Question:
Question: An insured business owner stored valuable property in an insured warehouse owned by the business. During night time hours, when there were no employees in the warehouse, the building and its contents burned to the ground by a raging fire. The fire department ruled that the fire had an incendiary origin. The fire report, however, did not identify a perpetrator. The insurer responded by rejecting coverage and accusing the business owner of starting the fire. The business owner sued the insurance company in federal court for the policy proceeds to cover its property damages claim. At the trial on the business owner's civil claim for insurance coverage, the owner attempted to put several persons on the stand to testify to the owner's good character, which was submitted as proof that the owner did not commit the arson. The trial court ruled that the character evidence would be excluded because it was inadmissible character testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 404(a). On appeal, will the fedeal appellate court likely affim the trial court's order?
Choices
A. Yes, because Rule 404(a) is firm in not allowing for character evidence in a civil trial.
B. Yes, because the facts do not apply to any of the several exceptions available in a civil case.
C. No, because Rule 404(b) permits the use of such evidence to show relevant prior bad acts.
D. No, because a business owner has a constitutional right to present and admit character evidence.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A manager's competitor sent a defamatory letter to the manager accusing him of professional incompetence and calling him one of the worst businessmen in town. It was addressed to the manager. He read it, put it in a private drawer, and did not read it again. Later, he tried to sue the competitor for defamation as a result of the letter. Will the court likely grant the defendant's motion to dismiss, and on what grounds? Base your answer on the common law definition of defamation.
Choices
A. Yes, it will dismiss on the basis that the publication is made to the manager alone.
B. Yes, it will dismiss on the basis that the language is not damaging to the manager's reputation.
C. No, it will not dismiss because the circumstances show that all of the elements of defamation are all present.
D. No, it will not dismiss because a plaintiff in a defamatory action has an absolute right to a jury trial to prove defamation.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions. Is this law constitutional?
Choices
A. No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments.
B. No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
C. Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by other means.
D. Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and therefore is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A driver was having trouble finding a place to park his car near a store at which he needed to make a quick stop to purchase something. He decided to just park along the road next to the store, even though there was not really a lane or space there intended for parking. The driver pulled his car as far off the roadway as he could and figured that it would be fine because he would only be in the store for a few minutes. While the driver was in the store, a car driven by a woman approached the spot where the driver had left his car. When the woman saw the driver's car and realized it was partially obstructing the road, she tried to avoid hitting it but crashed into it. The accident caused $5,000 worth of damage to the driver's car and $1,000 worth of damage to the woman's car. Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules and that the woman had the last clear chance to avoid the collision. How much, if anything, could the driver recover in a lawsuit against the woman for negligence?
Choices
A. $5,000, or the full amount of damages to his car.
B. $4,000, or the full amount of his damages, minus the woman's damages.
C. $2,500, or half of his damages.
D. Nothing, because the driver was contributorily negligent for parking his car so that part of it stuck out into the street.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A vehicle operator was driving on a highway at night. His girlfriend was in the passenger seat. They were returning from a college night class. She was smoking marijuana, blowing it out the open window, and not sharing it with the driver. The driver fell asleep, causing the car to veer off the highway and go into a ditch where it landed upside-down. Both the driver and passenger were seriously injured. She sued the operator for negligence. The operator filed a counterclaim asking for damages against the passenger by arguing that the passenger was herself negligent by "smoking weed" and causing him to fall asleep. Is the court likely to grant the passenger's motion to dismiss the counterclaim?
Choices
A. Yes, because the passenger was not actively participating in a joint enterprise and did not do enough to contribute to the cause of the accident.
B. Yes, because a vehicle operator is always liable and a passenger cannot be made liable for the driver's actions under any circumstances.
C. No, because the driver has properly alleged a joint enterprise situation where the passenger is liable for her share of the negligence in causing the accident.
D. No, because the passenger was breaking the law, making her negligent per se.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A plaintiff filed a civil action asking for damages resulting from a tortious assault that the defendant inflicted on him. During trial, plaintiff's counsel asked an opposing witness on cross examination: "At any time during the assault did anyone attempt to leave?" Defense counsel objected to the question. How will the court rule on the objection?
Choices
A. The objection will be sustained because the question is misleading.
B. The objection will be sustained because the question is leading.
C. The objection will be overruled because leading questions are allowed on cross examination.
D. The objection will be overruled because the question is not leading or misleading.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Neighbor says his home repair contract needs to be discharged because of frustration of purpose. Which of the following is not required for this to be discharged for this reason?
Choices
A. A supervening event.
B. That was reasonably foreseeable at time of contract formation.
C. Which completely or almost completely destroys the purpose of the contract.
D. The purpose of the contract was understood by both parties.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A boyfriend decided to rob a grocery store after he was let go during a labor dispute. The boyfriend asked his girlfriend to drive the getaway car, to which she agreed, on the condition that no loaded weapons were used during the robbery. On the day of the robbery, the boyfriend and his girlfriend drove to the grocery store. Unknown to the girlfriend, the boyfriend entered the store with a loaded gun. The boyfriend approached one of the cashiers and told him to fill a bag with all the money from the register. When the cashier refused, the boyfriend shot and killed him. He then turned to the next cashier and pointed his gun at her. The cashier suffered a heart attack and died. The boyfriend then took the money from the registers himself and exited the store. One of the customers had called the police, and they were waiting outside. A shootout ensued, and the boyfriend was killed by the police. If this jurisdiction follows the agency theory of felony murder, the girlfriend is guilty if how many counts of murder?
Choices
A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. None.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A store published the following advertisement in a local newspaper on Monday, March 12:"8 Brand New COWBOY HATS Beaver Felt,selling for $72. 50 . . . out they go . . . Sat. March 17,Each. . . $5. 1 Navajo Turquoise Necklace . . . worth $125, now selling for $40. "FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED"On the following Saturday, a man was the first person to arrive at Store and demanded the necklace. The store clerk refused to sell it to him, because it was a "house rule" that the necklace was intended for women only. If the man brings suit against the store for its refusal to sell him the necklace, the man will
Choices
A. lose, because the advertisement was intended only as an invitation to make an offer.
B. lose, because the man did not notii' the store in writing that he intended to accept the offer.
C. win, because the advertisement should be construed as a binding offer.
D. win, because it is immaterial whether the man was the first customer to appear at the store to purchase the necklace.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: During a violent electrical storm one night, a bolt of lightning struck a public high school building and set it ablaze. The high school was severely damaged and needed to be rebuilt. As a consequence, the city council held an emergency meeting to determine what measures should be taken to locate an appropriate alternative facility in which to conduct classes. Thereupon, the city council passed the following resolution: "During restoration of the high school building, classes shall be conducted at the most suitable facility which submits the lowest bid. In determining a suitable' facility, the city council shall consider such factors as location and available classroom space. "Several bids were submitted. The lowest bid was submitted by a church. The church was located on the same block as the high school and contained sufficient seating capacity for all students. In addition, there were a sufficient number of separate rooms to allow different classes to meet at the same time. The city council voted unanimously to accept the church's offer. Furthermore, the church agreed to remove all religious symbols and paraphernalia from the classrooms utilized by the students. Only the main chapel was exempt, so that it could remain open for prayer. No high school classes or activities were to be held in the main chapel. A parent of one of the high school students is upset at this arrangement. On his son's behalf, the parent has filed suit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of permitting public school classes to be held in a church. Judgment for whom?
Choices
A. The city, because the classroom arrangement does not inhibit or advance religion.
B. The city, because the church was the lowest bidder in accordance with the emergency ordinance.
C. The plaintiff, because the present arrangement for conducting classes in a church-owned facility constitutes excessive entanglement with religion.
D. The plaintiff, because the emergency measure was not necessary to further a compelling state interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two women lived in a one-bedroom house with 20 dogs. A dog-walker who entered the house was appalled by their deplorable living conditions. The animals' excrement was deposited throughout the house, they were kept in tiny pens, and some of the animals were sick. The visitor called the SPCA, a private non-profit humane society. State law authorized humane societies to receive abused or neglected animals from animal control officers, to care for them and adopt them out. The SPCA took the animals designated by the officers. The officers then arrested the women for animal neglect. At a hearing, the prosecutor was unprepared, and the judge dismissed the charges. The women then sued the officers and the SPCA under 42 U.S.C. Â§ 1983 for civil rights violations. The SPCA defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on the absence of the "state action" on their part. Will the court likely grant the motion to dismiss?
Choices
A. Yes, because there was nothing that was done by the humane society that involved police action.
B. Yes, because the SPCA personnel did not at any time act "under color of law" in their actions.
C. No, because the SPCA was organized under a non-profit certificate of incorporation that was issued by the state.
D. No, because the SPCA acted under the authority of the state statute and cooperated with state authorities to perform the authorized functions.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A mother took her five-year-old child to a hospital emergency room for treatment. A doctor on the hospital staff molested the child while treating her. At the time, no one was in the treatment room except the doctor and the child; the mother had left the room to get a cup of coffee. Two weeks later, when the child told her mother what had occurred in the treatment room, the mother suffered severe emotional distress that caused her to become physically ill. In an action against the doctor by the mother on her own behalf to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress, is the mother likely to prevail?
Choices
A. No, because the mother was contributorily negligent in leaving the child alone with the doctor during treatment.
B. No, because the mother was neither the direct victim of the doctor's conduct nor a contemporaneous witness.
C. Yes, because the doctor's conduct was outrageous.
D. Yes, because the mother's distress was the natural and foreseeable consequence of the doctor's conduct.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state has enacted a statute imposing a tax on the extraction of all platinum in the state. The extraction of other minerals is not taxed by the state. This is true even though there is considerable mining of silver, turquoise, sulfur, and stone within the state. As a result, the largest platinum mining company in the state has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the state's platinum tax statute. Which of the following best states the burden of persuasion if the mining company attacks the statute as violating the equal protection of the laws?
Choices
A. The state must convince the court that the classification in the statute is rationally related to the advancement of a legitimate state interest.
B. The state must convince the court that the classification in this statute is the least restrictive means by which to advance a compelling state interest.
C. The mining company must convince the court that the classification in this statute is not necessary to advance a compelling state interest.
D. The mining company must convince the court that the classification in this statute is not rationally related to the advancement of a legitimate state interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: In a tavern, an intoxicated woman threatened to slash a man with a broken beer bottle. Another customer, who had not been threatened by the woman, forcefully grabbed the woman and locked her in the tavern's storeroom until the police could arrive. In the process, although the customer used reasonable force, the customer badly sprained the woman's wrist. Is the woman likely to recover in an action against the customer?
Choices
A. No, because the customer's conduct was privileged as a defense of others.
B. Yes, based on battery only.
C. Yes, based on false imprisonment only.
D. Yes, based on both battery and false imprisonment.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A federal grand jury was investigating a corporation whose tanker ship had spilled crude oil into environmentally sensitive waters. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the corporation to produce all emails and internal documents regarding the corporation's knowledge of the risks of an oil spill. The corporation has objected, citing its Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Can the subpoena be enforced?
Choices
A. No, because the corporation was not granted transactional immunity.
B. No, because the corporation was not granted use-and-derivative-use immunity.
C. Yes, because a corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege.
D. Yes, because the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to the compelled production of documents.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: For which of the following preliminary questions of fact will the trial court judge, not the jury, determine admissibility?
Choices
A. Whether the voice on a sound recording is that of the defendant.
B. Whether defendant's copy of a document accurately reflects the contents of the original writing.
C. Whether a conspiracy existed and defendant and declarant were members of the conspiracy before admitting an alleged declaration by a co-conspirator.
D. A plaintiff sues on a lost writing, and the defendant contends that it was not lost because it never existed. The question to be decided is whether the original writing ever existed.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A well-known Washington newspaper columnist was researching the background of a lawyer who had been nominated to become attorney general of the United States and was awaiting confirmation by the U. S. Senate. One of the columnist's eager young apprentices concocted a plan that he hoped would enable him to gain the columnist's favor. Late one evening, without telling anyone, the apprentice broke into the lawyer's private office and copied several letters pertaining to "dirty tricks" perpetrated by the lawyer during the most recent presidential campaign. When the apprentice presented the columnist with the fruits of his diligent research, the columnist was quite impressed and immediately printed excerpts from the material. If the lawyer asserts a claim against the columnist for invasion of right to privacy, the plaintiff will most likely
Choices
A. prevail, because the apprentice's action was an unlawful invasion of private facts.
B. prevail, because the publication was not newsworthy.
C. not prevail, because what the columnist printed was true, thus establishing there was no "false light. "
D. not prevail, because the columnist was not involved in the burglary and did not conspire with the apprentice with respect to the burglary.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A gambler learned that a friend of his was planning a vacation to visit some casinos. The gambler, who was an avid college football fan, approached his friend. The gambler explained that he wanted to place a bet with a sports-betting agency that his beloved team would win the college football championship the next year. The gambler further explained that he had read that the odds of his team winning the football championship next year were listed as 100-1, and he wanted to place a $1,000 bet on his team. The gambler told his friend that he would pay him for his efforts. After further discussion, the gambler wrote up the following agreement:"I hereby promise to pay my friend $100 if he will place a $1,000 bet for me that my favorite team will win the college football championship next year. The bet is to be placed at my lucky casino sports book. I further promise to pay my friend an additional $100 within 30 days after the bet is placed. "Since the gambler knew his wife would be angry if she found out about the bet, the gambler included a clause that the friend promised not to tell anyone about the bet. After both the gambler and his friend signed the agreement, the gambler gave him $1,100, representing $1,000 to place the bet and $100 as the initial payment for the friend's efforts. The friend then went on vacation. Shortly after arrival, the friend attempted to place the bet for the gambler. However, the friend discovered that the gambler's lucky casino had recently closed its sports book. The friend then entered another casino next door and discovered that they had a sports book, also offering 100-1 odds on the gambler's favorite team winning the college football championship the next year. The friend placed the bet with the other casino's sports book. After returning from his vacation, the friend gave the betting slip to the gambler. Nothing more was said until 30 days later, when the friend asked the gambler when he was going to receive the final $100. The gambler then refused to pay anything more to the friend. In a breach of contract action by the friend to collect the $100, which of the following, if true, is the gambler's best defense?
Choices
A. The contract was void ab initio, because the contract could not be performed in its entirety within the span of one year.
B. The friend's placing the $1,000 bet at the other casino instead of at the gambler's lucky casino constituted a material breach of contract, thereby relieving the gambler of any further contractual obligations under the terms of their agreement.
C. While on vacation, the friend told his girlfriend about the $1,000 that he bet on the gambler's behalf.
D. Since the gambler's lucky casino no longer had a sports book at which to place the bet, all contractual obligations would be suspended under the doctrine of frustration of purpose.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An elevator company installed an elevator in an apartment building. Under the terms of its contract with the owner of the apartment building, the company agreed to carry out regular monthly inspections of the elevator and to make all necessary repairs. The elevator was installed in the apartment complex in January. For the next 10 months, the company made regular inspections. However, starting in November, the company began to have some difficulties with its employees and failed to send inspectors out for three successive months. On February 20, a woman went to visit her friend, who was a tenant on the 20th floor of the building. The woman used the intercom to call up to the friend, who buzzed to unlock the front door so that the woman could enter the building. The woman headed to the elevator. When the doors opened, several people were already inside the elevator, apparently having entered the elevator from the parking garage below the building. One of the people in the elevator was a man who acted shifty and nervous. By the 12th floor, only four persons were left, including the woman and the man. At that floor, the other two people left, leaving the woman and the man alone on the elevator. Apprehensive at finding herself alone with such an unkempt stranger, the woman pressed the 13th floor button, intending to step out and hoping to find other persons on that floor. Unfortunately, the elevator stalled, and came to a stop between the 12th and 13th floors. The woman's fears were justified, as the man suddenly grabbed at her purse. When the woman resisted, the man struck her, and she fell unconscious. When the woman recovered consciousness, she found herself in a hospital with a concussion and multiple contusions on her body. She later learned that the elevator had remained stalled for 50 minutes. Thereafter, it moved to the 20th floor, where she was found by her friend, who took her to the hospital. Two weeks later, the police arrested the man and found the woman's purse in his possession. This was the first assault that had occurred in the apartment building. The elevator's stalling was caused by a defective cable that a routine inspection would have discovered. If the woman brings suit against the owner of the apartment building for negligence, she will most likely
Choices
A. recover, because she was an invitee of a tenant in the building.
B. recover, because the owner would be vicariously liable for the company's failure to inspect the elevator.
C. not recover, because the woman was negligent in failing to exit the elevator on the 12th floor when the other occupants exited the elevator.
D. not recover, because there had been no previous assaults in the apartment building.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: In a jurisdiction using the grantor grantee indices, the following events have occurred in the order listed below:(1) In 1993, a woman mortgaged a tract of land to a mortgage company to secure a note for $25,000, due on December 31, 1993, with 9'/2 percent interest per annum. (2) In 1996, the mortgage company recorded the mortgage on the tract of land. (3) In 2007, in a signed writing, which the woman delivered to her daughter, the woman promised to convey the tract of land to her daughter by quitclaim deed and pay the mortgage debt when it came due. (4) In 2008, the woman delivered to the daughter a quitclaim deed that made no reference to the mortgage. If the woman thereafter defaulted on the mortgage debt, which of the following is probably correct?
Choices
A. Only the daughter has a cause of action against the woman.
B. Only the mortgage company has a cause of action against the woman.
C. Both the daughter and the mortgage company have causes of action against the woman.
D. Neither the daughter nor the mortgage company has a cause of action against the woman.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: On June 1, an owner of a business that built mobile homes was visited by a representative of a company that manufactured propane tanks. Propane tanks were an essential component of the mobile homes produced by the builder. The representative told the owner that the company could supply propane tanks at $50 per tank, a substantial savings over what the owner currently paid for propane tanks. The owner asked if the company could supply 1,000 propane tanks by the end of the month, and the representative assured him that they could. The owner stated that he would think about it and decide what to do within a week. On June 3, the owner sent the following memo to the company headquarters at the address provided by the representative: "I am happy to confirm my order of 1,000 propane tanks, to be delivered by June 30. I have always received a 10 percent discount for cash payment, so I will assume you will grant me the same discount. I will have $45,000 cash ready to give to your representative at the time of delivery. "On June 30, the company delivered 1,000 propane tanks to the owner. The representative accompanied the delivery and presented the owner with a bill for $50,000. The owner refused to pay any more than$45,000. Which of the following accurately states the legal rights of the parties?
Choices
A. The contract price was $45,000, because the June 3 memo was an effective integration of their agreement.
B. The contract price was $45,000, because the company did not specifically object to the 10 percent discount stipulated by the owner in his June 3 memo.
C. The contract price was $50,000 if the discount term in the owner's June 3 memo materially altered the terms of the company's offer.
D. The contract price was $50,000 even though the company's offer did not expressly limit acceptance to the terms contained therein.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A store owner noticed that an expensive electronic device was missing from the store. He assumed that a shoplifter had taken it. Later that day, the store owner was cleaning up the small room in the back of the store that the employees of the store used to store their personal items while they were at work. The store owner was straightening up the coat rack in the back room, when he accidentally knocked one of the employee's coats off the hanger. As the coat fell onto the floor, the missing electronic device fell out of the pocket of the coat. It was still in its original packaging, and the store owner checked the serial number on the package to confirm that it was the device missing from the store's shelves. The store owner knew that the coat belonged to a woman who worked as a cashier in the store. The store owner felt bad, but decided that he had no choice but to call the police. Two police officers arrived at the store. They gathered information from the store owner, who signed a criminal complaint against the woman. The officers then discussed the matter with the woman. Although she denied stealing anything, the officers arrested her and informed her that they would need to take her to the police station. After the police took the woman away, another employee of the store found out that the woman had been arrested. That employee immediately went to the store owner and admitted that he was actually the one who had stolen the device, and that he had hidden it in the woman's coat, intending to retrieve it later before the end of the woman's work shift. The store owner promptly called the police and told them that there had been a mistake and that the theft charge against the woman was invalid. The police released the woman, who spent a total of approximately 30 minutes in police custody. If the woman asserts a claim for false imprisonment against the arresting officers, will the woman prevail?
Choices
A. Yes, because the woman had not committed a crime at the time she was arrested.
B. Yes, because the woman was arrested and held in custody.
C. No, because the woman was detained for only 30 minutes.
D. No, because the officers had probable cause to arrest the woman based on the store owner's complaint and honest belief that the woman had stolen the device.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A pilot was flying his small plane when he experienced engine trouble and was forced to make an emergency landing. He landed the plane safely in a large yard behind a home located in a relatively remote area. Unfortunately, when he disembarked from the plane, he was attacked and injured by two large dogs kept by the homeowner to discourage trespassers. The homeowner, who had seen the plane land, had ordered the dogs to attack. Several months earlier, the homeowner had posted large signs around the perimeter of the yard warning of the dogs. Does the pilot have a viable claim against the homeowner for battery?
Choices
A. No, because the homeowner had provided adequate warning.
B. No, because the pilot was a trespasser.
C. Yes, because the pilot can invoke the privilege of necessity.
D. Yes, because the pilot could not reasonably have been expected to see the warning signs posted by the homeowner.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: On March 1, a homeowner hired a landscaper to landscape his front yard. On March 25, as the landscaper was almost finished with the work on the front yard, the homeowner said to the landscaper, "I'm very pleased with your work to date. If you are willing, I would like you to landscape my backyard, on the same terms and conditions as our existing contract, the work to be completed by May 1. If you can meet that deadline, I'll pay you $10,000 at that time. " The landscaper replied, "Agreed. Let's shake hands on it. " They shook hands. What is the probable legal effect of the landscaper's promise on March 25 to landscape the backyard?
Choices
A. The landscaper's promise created an enforceable unilateral contract.
B. The landscaper's promise created an enforceable bilateral contract.
C. The landscaper's promise was voidable, since it was not in writing.
D. The landscaper's promise was illusory, thereby creating an unenforceable contract.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A homeowner awoke one night and observed a thief stealing chickens from his backyard chicken coop. He thought he saw a gun but could not tell for sure. While the thief was exiting with a sack of chickens, the homeowner got his hunting rifle and shot him dead. The authorities charged the homeowner with homicide. At the trial, he defended on the basis that he was in fear for his safety, and was legally authorized to use deadly force to defend his dwelling and person from the illegal threat. Is the defense to homicide valid under these facts?
Choices
A. Yes, he was authorized to use deadly force where he reasonably believed that the thief had a gun and would harm him.
B. No, because it is not reasonable to use deadly force to prevent the theft of the chickens.
C. No, because a homeowner can never legally use deadly force to stop a theft.
D. Yes, because a dwelling owner can always use deadly force to protect his property and person from an illegal trespasser or thief.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An owner took his car to an auto mechanic to have the oil changed. When he returned to pick up his car later in the day, the mechanic told him the charge was $1 The owner objected and said the charge was excessively high. The mechanic indicated that the amount was reasonable and showed the owner a price listing substantiating the charge. As the two men were arguing, the mechanic excused himself to answer the telephone in the rear of his shop. While the mechanic was on the phone, the owner got into his car and drove off without paying the servicing charges. If the owner is subsequently charged with larceny, he should be found
Choices
A. not guilty, because the car was his own property.
B. not guilty, if the jury finds the servicing charge to be excessively high.
C. guilty, if the jurisdiction has a statute making theft of services a crime.
D. guilty, because he took the car without the mechanic's consent.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state law imposes penalties for "any public statement containing false or misleading information about a service or product." An airline falsely claimed in an advertisement that its competitor had an inferior safety record. The claim was based on erroneous information, found on the website of a nonprofit consumer advocacy group, that the airline assumed to be true. The airline was charged under the state law for making a false statement. No federal statute applies. Which of the following best supports the airline in a defense based on the First Amendment?
Choices
A. Its statement about the safety record was made without malice.
B. Its statement about the safety record was protected noncommercial speech.
C. The state law is a prior restraint.
D. The state law is overbroad.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Sarah Student was a third-year law student who had just purchased the Primer Series MBE Review program. She was studying in the law library and decided to take a short refreshment break. When she returned to her study desk ten minutes later, her Primer Series was gone. She ran into the student lounge and announced, "I will pay $20 to anyone who identifies the dirty bum who took my Primer Series MBE Review books." Donna Doubtful saw Terry Thief pick up Sarah's Primer Series books, but did not believe Sarah would actually pay her the $20, if she made the identification. Thus, Donna went up to Sarah and said, "I know the identity of the thief and promise to tell you, but I want the $20 in advance." The effect of Donna's statement is to
Choices
A. Create a unilateral contract.
B. Create a bilateral contract.
C. Create no contract.
D. Create a contract which is defeasible unless Donna makes the required disclosure within a reasonable period of time.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A waitress sued her former employer, a restaurant, under Title VII in federal court. She claimed that the owner had sexually harassed her and then caused her wrongful termination. A jury returned a verdict of $100,000 for the former employee. Two weeks after the court entered judgment on the verdict, the employer filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. Rule 12(b)(6), claiming that it did not have at least 15 employees as required by the definition of an "employer" under the civil rights statute. The employer claimed that there was therefore no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The lower court agreed, dismissed the case and voided the judgment. On appeal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, will the appellate court likely uphold the lower court's decision?
Choices
A. Yes, because a challenge to jurisdiction can be made at any time, even after judgment has been entered, and here the jurisdictional requirement was missing.
B. Yes, because an appellate court has no authority to reverse a lower court's finding that there was no subject-matter jurisdiction.
C. No, because a judgment entered on a jury verdict can never be changed or attacked after a judgment is entered.
D. No, because this is a challenge to the existence of a cause of action, i.e., the failure to state a claim, which does not go to jurisdiction and cannot be raised post-judgment.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A seller contracted to manufacture 1,000 toasters for a buyer for a specified price. The contract contained a provision that clearly stated: "This contract may not be assigned, and any violation of this prohibition voids the contract." After the contract was signed, the seller informed the buyer that the toasters would be manufactured by a competitor of the seller. Citing the non-assignment provision, the buyer claimed that it was no longer bound by the contract. Toasters manufactured by the competitor were of equal quality to toasters manufactured by the seller. Is the buyer bound by the contract?
Choices
A. No, because "this contract may not be assigned" means that duties may not be delegated, and the seller delegated a duty.
B. No, because the seller assigned a right despite the contractual prohibition.
C. Yes, because even though the seller breached the contract, there are no damages since the competitor's toasters are of equal quality to the seller's toasters.
D. Yes, because the non-assignment provision is not enforceable since public policy favors free assignment and delegation.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: One evening, an undercover narcotics agent, with the help of a confidential informant, met with a man. The man took the agent to the home of a drug dealer, who sold the agent four pounds of marijuana. At trial, the drug dealer claimed the defense of entrapment and demanded that the informant's identity be disclosed and that he be produced. At no time prior to trial did the drug dealer seek to subpoena the man. However, the man was a fugitive from justice the whole time, and no subpoena could have been served. The government claims a right to protect the informant's identity. Should the government's claim be honored?
Choices
A. Yes, because an informant has a Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
B. Yes, because informants would not assist in crime prevention unless they were reasonably certain that their identities would be kept secret.
C. No, because under the Fifth Amendment, a defendant has the right to be confronted by witnesses against him.
D. No, because under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the right to a fair trial.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A bank loaned a company $1,500,000 for the manufacture of a widget control system. As a condition of the loan, a majority shareholder in the company agreed in writing to personally guarantee the loan. Thereafter, the company defaulted on the loan and entered into a repayment agreement with the bank. This agreement provided that the bank would "use maximum efforts in selling the company's assets at the highest possible price. " The bank proceeded to sell the company's assets, discharging the indebtedness of the widget company. Later, it was ascertained that the bank did not realize the "highest possible price" in administering the sale of the company's assets. Consequently, the shareholder was forced into bankruptcy and lost her entire investment in the company. The shareholder brings an appropriate action against the bank to recover her investment in the company. She will most likely
Choices
A. not prevail, because the shareholder was an incidental beneficiary of the bank's sale of the company's assets.
B. not prevail, because the bank's sale of the company's assets discharged whatever contractual relationship existed between the shareholder and the bank.
C. prevail, because the bank did not realize the highest possible price from the sale of the cornpany's assets.
D. prevail, because the bank breached its fiduciary duty to the shareholder under the terms of the contract between the bank and the company.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man, his brother and his friend all discuss murdering the man's neighbor because the neighbor took some shots at the man's dog but he missed. They agree on a plan. They decided on strychnine poisoning, which the friend told them how to get and they went and got it. When they asked the friend to go forward in poisoning the victim, he refused, saying, "I'm was only here for planning and advice, but I never intended to commit murder." The man and his brother took the poison to a meeting with the neighbor, but he wouldn't drink. They were caught and arrested. The statute requires an overt act for criminal conspiracy. Which of the following most accurately states the criminal responsibility of each of the three men?
Choices
A. The man and his brother have committed criminal conspiracy and attempted murder.
B. The man and his brother are guilty of conspiracy but not attempted murder.
C. The man and his brother are guilty of conspiracy and attempted murder, but the friend is guilty of nothing.
D. The man and his brother are guilty of conspiracy and attempted murder, and the friend is guilty of criminal conspiracy.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A patient entered the hospital to have a simple appendectomy. She signed a simple consent form allowing an appendectomy to be performed, and giving the surgeon the right to respond to any life-threatening conditions that required immediate surgical intervention . During surgery, the surgeon performed a full hysterectomy because he felt that it would be a sound medical procedure under the circumstances, even though no emergency existed. The patient sued the surgeon. An expert testified that the surgeon committed no negligence in performing the operation. Does the patient have a valid theory of recovery against the surgeon?
Choices
A. No, she cannot recover where there is no negligence by the surgeon.
B. Yes, she can claim a lack of informed consent as to the hysterectomy.
C. No, her consent implied that the doctor could perform any other procedures that were necessary.
D. Yes, she can recover on a theory of trespass beyond the bodily parameters.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A homeowner conveyed his property to his cousin "for life, with remainder to (the homeowner's) heirs. " Later, the cousin conveyed the property to a farmer "for as long as he would continue to farm the property. " After the cousin's death, the homeowner's heirs brought suit against the farmer to quiet title. Which common law doctrine would be most applicable in the court's determination of the ownership of the property?
Choices
A. Rule in Wild's Case.
B. Doctrine of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders.
C. Doctrine of Worthier Title.
D. Rule against Remainders in the Grantees' Heirs.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A county owns a large expanse of land next to the ocean. Four years ago, in order to enhance the recreational aspects of this land, the county leased most of it to a company. The lease required the company to construct and operate a first-rate luxury hotel complete with bar, restaurant, and private marina and to pay the county 15% of its net profits as rent. The company set up management and operations bylaws for its new hotel, which were reviewed and approved by the county at the time the lease was negotiated. Upon completion of the facilities, the state granted the company a license to sell alcoholic beverages in its restaurant and bar. The hotel announced that the least expensive room was $1,000 per night. Much of the population in the county cannot afford to stay at the new hotel. One resident who cannot afford to pay the hotel fees brings an action against the company, claiming that the high fees operate to discriminate against the poor, in violation of the constitutional right to equal protection. What is the most likely result of this action?
Choices
A. The company will lose because social class constitutes a suspect classification under the equal protection clause.
B. The company will win, because hotel privileges are not an important or basic enough deprivation, for those unable to pay for them, to be held to violate equal protection.
C. The resident will win because all public rights cannot be limited to those who can afford them.
D. The resident will win because discrimination against poor people violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state has recently enacted a statute requiring all prospective voters in state elections who wish to write-in a candidate to print the candidate's full name, and designate the office for which the candidate is running. The statute provides that such information must be written on the ballot in ink inan appropriate space. A write-in candidate is a German-American and is of the opinion that he needs a large turnout of German voters in order to win the election. As a result, his campaign manager decides to mail to every registered German voter a tear-off sticker, which bears the candidate's name and office for which he is running. Since many native German people are not proficient in reading and writing English, the campaign manager believes that many of the voters will have difficulty writing the candidate's name and office on the ballot. As a result, the campaign manager has mounted an extensive media campaign to inform voters on how to apply the stickers to the ballot. Five months prior to the election an election official notifies the candidate's campaign committee that the tear-off stickers do not comply with the state statute. In her letter, the official explains that state election officials are of the opinion that it is necessary for potential voters to write the candidate's name in ink. Therefore, she concludes that the stickers do not comply with statutory requirements. Three weeks later, the candidate filed suit in federal district court against state election officials, claiming that their interpretation of the state statute violates the U. S. Constitution. Which of the following sets forth the strongest constitutional argument the candidate could make against the interpretation of the statute by the state officials?
Choices
A. It unreasonably discriminates against German voters who lack a proficiency in the English language.
B. It unreasonably discriminates against write-in candidates for public office.
C. It unreasonably interferes with the exclusive federal election power as embodied in the Fifteenth Amendment.
D. It unreasonably interferes with the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawing literacy tests.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman from State A filed an action against a retailer in a state court in State B. The complaint alleged that the retailer had not delivered $100,000 worth of goods for which the woman had paid. Twenty days after being served, the retailer, which is incor-porated in State C and has its principal place of business in State B, filed a notice of removal in a federal district court in State B. Was the action properly removed?
Choices
A. No, because the notice of removal was not timely filed.
B. No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B.
C. Yes, because the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in controversy.
D. Yes, because the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A buyer purchased a shovel at a local hardware store. The shovel had a metal blade and a wooden handle. While the buyer was using the shovel to dig out a tree stump in his back yard, the handle broke in half, causing the buyer to fall and injure his back. The buyer brought a negligence claim against the manufacturer of the shovel. He proved that the shovel broke because of a manufacturing defect that made the handle too weak and that the manufacturer acted unreasonably in allowing this to happen. While conceding that the handle had a defect that caused it to break, the manufacturer established that if the buyer had been using the shovel carefully, he would not have fallen down and would not have been injured when the shovel broke. Assume that the case is governed by the law of a jurisdiction that follows traditional contributory negligence rules. Who is most likely to prevail?
Choices
A. The buyer, because the manufacturer conceded that the shovel was defective.
B. The buyer, because the manufactuter failed to exercise reasonable care in the production and inspection of its product.
C. The manufacturer, because the manufacturer did not guarantee that the shovel would never break.
D. The manufacturer, because the buyer's negligence in the way he used the shovel was one of the causes of his injury.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A city has adopted the following ordinance which provides:"Section 1: It shall be unlawful for any person, group, or organization to hold a meeting of 50 persons or more in any city park without first securing a city permit;Section 2: The application shall specify the day and hours for which the permit is sought. The fee shall be $10 per hour, with a maximum fee of $50;Section 3: Permits shall be issued on a first come basis; provided that the chief of police shall deny any application if, after hearing the applicant, it is his considered judgment that (a) the meeting would create serious traffic congestion, or (b) interfere with public enjoyment of the park, or (c) speakers at the meeting would advocate the commission of crime. "A religious fundamentalist who believes that other religions should be violently resisted, planned to hold a protest demonstration against other religions at a city park on July 25. Although his previous anti-religion protest rallies attracted fewer than 25 demonstrators, he decided to apply for a permit pursuant to the city's ordinance. After meeting with the fundamentalist, the chief of police denied his permit application because he believed that the demonstration would incite the protestors and threaten imminent violence or serious disorder. On July 25, the fundamentalist and his fellow demonstrators staged their protest at a city park. The rally attracted only about 20 protestors and was conducted peacefully. As he was making his final remarks to the gathering, the city police arrived at the park and arrested him and his fellow demonstrators charging them with violating the city ordinance. If the fundamentalist now brings suit to challenge the constitutionality of Section 3 of the city ordinance, his best argument would be that
Choices
A. the section is void for vagueness and overbreadth.
B. the section is content based.
C. the section permits the police chief to exercise unbridled discretion in approving or disapproving permits.
D. the section does not fall within the area of compelling state interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man needed to have the oil changed on his car. On Friday, he decided to take his car to the local dealership to have the oil changed and asked his neighbor if she would give him a ride home from the dealership. The neighbor said, "Why pay the high prices a dealership will charge you? I can change the oil in your car for you. If you will agree to pay me $50, I'll change the oil in your car over the weekend. " The man readily agreed. On Sunday afternoon, the man noticed that his neighbor still had not started working on the car. He asked his neighbor if the car would be ready for him to drive to work Monday morning. The neighbor replied, "I thought about it and realized $50 is too low a price for the work involved. I don't think I'm going to change the oil in your car. " The man then said, "Look, I realize $50 is low for the work involved. If you can change the oil in my car by tomorrow morning, I'll pay you an additional $25. And I won't sue you in small claims court for your failure to perform your promise. " The neighbor then changed the oil late Sunday afternoon, but the man refused to pay to the neighbor anything more than $50. In a suit by the neighbor to recover the additional $25 promised by the man, the neighbor will
Choices
A. win, because she performed her part of the bargain.
B. win, because the second contract for $75 superseded the original $50 contract.
C. lose, because the $75 contract did not supersede the $50 contract.
D. lose, because the neighbor had a pre-existing duty to change the oil in the car for $50.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: The Evergreen State University charges resident students $1,200 per year and nonresident students $4,800 per year in tuition. The University considered a student a "nonresident" if the student's primary residence was outside the state at any time during the previous school year. Imma Grant transferred from Sunshine State University to Evergreen State in her junior year, and paid nonresident tuition. She filed a declaratory judgment action against the Evergreen Registrar to have her considered a resident and asked for no money damages. Fourteen groups filed amicus briefs in support of Imma, advocating a change in Evergreen's protectionist regulation. Now that she is a senior, and spent the previous year within Evergreen so she is thus now considered a resident student. The federal court should
Choices
A. Dismiss the suit as moot.
B. Dismiss the suit, because Imma lacked standing to sue initially.
C. Hear the case if it appears that Ms. Grant is diligently prosecuting the matter.
D. Hear the case due to the amicus interests.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A grantor conveyed her mansion and surrounding property to her nephew "for life, remainder after (the nephew's) death to his heirs. " Two years later, the nephew entered into a real estate agreement for the sale of the property to his brother, whereby the nephew agreed to convey the premises to the brother in fee simple absolute. Prior to the settlement date, the brother contacted the nephew, telling him that he would not perform his part of the agreement because the nephew could not convey a fee simple. The Rule in Shelley's Case has been abolished by statute in this jurisdiction. Thus, the nephew's prayer for specific performance would be
Choices
A. denied, because the Rule would not be triggered, thus creating only a life estate in the nephew.
B. granted, because the remainder in his heirs would become vested into a full fee in those heirs.
C. granted, because the nephew's heirs receive a vested indefeasible interest in the property.
D. denied, because under the Doctrine of Worthier Title, at the termination of the nephew's life estate, the grantor has a reversionary interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A wife and husband are married and own a dairy as tenants by the entirety. If the wife transfers her interest in the dairy by quitclaim deed to her aunt without the husband's knowledge, what interest, if any, does the aunt have?
Choices
A. No interest.
B. An undivided one-half interest with right of survivorship.
C. An undivided one-half interest without right of survivorship.
D. A lien against the entire property.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state passed a statute stating that it will pay for one-half of the tuition for any student attending a private school, whether religious or secular, as long as the school meets the educational requirements established by the department of education. The parents of two students who attend a public high school in the state sue for a declaratory judgment and injunction in federal court, claiming that the state statute violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Assume that the federal court decides to hear the case on its merits. Which of the following is the state's LEAST persuasive argument for sustaining the validity of the statute?
Choices
A. The state statute benefits the parents or guardians of all the children in private schools, religious and nonreligious.
B. The primary effect of the state statute is not to advance or inhibit religion.
C. The administration of the state statute by the department of education does not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
D. The state statute is a valid exercise of state regulatory action in the field of education.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A truck and a car collided at an intersection. Both drivers were injured, and each one filed a lawsuit against the other for negligence. At trial, the jury found each of the drivers liable for negligence. The jury found that the amount of the truck driver's injuries was $10,000, and the amount of the car driver's injuries was $8,000. The jury assigned 50 percent of the fault for the accident to the truck driver and 50 percent of the fault to the car driver. Assume that the jurisdiction has a statute in effect that provides: "Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action to recover damages for negligence resulting in injury to person or property if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person from whom recovery is sought. Any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person who is seeking recovery. "Which of the following is the appropriate judgment in the case?
Choices
A. The truck driver recovers $10,000, and the car driver recovers $8,000.
B. The truck driver recovers $5,000, and the car driver recovers $4,000.
C. The truck driver recovers $1,000, and the car driver recovers nothing.
D. Neither party recovers anything from the other.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man, a woman, and their son went to their neighbor's house. The man intended to take back some tools that he believed were his and that the neighbor was keeping unlawfully. The woman believed that the tools were the man's, and she intended to help the man take them. When the son learned that the man and the woman were going to break into the neighbor's home, he decided to accompany them. The son planned to find some items inside that might be worth taking. Arriving at the neighbor's home, the man opened the front door, which was closed but unlocked. Upon entering, the son went to the neighbor's upstairs bedroom and found a watch, which he took. In the meantime, the man and the woman went to the garage and began rummaging through the neighbor's tools. The man found the tools, which he seized. The three of them then left the neighbor's home. In this jurisdiction, burglary is defined as the breaking and entering of any structure with the intent to commit a felony therein. Which, if any, individuals should be found guilty of conspiracy?
Choices
A. The man, the woman, and the son.
B. The man and the woman.
C. The woman and the son.
D. None.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A 2-week-old baby had developed a severe case ofjaundice. A pediatrician informed the infant's father that unless his daughter received immediate medical treatment, she would die. The father, who was very religious, refused to permit the pediatrician to administer the necessary treatment. He explained that his faith in his religion would restore his daughter to good health. As a consequence, the pediatrician sought an order from the state court, where the father was present, permitting the pediatrician to provide the necessary medical treatment to the infant. Which of the following is the father's strongest constitutional argument against the court order?
Choices
A. The order violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The order violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. The order violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The order violates the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A truck driver was making deliveries for his employer. After telling his employer by phone that he was going for lunch and getting approval, he pulled into the entrance of a restaurant where he intended to have his usual 30- minute lunch break. While entering the parking lot, the driver carelessly ran over and seriously injured a pedestrian. The injured person sued the driver and the driver's employer for negligence in causing her injuries. Is the employer liable?
Choices
A. Yes, because of the doctrine of vicarious liability.
B. Yes, because the employer owned the truck.
C. No, because the employee was not within the scope of his employment.
D. No, because liability cannot be imputed from one person to another.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A city entered into a small-cost construction contract with a construction company whereby the latter obligated themselves to perform certain minor sewer repair work. Two months after completion of the work, the company sued the city for its failure to pay under the terms of the contract. At trial, the company's construction supervisor who personally oversaw all the repair work was called to testify. He sought to testify about the amount of sewer pipe used, the number of hours required to complete the job, and the number of workers employed by the company during the construction repair work. The defendant's attorney objected on the grounds that the company routinely recorded such factual information in their log books, which were in the company's possession. As a consequence, the supervisor's testimony should be ruled
Choices
A. admissible, because it is based on firsthand knowledge.
B. admissible, because it is a report of regularly conducted business activities.
C. inadmissible, because such testimony would be violative of the best evidence rule.
D. inadmissible, because no evidence was introduced to show that the original log records are not available for examination.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A landowner owned a large building in the city. On January 15, the landowner leased the building to a tenant for a period of 20 years at a rental of $10,000 per month. The leasehold agreement between the landowner and tenant provided that the latter was not permitted "to assign this lease to anyone except a corporation with an A' credit rating from a well- known credit rating company. " On February 1 of the following year, the tenant leased the premises to a corporation that did not have the required credit rating. The tenant corporation lease was for a period of five years, with a rental of $15,000 per month, payable by the corporation to the tenant. In addition, the corporation agreed to abide "by all of the terms and conditions of the lease between the landowner and tenant. "Which of the following accurately states the legal effect of the non-assignability clause contained in the landowner tenant leasehold contract?
Choices
A. The non-assignability provision had no legal effect.
B. The non-assignability provision made the assignment from the tenant to the corporation ineffective.
C. The tenant-corporation lease did not effectuate a breach of the landowner tenant contract.
D. Although the tenant-corporation lease constituted a breach of the landowner tenant contract, the landowner would nevertheless be required to recognize the validity of the transfer (of the premises) to the corporation.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A company contracted with a builder to construct a new corporate headquarters for a fixed price of $100 million. At the time of the contract, structural steel was widely available and was included in the contract as a $6 million item. Before work began on the project, tornado damage shut down the production facility of the biggest structural steel supplier in the country, and the price of structural steel increased by 20% as a result. The builder informed the company of the steel price increase, and the parties then orally agreed to increase the project price to $101 million. The builder proceeded with construction and delivered the project on time. The company paid the builder $100 million but refused to pay the additional $1 million. If the builder sues the company for $1 million, is the builder likely to prevail?
Choices
A. No, because the modification was never reduced to a writing signed by the party to be charged.
B. No, because there was no consideration for the modification of the contract.
C. Yes, because the companyÕs promise was supported by consideration.
D. Yes, because the modification was fair and equitable in view of the unanticipated increase in the price of structural steel.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: The defendant was walking down the street when he saw a woman struggling with a man over a briefcase. Unbeknownst to the defendant, the woman had just stolen the briefcase from the man on the street. Believing the woman to be the victim of an attack, the defendant intervened and punched the man until the woman was able to get away with the briefcase. Confused as to why he wasn't being hailed as a hero by the woman, the defendant eventually realized that he had been an unwitting accomplice to the woman's theft. The defendant apologized profusely to the man and went home. According to the alter ego rule, which of the following statements is correct with respect to the amount of force that the defendant was entitled to use in the woman's defense?
Choices
A. Since the defendant did not stand in any personal relationship with the woman, he was not justified in using force in her defense.
B. Not knowing the true facts, the defendant was not justified in using force to protect the woman because the man was privileged to recapture his briefcase.
C. The defendant was justified in using reasonable force in the woman's defense, since he reasonably believed she was in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from the man.
D. The defendant was justified in using reasonable force in the woman's defense, since his belief that she was in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from the man was both objectively and subjectively reasonable.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state recently imposed a one cent tax on the playing of any coin-operated video game in any restaurant. Since virtually all of the video games required a payment of either a dime, quarter, or dollar, the imposition of this tax required a major costly adaptation on each video game to allow for the deposit of the additional one cent tax. Although many video game owners have complained about the video game tax, their only alternative is to absorb the tax themselves and lose one cent per game. As a consequence of the tax, fewer video games are purchased by the restaurant owners. No manufacturer of video games is located in the state. Which of the following is most likely to have standing to bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the video game tax bill in an appropriate federal court?
Choices
A. A manufacturer of video games who is attempting to sell them to a restaurant owner in the state.
B. A state resident who frequently plays video games at restaurants.
C. A national video game association whose members travel to the state to play video games at restaurants.
D. The director of the state's youth organization who wants to provide video games that only play for free at recreation centers within the state.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: The buyer asked a manufacturer to make him 100,000 widgets for $1,000,000. The buyer intended to retail them by mail order sales. The widgets had to have the buyer's logo imprinted on them. The manufacturer ordered the raw material and made a new widget mold that contained buyer's logo. The buyer wanted quick delivery of at least 10,000 right away. The manufacturer rushed the order and sent 10,000 conforming widgets two days later. The buyer paid for the widgets but rejected delivery on the remaining 90,000 widgets. The manufacturer filed suit and claimed damages for breach of contract. Defendant buyer filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the statute of frauds was violated in that it was a contract for over $500 that was unenforceable under state law. Will the court likely grant the motion to dismiss?
Choices
A. Yes, the statute of frauds must be enforced when it involves goods over $500.
B. Yes, the manufacturer did not protect its interests by agreeing to an oral contract and it must pay for its bad business practices.
C. No, because there is an exception for goods that are specially made for a buyer.
D. No, the law will enforce the "benefit of the bargain" rule.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A newspaper printed an article stating that a local doctor was afflicted with a venereal disease and had volunteered for a program studying the various cures for the disease. The article was false, and was printed without adequate research. The doctor sued the newspaper company, claiming damages per se. The paper defended on the basis that this was a public interest article, that the paper was not reckless or malicious in its investigation and reporting, and that the doctor could not prove any special damages. Will the court adopt the defense reasoning and dismiss the case for failure to state a claim?
Choices
A. Yes, the doctor is a professional figure in the community and he must accept the risk of false reporting, especially where he cannot prove any special damages.
B. Yes, the newspaper is allowed to make mistakes as long as there is no malice, and the case must be dismissed as a matter of law.
C. No, this fits the requirements for slander per se and there is a valid claim of malice stated against the paper.
D. No, this fits the requirements for libel per se, which is so inflammatory that the doctor does not have to prove special damages.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has ÒBeware of DogsÓ signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The manÕs next-door neighbor frequently walks past the manÕs house and knows about the dogsÕ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the manÕs fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured. In a suit against the man, is the neighbor likely to prevail?
Choices
A. No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dan-gerous dogs in the yard.
B. No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the manÕs property.
C. Yes, because the neighbor was an invitee for the pur-pose of retrieving the shovel.
D. Yes, because the man was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two college students were members of the same fraternity. During a fraternity party, the defendant pulled out a gun, pointed it at the other student and said, "Beg for your life, sucker. " The student, who knew that the defendant had a reputation as a practical joker, said, "Get lost, you jerk. " The defendant then pulled the trigger and shot the student to death. A statute in this jurisdiction provides: "Any intentional and premeditated killing with malice aforethought is murder in the first degree. Murder in the second degree is any killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a serious or inherently dangerous felony. Manslaughter includes all other types of unlawftil homicide and unjustifiable killings. "The defendant was subsequently prosecuted for killing the student. At trial, the defendant testified that a fellow fraternity member gave him the gun before the shooting and told him that it was unloaded. If the jury believes the defendant, it should find him
Choices
A. guilty of assault, but not murder or manslaughter.
B. guilty of manslaughter.
C. guilty of second-degree murder.
D. guilty of first-degree murder.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Defendant is on trial. Which of the following, if occurs, would NOT cause a due process violation in the trial?
Choices
A. The trial is conducted in a way that jurors would not be able to give evidence reasonable consideration.
B. The defendant is compelled to stand trial in street clothing.
C. The defendant is compelled to stand trial or appear at penalty phase proceedings visibly shackled (unless there are security concerns).
D. Jurors are exposed to influence favorable to the prosecution.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A pet store owner opened a store in a new town. She was not aware that the city council had recently passed a law prohibiting the sale of cats and dogs from a retail pet store. The statute had a provision that allowed the pet store to give space to a non-profit humane society to adopt animals from the pet store. The owner sued the city in federal court, claiming a violation of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court used the rational basis test to conclude that the statute served a legitimate state interest and was enforceable. The pet store owner appealed the decision. Will the appellate court likely affirm the decision of the lower court?
Choices
A. Yes, because the pet store owner was not treated differently than any other pet store owner.
B. Yes, because the correct test requires only that the law in question will satisfy any set of facts that could establish a rational basis for achieving legitimate government ends.
C. No, the pet store owner has a vested constitutional right to earn a living and that is unreasonably precluded by the law in question.
D. No, because this ordinance is so invidiously discriminatory that it must pass the strict scrutiny test, which it fails to do.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A girlfriend lived with her boyfriend in a small apartment. The boyfriend was a gun enthusiast who kept a collection of antique pistols and firearms in the apartment. The boyfriend was also an avid baseball fan and had a fanatic devotion to his favorite team. One evening, the boyfriend was watching his beloved team play their archrival on television. His favorite team lost in extra innings. After the game, the boyfriend became despondent and told his girlfriend that he was so disgusted that he was going to kill himself. The boyfriend took one of the pistols from his gun collection and shot himself in the head. As the boyfriend fell to the floor, wounded, his girlfriend couldn't believe her eyes. At first she thought that she should call 911 for an ambulance. But she was afraid that the police might think that she was responsible for the shooting. Consequently, she decided to do nothing. She proceeded to leave the apartment and spent the night at her mother's home. The boyfriend did not immediately die from the gunshot wound. A subsequent medical examiner's report concluded that the boyfriend died from loss of blood approximately two hours after the shooting. If the girlfriend had sought immediate medical assistance, the boyfriend would have lived. The girlfriend is subsequently prosecuted for her boyffiend's death. She should be found
Choices
A. guilty of first-degree murder.
B. guilty of second-degree murder.
C. guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
D. not guilty, because she had no legal duty to render assistance.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: During a paternity trial, the mother's attorney asks to have the baby girl, now 36 months old, exhibited for the purpose of calling attention to certain facial resemblances between the child and the reputed father. The defendant's attorney objects to the offering of the baby into evidence for comparison. The trial judge should
Choices
A. permit the child to be exhibited as a non-objectionable form of demonstrative evidence.
B. not permit the child to be exhibited, because such an exhibition would be highly prejudicial to the defendant.
C. permit the child to be exhibited as within the hearsay exception of pedigree.
D. not permit the child to be exhibited, because such an exhibition would be self-serving to the complainant.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man was visiting his friend at the friend's cabin. The man decided to surprise the friend with some fireworks, so he purchased some fireworks and hid them under his friend's chair on the friend's porch. That evening, the friend went outside to smoke and dropped his unfinished cigarette next to his chair on the porch. The cigarette ignited the fireworks, and the fireworks immediately exploded, causing extensive damage to the friend and to his cabin. The man was arrested and is being prosecuted for arson. Will the man be found guilty of arson?
Choices
A. No, because the man never intended to hurt the friend.
B. No, because the man did not intend to burn down the cabin and was not guilty of wanton and willful misconduct.
C. Yes, because the man indirectly set fire to the friend's cabin.
D. Yes, because the injury to the friend and to his cabin was the natural result of the man's actions.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D