the defendant picked it up, she immediately identified the watch as belonging to one of the other lawyers in her law firm. She took it home with her, intending to return it the next day. The following morning, however, the defendant decided to keep the watch, and did so. The defendant has committed

Choices:
- larceny only.
- embezzlement only.
- both larceny and embezzlement.
- neither larceny nor embezzlement.


Question: A chemical company's plant was located in a residential community. The manufacturing process used at the plant generated a toxic chemical as a by- product. The chemical was stored in a state-of-the- art tank on the site before being moved to an off-site disposal facility. The on-site storage arrangement conformed to the requirements of reasonable care and to the applicable government regulations. However, the storage of the toxic chemical created a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care was exercised. Despite the chemical company's proper use and care of the storage tank, toxic fumes escaped from the tank and made residents of the area seriously ill. No state or federal statutes address the issue of the company's liability. In an action by one of the affected residents against the chemical company, will the resident be likely to prevail?

Choices:
- No, because the chemical company conformed to the requirements of reasonable care and to the applicable government regulations.
- No, because the chemical company used a state-of-the-art storage tank.
- Yes, because the chemical company is strictly liable in tort for any harm caused by the toxic chemicals it produced.
- Yes, because the storage of toxic chemicals in a residential community created a highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care was exercised.


Question: A defendant is on trial for attempting to cash a forged check at a bank. A teller at the bank is called to testify. The teller testified that she was on duty when the defendant came to her station and handed her a check drawn on the account of another customer. She recognized the forgery because she knew the other customer's signature since he was one of her regulars. The teller further testified that after becoming suspicious, she placed the check down on the counter and turned to talk to her supervisor. As she did so, the defendant picked up the check and left the bank before she could say anything. The check that the defendant presented at the bank was not recovered by law enforcement authorities and was not offered as evidence. The teller's testimony regarding the forged signature on the check is

Choices:
- inadmissible, because the witness is at fault in allowing the loss of the original by failing to secure the check.
- inadmissible, because it is not possible for the jury to compare the signature on the check since it was not presented as evidence.
- admissible, because it is rationally related to the witness's perception.
- admissible, because the witness was familiar with the alleged victim's handwriting.


Question: A plaintiff sued a defendant for leg injuries stemming from a collision between their cars at an intersection. Each party was driving his own car, and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had sped through a red light and collided with the plaintiff's car. The defendant denied this allegation. During the trial, the plaintiff testified that he and the defendant had conferred after the accident and that the defendant had said, "Don't worry about anything; I'll see to it that your doctor's bills are paid. " The defendant's attorney immediately objected. The trial judge should rule this testimony

Choices:
- admissible, because the defendant admitted his negligence.
- admissible, because it is a declaration against interest.
- inadmissible, because the prejudice in admitting the testimony outweighs its probative value.
- inadmissible, because an offer to pay medical bills is not admissible to prove negligence.


Question: After a lengthy interview with a company vice president, an employee was hired by the company to work in the company's accounting department. The parties agreed that the employment would be on an at-will basis. At the end of her first week of work, the employee was given a booklet entitled "Employment Manual," with instructions to read the book in its entirety by the end of the following week. That evening, the employee began reading the manual. The first few pages described the history of the company and provided a personal biography of its president. On page 20, the manual stated that the company treats its employees "as family" and that employees will be discharged "only with good cause. " The employee finished reading the manual as requested. The employee interpreted the statement on page 20 as insuring continued employment unless good cause existed for termination. Over the next two months, the employee continually complained to her supervisor that the lighting in the accounting department was insufficient. Finally the supervisor, fed up with the complaints, fired the employee. The employee then sued the company, seeking to recover on grounds of promissory estoppel. Which of the following facts, if true and provable, would be most helpful for the employee's cause of action?

Choices:
- At the time when the company hired the employee, the company subjectively intended that the employee be given job security.
- The employee interpreted the clause in the manual stating that company employees would be treated "as family" to mean that she would have job security and could only be fired for good cause.
- Just prior to receiving the manual, the employee seriously considered quitting, but continued to work for the company in reliance on the provisions contained on page 20 of the manual.
- The employee's complaints regarding the insufficient lighting were factually true and justifIable.


Question: In a suit between a plaintiff and a defendant arising out of an automobile accident, a bystander wascalled to the stand to testify that the defendant had driven through a red traffic light immediately before the collision. On cross-examination by the defense, the bystander admitted to having made a prior statement to a friend that he was not sure if the traffic signal was yellow or red when the defendant drove through the intersection. The trial judge should

Choices:
- permit the jury to consider the prior statement as substantive evidence.
- permit the defendant to call other witnesses to confirm the fact that the prior statement had been made.
- on request by the defendant, instruct the jury that the bystander's testimony that the defendant had driven through the red light bedisregarded.
- on request by the plaintiff, instruct the jury that the prior statement may be used only toimpeach the bystander's credibility, and not as substantive evidence.


Question: A defendant was arrested and charged with burglarizing a home. At trial, the main issue of contention centered on the identity of the burglar. The state called the homeowner to testify, but his identification testimony was inconclusive. The homeowner testified that he was asleep during the burglary and awoke as the burglar was fleeing the premises. The homeowner admitted that he didn't see the face of the burglar and couldn't even tell whether the person was male or female. Thereafter, the prosecution offers evidence that at the time of the burglary, the defendant needed money to defend himself against other burglary charges. This proffered evidence should be

Choices:
- admitted without restriction as probative evidence of motive.
- admitted, provided the court instructs the jury to limit use of the evidence to the defendant's motive to burglarize.
- excluded as lacking any probative value.
- excluded as substantially more unfairly prejudicial than probative.


Question: The President appointed a delegation to enter into negotiations with representatives of a foreign government to study the problem of preventing the extinction of certain species of seals. The delegation's goal was twofold: to study the problem and to formulate regulations in a bilateral agreement that would protect the endangered species and provide for a permanent commission that would continually monitor enforcement of the proposed regulations. After compiling their findings and drafting the necessary regulations, the President and the leader of the foreign government entered into a treaty to form a permanent commission to oversee the problem and to grant it the necessary enforcement powers. The validity of this treaty would most likely be upheld under which of the following principles?

Choices:
- The presidential power to conduct foreign affairs.
- An ancillary power of the President under his treaty-making power.
- The treaty-making power, but only if the treaty is ratified by two-thirds of the Senate.
- The treaty-making power, but only if the treaty is ratified by a majority in Congress.


Question: A husband visits an attorney seeking a divorce because of his wife's infidelity. At the client consultation, the attorney's secretary took notes. With the permission bf the husband, the attorney's law clerk also sat in on the consultation to see how the attorney conducted these meetings. Shortly after this initial consultation with the attorney, the secretary quit. During the divorce trial, the wife's attorney seeks to call the secretary to testify about what the husband told the attorney during the initial client consultation. Upon objection, the secretary's proposed testimony will most likely be

Choices:
- admissible, because her presence during the meeting destroyed the attorney-client privilege.
- admissible, because the law clerk's presence during the meeting destroyed the attorney- client privilege.
- inadmissible, because the attorney-client privilege disqualifies the secretary from testifying to such confidential communications.
- inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.


Question: Law enforcement authorities had probable cause to suspect a man of murder. Without an arrest warrant, they went to his home to arrest him. They knocked and announced, and hearing no response, forcibly broke open the door and entered the house. They didn't find anyone but seized a handgun that was in plain view. The suspect was later arrested for murder; he filed for suppression of the gun. Will the suppression court throw out the gun?

Choices:
- No, the entry was authorized by exigent circumstances and the gun was in plain view.
- No, the entry did not require an arrest warrant because the authorities already had established probable cause.
- Yes, the entry was a violation of the knock and announce rule.
- Yes, the police must obtain an arrest warrant to enter someone's home for an arrest.


Question: In an effort to improve the health care of cancer patients, a state's legislature has enacted a law providing public funds to assist privately owned hospitals. According to the law, every hospital in the state would receive $5,000 annually for each cancer patient who was admitted to that hospital, and whose period of hospitalization exceeded one week. Although this bill was initially opposed by several churches and other organizations, the state's legislature re-drafted the bill in a compromise effort to appease the opposition. In its final re-draft, the bill provided that the $5,000 annual subsidy "would not be paid to any hospital performing abortions. "Which of the following is the strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of the state statute?

Choices:
- The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states plenary power over the allocation of their public funds.
- Public subsidies in hospitals are privileges rather than rights and, therefore, are not entitlements protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The funding limitation in this statute does not directly prohibit or penalize the exercise of a fundamental right and is rationally related to the achievement of a legitimate state interest.
- The statute promotes a compelling state interest in advancing the health, safety, and welfare of its citizenry.


Question: A defendant is on trial for attempted murder. The alleged victim is called by the prosecution to testify. During her testimony, the victim recounted the incident and described how the defendant savagely beat her with a baseball bat. She was not asked by the prosecution whether she made any statements during the attack. After the victim was excused and left the witness stand, the prosecution called another witness to testify. The witness proposes to testify that when the beating stopped, the victim screamed, "I'm dying. Don't let the defendant get away with this. "Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the witness's proffered testimony is

Choices:
- admissible as an excited utterance.
- admissible as a dying declaration.
- inadmissible as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
- inadmissible, because the victim was not questioned about the statement before being excused.


Question: A federal statute established a national lottery and created a new federal agency to administer it. In order to sell lottery tickets directly to the public, the agency established outlets throughout the country, including in a particular state. The state levies a general tax on the gross receipts from all gaming operations within the state. The state seeks to tax the agency on the sales of lottery tickets from its outlets within the state. Must the agency pay the state gross receipts tax?

Choices:
- No, because a federal agency may not pay any monies to a state without explicit federal statutory authorization to do so.
- No, because a state may not impose a tax directly on the federal government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.
- Yes, because it is a generally applicable tax that does not discriminate against the agency.
- Yes, because the federal government is not exempt from state taxation on its commercial activities.


Question: A man was arrested under a criminal statute that prohibited public intoxication. A magistrate fined him $100 and sentenced him to a weekend in jail. On appeal, he had a de novo trial before a county trial court. He presented medical testimony diagnosing the disease of alcoholism, which was marked by a nearly uncontrollable urge to drink. The defense claimed that a person could not be convicted for suffering from a disease process. The state simply argued that the man had no defense to what he did. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the man's appeal after his conviction. Will the Court likely reverse the conviction?

Choices:
- Yes, because it is unconstitutional to punish someone for the status of being an alcoholic or a drug addict.
- Yes, because when a person acts under a compulsion that is part of a medical disease, this negates criminal intent.
- No, because the man was sane and knew the difference between right and wrong when he was sober.
- No, because he was convicted not for being a chronic alcoholic but for the actions of being in public while drunk.


Question: A city resident commuted to work each day by subway. After purchasing her subway ticket, the resident entered the subway for her ride downtown to where she was employed. Looking for a seat, the resident was walking toward the rear of the subway car when it came to an abrupt halt. As a result of the sudden stop, the resident fell onto a commuter, injuring him. If the commuter asserts a claim against the subway company to recover for his personal injuries, the commuter will probably

Choices:
- prevail, because a special duty of care was owed him.
- prevail, because the sudden stop caused the resident to fall onto him.
- not prevail, if the operator of the subway was not negligent in making the stop.
- not prevail, if the resident was negligent in not holding onto the hand rail.


Question: A homeowner offered to pay a roofer he knew $2,000 for the roofer's agreement to make repairs to the homeowner's roof. He said to the roofer, "We'll have a deal when you begin to do the work necessary for this job." The roofer did not directly respond to the offer but he went out and purchased the supplies and materials needed for the homeowner's specifications. When he arrived at the site with the supplies he found a message from the homeowner that he revoked the offer. Can the homeowner revoke the offer under these circumstances?

Choices:
- Yes, because an offer for a bilateral contract can be revoked before its acceptance.
- No, because the act of purchasing supplies specifically for the homeowner's job was an effective acceptance and a contract was formed prior to homeowner's attempted revocation.
- No, because the offer had to remain open for a reasonable period of time before it could be revoked.
- Yes, because an oral offer to enter a bilateral contract is never enforceable.


Question: A minor child was eating a fish sandwich in a fast food restaurant when a large metal object, later identified as a fish hook, got caught in her throat. The trapped hook caused her to cough blood uncontrollably, and she was rushed to a hospital for emergency surgery. The restaurant later defended the customer's lawsuit by showing that it had done everything reasonable to eliminate foreign objects from its product and there was no negligence. Will the lawsuit be dismissed and judgment entered for the restaurant?

Choices:
- No, because even without negligence there is strict liability imposed for selling an unreasonably dangerous product.
- Yes, because a customer voluntarily assumes the foreseeable risk that fish will contain metal fish hooks.
- Yes, because customers are expected to know that a fish sandwich will often have foreign objects in it.
- No, because the seller did not post a warning that its fish might contain fish hooks.


Question: A tenant was cleaning out the bedroom of his apartment as his lease had expired. He carried out his waterbed, dresser, and all of his clothes. As the tenant inspected the room one last time, he noticed a bookcase that he had screwed into the wall when he first moved in. While he pondered whether to remove the bookcase, the tenant concluded that it constituted a fixture and, therefore, was a permanent part of the realty. Nonetheless, the tenant decided that the bookcase would fit nicely in his new apartment, so he removed it from the bedroom wall. When the landlord learned that the tenant had removed the bookcase, he contacted the tenant and demanded that he return it to the apartment. The tenant refused. If the tenant is subsequently prosecuted for larceny, he will most likely be found

Choices:
- guilty, because the chattel was the personal property of the landlord.
- guilty, because severance of the bookcase from the wall was sufficient asportation to constitute larceny.
- not guilty, because the tenant cannot be found guilty of theft for removing his own property.
- not guilty, because the bookcase was a fixture.


Question: A woman was the owner of a farm in fee simple. Thewoman left the farm in 1986 to move to the city. Aman took possession of the land in 1987 as an adversepossessor and remained on the land from 1987 to 1997;he then left the property to care for his sick mother forone year, returning the following year, 1999. The man's nephew agreed to live on the farm and take care of it during his uncle's absence. When the man returned from his mother's home in 1999, he continued in possession until 2010 when the womanbrought an ejectment action. Assume that the statutory period for adverse possession in this state is 20 years. The court would most likely hold that

Choices:
- the woman was the rightful owner and thus entitled to possess the farm.
- the woman was entitled to possession, because the man's intermittent possession was insufficient to make him an adverse possessor.
- the man was entitled to possession, because his possession was open, notorious, continuous, and hostile as required for the statutory period.
- the man was entitled to possession, because of the privity between the man and his nephew, which aided him in fulfilling the required statutory period.


Question: After watching a television program about archery, a 15-year-old boy became very interested in that sport. He saved up some money to buy a bow and other archery equipment. He set up a target in his backyard in order to practice. He surrounded the target with stacks of hay bales to stop any arrows that missed the target. After practicing for a few weeks, the boy made great improvements in his technique and accuracy. While practicing one afternoon, however, the boy lost his balance just as he released an arrow. As a result, the arrow flew way off course, going over the target and all the hay bales and flying into a wooded area behind the boy's house. The boy assumed no one was in the woods, so he was relieved that the errant arrow would not hurt anyone. However, a hiker happened to be in the woods near the boy's house. As he paused for a moment to take a drink of water, the hiker suddenly saw something out of the corner of his eye. It was the stray arrow shot by the boy. Without even thinking about it, the hiker reflexively ducked out of the way. The arrow narrowly missed the hiker's head; but as the hiker ducked out of the way, his head struck the limb of a tree, causing a stick to stab painfully into his eye. Which of the following causes of action could the hiker successfully assert against the boy?

Choices:
- Assault, but not battery.
- Battery, but not assault.
- Assault and battery.
- Neither assault nor battery.


Question: Section 2022(a) of a state's medical licensing code provides:"For the purposes of this statute, only those persons who have graduated from an optometry school located in the state and accredited by the board of optometrists shall be licensed to conduct the practice of optometry within the state. "A doctor graduated from a school of optometry located in a neighboring state. The following month, the doctor was granted a license to practice optometry in that neighboring state by its board of optometrists. For approximately one year, the doctor was engaged in the practice of optometry in the neighboring state. Subsequently, the doctor decided to relocate his practice to the state for which Section 2022(a) applies. The doctor re-domiciled in the state, where he opened a new office for the practice of optometry. When he initially opened his office, the doctor was unaware of the state's licensing provision for optometrists. Since the doctor was a licensed optometrist for 10 years, he assumed that he could practice optometry in the state by reciprocity. The doctor received notification from the state's board of optometrists that he was illegally practicing optometry and that he must immediately cease and desist from such practice. If the doctor challenges the constitutionality of Section 2022(a) of the medical licensing statute as violating the Commerce Clause, which of the following, if factually true, is the WEAKEST defense that the state could offer?

Choices:
- The statute will help to ensure that only the most qualified optometrists practice in the state.
- The statute will help protect the optometrists in the state from competition outside the state.
- The statute will help to ensure a continuously available number of practicing optometrists within the state.
- The statute will help to ensure that the practicing optometrists in the state are subject to standards of a regulatory body.


Question: An experienced equestrian rider sued a woman, claiming that her horse kicked and injured the rider. At trial, the rider testified that he was attending a horse show when, without provocation, he was kicked by a gray stallion with a black tail. The rider then called the woman as an adverse witness and asked her the following question: "Isn't it true that you are the owner and trainer of a gray stallion with a black tail?" After answering affirmatively, the woman was not asked any further questions on direct examination. Whereupon in cross- examination, the woman was then asked, "Isn't it true that your horse is very gentle and would not kick anyone unless provoked?"Upon objection by the rider's attorney, the rider's strongest argument would be that the woman's proffered testimony is

Choices:
- inadmissible as an improper form of impeachment.
- inadmissible as substantive evidence to show that the horse must have been provoked.
- inadmissible, because the horse's general propensity cannot be used to prove what occurred on a particular occasion.
- inadmissible as beyond the scope of the woman's direct testimony.