Question:
Question: Wilshire Street is a public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for northbound traffic. Wilshire and Figueroa Streets intersect at right angles. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. A businessman was driving his car east on Figueroa Street and did not see the traffic light. He entered the intersection at a time when the light was red for eastbound traffic and green for northbound traffic. A woman, in violation of statute, was proceeding south on Wilshire Street, and she entered the intersection without looking for any cross traffic and struck the businessman's car. The businessman suffered damages in the amount of $5,000. The woman, on the other hand, suffered damages in the amount of $1,000. The businessman brought suit against the woman to recover his damages. The woman denied liability and filed a counterclaim against the businessman for her damages. Both drivers were negligent with 30 percent of the negligence attributable to the woman and 70 percent of the negligence attributable to the businessman. A statute in the jurisdiction provides: "A failure to exercise ordinary care, which contributes to personal injury or property damage, shall not bar recovery of damages by the injured party, but damages shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person injured. There shall be no set-off of damages between the respective parties. " Which of the following is the appropriate judgment in the case?
Choices
A. The businessman recovers $5,000 from the woman, and the woman recovers $1,000 from the businessman.
B. The businessman recovers $3,500 from the woman, and the woman recovers $300 from the businessman.
C. The businessman recovers $1,500 from the woman, and the woman recovers $700 from the businessman.
D. The businessman recovers $800 from the woman, and the woman recovers nothing from the businessman.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant was at a bar when she saw her exboyfriend who had recently dumped her. The defendant walked away and spotted a good friend of hers. She approached her friend and told him she would give him $50 to beat up her ex-boyfriend. The friend agreed but said he would wait until the ex-boyfriend left the bar. While the defendant was eavesdropping on her ex-boyfriend in the hopes he would say something nice about her, she overheard him having a conversation on his cellphone. During the course of that conversation, the defendant realized that her ex-boyfriend was now a federal agent. Afraid she might be prosecuted for a federal offense, the defendant told her friend not to bother with the planned attack. If the defendant is subsequently charged with the statutory offense of conspiring to commit an assault on a federal officer, the defendant will probably be
Choices
A. convicted, because her knowledge that her exboyfriend was a federal agent is not a material element of the crime.
B. convicted, because withdrawal is never recognized as an affirmative defense to conspiracy.
C. acquitted, because she was unaware that her ex-boyfriend was now a federal agent.
D. acquitted, because her abandonment of the plan aborted the conspiratorial objective.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: The local high school football team won the state championship. After the game the high school held a victory rally at the high school gym. As the team was being honored, the star quarterback of the football team approached one of the cheerleaders and asked her out for a date. The cheerleader, who had a crush on the quarterback, said she'd love to go out with him. The quarterback told her, "Great, I'll pick you up at eight. "Later that evening, the quarterback was getting ready to drive to the cheerleader's home when his car wouldn't start. The quarterback then called his next-door neighbor and asked him if he could borrow his car. The neighbor agreed, but told him, "Okay, but make sure you return it by 2:00 a. m. " The quarterback assented and then drove to the cheerleader's house. After picking her up, they drove to an all-night coffee shop where they spent the night talking and catching up over coffee and waffles. Losing track of time, the quarterback and the cheerleader did not leave the coffee shop until 3:00 a. m. After returning home around 4:00 a. m. , the quarterback decided that it was too late to return the car, so he parked it in his driveway. He intended to return the car to the neighbor in the morning. A short while later, a thief stole the neighbor's car from outside the quarterback's home. The police found the car three months later, undamaged. The neighbor, however, refused to accept the car and brought a claim against the quarterback for conversion. In his claim, the neighbor will
Choices
A. succeed, because the quarterback could have returned the car and failed to do so.
B. succeed, because the quarterback left the car in his driveway, and it was stolen.
C. not succeed, because the quarterback intended to return the identical property he borrowed in an undamaged condition.
D. not succeed, because the criminal act of the thief was unforeseeable.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A landlord was the owner of a vacant warehouse. On May 1, the landlord leased the warehouse to the tenant for a term of five years with a renewable option. The leasehold agreement provided in part:"The tenant hereby acknowledges that certain areas of the leased premises are in a state of disrepair and unsafe for the conduct of business. Nonetheless, the tenant agrees to assume full responsibility for the necessary repairs. Furthermore, the tenant agrees to indemnify the landlord for any loss resulting from the condition of the said premises. "Under the terms of the lease, the landlord delivered possession of the warehouse to the tenant on May 2. On that date, an employee of the tenant was working in the warehouse. He was moving some equipment into the warehouse when a section of the ceiling collapsed and fell on him. At the time the landlord and the tenant entered into their lease, only the landlord was aware that the ceiling was defective and needed to be repaired. Although the landlord could have remedied the defect before delivering possession to the tenant, the landlord didn't perform any repair work on the ceiling. The employee initiated suit against the landlord to recover damages resulting from his injury. There are no applicable statutes. If the employee prevails it will be because a
Choices
A. landowner is strictly liable for injuries occurring on his property.
B. landowner's duty of care to third parties cannot be shifted to a tenant by the tenns of a lease.
C. tenant cannot waive the implied warranty of commercial habitability.
D. covenant to indemnify by a tenant in favor of a land owner is against public policy.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A pedestrian was injured when hit by a chair that was thrown from an upper-story hotel window. The pedestrian sued the occupants of all the rooms from which the chair might have been thrown. At trial, the pedestrian has been unable to offer any evidence as to the exact room from which the chair was thrown. The defendants have filed a motion for a directed verdict. Should the court grant the motion?
Choices
A. No, because it is unreasonable to expect the pedestrian to prove which of the defendants caused the harm.
B. No, because of the doctrine of alternative liability.
C. Yes, because a plaintiff always has the burden to prove that a particular defendant's conduct was the factual cause of the plaintiff's physical harm.
D. Yes, because the pedestrian has failed to offer evidence that the defendants jointly engaged in tortious conduct.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A reliable police informant telephoned the police to report seeing two men in a blue car selling narcotics outside a local movie theater. The informant gave a detailed description of the two men and the license number of the vehicle. A patrol car was immediately dispatched to the movie theater. A few minutes later, the police saw a car matching the description given parked about two blocks from the movie theater. When the police approached, they saw one man fitting the description provided. The police proceeded to the car and opened the doors of the vehicle. The police then pried open a locked tool case that was situated in the rear of the vehicle. Inside, the police found an envelope that contained about one gram of cocaine. They then placed the driver of the vehicle under arrest. Immediately thereafter, the police opened the glove compartment and found a small amount of marijuana. The driver of the van was subsequently prosecuted and charged with two counts of possession of controlled dangerous substances. He filed a motion to exclude the cocaine and marijuana from evidence. His motion will most likely be
Choices
A. granted, as to the cocaine only.
B. granted, as to the marijuana only.
C. granted, as to both the cocaine and the marijuana.
D. denied, as to the cocaine and the marijuana.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A police officer observed two men acting suspiciously in front of a convenience store. They paced back and forth, walked around the store, and periodically looked in the window. The experienced officer feared that these individuals were most likely "casing" the place prior to robbing it. He approached, identified himself, and patted down the outer clothing of each. He found a hand gun in each man's pocket and arrested them for carrying concealed weapons. Will the court suppress the guns on the basis that there was no probable cause and the search was unconstitutional?
Choices
A. Yes, because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed.
B. No, because the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe that there might be criminal activity afoot.
C. No, because the officer did have probable cause to believe that a crime was being attempted.
D. Yes, because the officer is not allowed to take anything out of the men's pockets while conducting a pat-down.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: One evening, a husband received a telephone call from an unidentified source who informed him that his wife was having an affair with his friend. As a result, the husband drove to his friend's house with a loaded shotgun. Believing that his friend was in an upstairs bedroom, the husband fired the shotgun through the dining room window, as he only wanted to teach him a lesson. Unbeknownst to the husband, his friend's wife was in the dining room and suffered a minor gunshot wound. The husband should be found
Choices
A. guilty of attempted murder of his friend's wife only.
B. guilty of attempted murder of his friend only.
C. guilty of attempted murder of both his friend and his friend's wife.
D. not guilty of attempted murder of either his friend or his friend's wife.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two weeks before an election, a local newspaper published an article implying that one of the mayoral candidates was a thief. The candidate subsequently lost the election and sued the newspaper for defamation. The newspaper defended on the grounds of truth. At trial, the candidate took the stand and testified that he was not a thief. Thereafter, the newspaper called a witness to testify that three years ago the candidate committed a larceny while employed at his former job. Upon objection by the candidate's attorney, the witness's testimony should be
Choices
A. excluded, because bad acts may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.
B. excluded, because it is improper character evidence.
C. admitted as probative evidence of the candidate's character for veracity.
D. admitted as relevant evidence of the candidate's character as a thief.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman and her neighbor had often talked about the need for a fence between their properties. Finally, the woman hired a handyman to build a wooden stake fence between her property and her neighbor's property for $10,000. The handyman built the fence as agreed, and the woman paid him the sum of $10,000. Two weeks later, the neighbor was operating his lawn mower near the property line between his and the woman's property when a section of the fence suddenly fell on top of him, seriously injuring him. A subsequent investigation revealed that the handyman did not properly reinforce the fence. Which of the following is the handyman's best defense in a contract action brought against him by the neighbor, in which the only damages alleged are those for the neighbor's personal injuries?
Choices
A. Damages for personal injuries cannot be recovered in a contract action.
B. Damages for personal injuries to the neighbor were not within the contemplation of the woman and the handyman at the time they entered into their agreement.
C. The neighbor is only an incidental beneficiary of the agreement between the woman and the handyman.
D. The neighbor has no standing to assert such an action, since he was not a party to the agreement between the woman and the handyman.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A buyer purchased a new dishwasher from an appliance store. This dishwasher had been manufactured by an appliance company. After the dishwasher had been installed in the buyer's home, it functioned properly for the first month. Then it began to make a loud rattling noise whenever it was in use. The buyer called the appliance store, and a manager there assured her that it was not uncommon for the dishwasher to make such a noise. Moreover, he indicated that the machine's clamorous sound would eventually disappear with continued use. One week later, after a dinner party, the buyer placed her most expensive china set in the dishwasher and turned on the machine. After the dishwasher had been in operation for a few minutes, the buyer heard the rattling noise followed by the sound of breaking china. She immediately stopped the machine. Upon looking inside, she saw that a blade from the dishwasher had broken, destroying her entire china set. If the buyer asserts a claim for strict products liability against the appliance company, will she prevail?
Choices
A. Yes, because the dishwasher was defective.
B. Yes, because she was the purchaser of the dishwasher.
C. No, because the buyer was not personally injured.
D. No, because a reasonably prudent person would have discontinued using the dishwasher after becoming aware of the rattling noise.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Congress has recently enacted a statute requiring all males between the ages of 18 and 30 to take a physical examination each year. The results of the exam are sent to a government data information center for the purpose of keeping information about men who may be drafted into the military. A 25-year-old law school graduate has herpes. He has recently sent resumes to many governmental agencies. Fearful that the information about his herpes condition will become available, he seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid the government from requiring him to take a physical examination. Which of the following is the best constitutional basis in support of the federal law?
Choices
A. The commerce clause.
B. The dormant commerce clause.
C. To raise and support an army and navy.
D. To provide for the general welfare.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A motorist's negligent driving seriously injured another driver. The motorist was cited for traveling in the wrong lane and paid a fine. The motorist had a policy limit of only $15,000 for third party liability on his insurance policy. After furnishing the motorist's insurer with a full medical report, all medical bills, medical records, and other required proofs of damages, the injured claimant demanded the policy limits. The claimant gave notice that a bad faith claim would be filed if the policy limits were not paid immediately. The insurance company refused payment without explanation. A jury awarded the injured claimant $200,000. The injured claimant obtained a signed assignment from the negligent motorist giving to the claimant any rights that the motorist may have had against his insurer. Will the court likely compel the insurance company to pay the full amount of the jury verdict to injured person under these facts?
Choices
A. The policy limit is $15,000 and that is all that can be collected by the injured person  there is no action for bad faith on an insurance contract.
B. The insurance company breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implicit in every insurance contract and must pay the full amount of the judgment.
C. Bad faith is personal to the insured party and his insurer  the assignment was invalid, and the injured person has no claim to compel the insurer to pay.
D. The injured party must enforce his entire judgment against the motorist and may never pursue the insurer for that amount.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A housing corporation owned a tract of land. The housing corporation prepared a development plan to divide the land into 100 lots and create a residential community on the tract. The Declaration of Covenants created the homeowners' association, an administrative entity that would administer and enforce the regulations and restrictions recited among the covenants. One of the restrictions set forth in the Declaration of Covenants reads:"There shall never at any time be erected, permitted, or maintained upon any part of the property any structure designed for or used as a saloon or place for the sale or manufacture of malt, vinous, or spirituous liquors. "The Declaration of Covenants was duly recorded and was included in the deed taken by a teacher when he purchased lot 62 in the development. The teacher immediately recorded his deed. The teacher leased his home to a librarian for a term of one year. The lease included the same restrictions as those in the Declaration of Covenants and in the teacher's deed. The librarian immediately began to sell liquor on the premises during weekly "after hours" parties. The homeowners' association sues the librarian in an action for damages. Which of the following is the best argument for the librarian?
Choices
A. The rule in Spencer's Case prevents the librarian from being liable.
B. The librarian is not in privity of contract with the homeowners' association.
C. The librarian is not in privity of estate with the teacher.
D. Other lots in the immediate vicinity are used for commercial purposes.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: In order to encourage college enrollment, a state provides a tax exemption of $200 for state taxes for those who are full-time students at colleges within the state. Female students who attend half-time are still permitted a $100 tax exemption, whereas male students who attend half-time are no longer permitted any tax exemption. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the correct rule of constitutional law regarding the state tax exemption for students who enroll half-time?
Choices
A. The tax exemption would be invalidated as a denial of due process.
B. The tax exemption would be invalidated as violative of the equal protection clause.
C. The tax measure would be upheld as within the area of substantive due process.
D. The tax measure would be upheld as within the power of a municipality to tax different classes of persons unequally.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: This jurisdiction has the following criminal statute in effect:"A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. "One afternoon, a defendant was babysitting his five-year-old nephew. As they were playing catch outside, the defendant threw the ball over his nephew's head, and it rolled into the street. Instinctively, the nephew ran after the ball but tripped over the gutter and fell in the street. When he tripped, the nephew severely sprained his ankle and couldn't stand up. Moments later, a large garbage truck was backing up and ran over the nephew, killing him. Although the defendant saw his nephew's predicament, he made no effort to rescue him. Subsequently, the defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter. At trial, the defendant testified that he was so shocked when he saw his nephew fall near the garbage truck that he froze and was unable to move until it was too late. Following the defendant's testimony, an expert witness testified for the defense that reactions of the sort described by the defendant are not unusual when a truly shocking event occurs. If the jury believes the testimony of the defendant and his expert witness, the defendant's best defense is which of the following?
Choices
A. The defendant was suffering from temporary insanity.
B. The defendant lacked the requisite mental state required for the commission of the crime.
C. The defendant's failure to act was not voluntary.
D. The defendant's criminal liability was superseded by that of the truck driver.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A write-in candidate is a Mexican-American and is of the opinion that he needs a large turnout of Mexican voters in order to win the election. As a result, his campaign manager, decides to mail to every registered Mexican voter a tear-off sticker, which bears the candidate's name and office for which he is running. Since many native Mexican 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, if established, sets forth the strongest constitutional argument supporting the election official's interpretation of the statute?
Choices
A. Voter turnout among registered Mexican American voters who lack proficiency in English has been less than 1% of the entire state total in recent elections.
B. A state statute requires that each voting booth be equipped with an ink pen to facilitate the writing in of votes.
C. Since large numbers of write-in votes generally increase the time needed to count all votes, it is necessary to cast such votes in a uniform manner.
D. The potential for voting fraud is substantially greater with preprinted stickers.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man was the owner of the newly constructed hotel in a city. On March 15, the man received a telephone call from a salesperson who was a distributor of hotel equipment. The salesperson offered to sell the man 1,000 fire extinguishers for his hotel. The salesperson told the man that the cost of the fire extinguishers would be $35,000 (or $35 apiece), payable 90 days after delivery. The salesperson promised to have the fire extinguishers installed no later than April 15. On March 16, the man telephoned the salesperson and accepted the offer. The following day, the man mailed the following memo to the salesperson:"Please be advised that I shall take a 15 percent discount for cash payment seven days after installation. " The salesperson received the man's correspondence on March 20. On April 1, the salesperson sent a telegram to the man, stating: "It's apparent we don't have an enforceable contract in effect. I will not be delivering the fire extinguishers on April 15 or any other time. "The man brings suit against the salesperson for breach of contract. The salesperson asserts the defense of the statute of frauds under the UCC. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the salesperson's defenses?
Choices
A. The salesperson's defense is valid, because the man's memo was not sufficient to indicate that a contract was formed.
B. The salesperson's defense is valid, because the man's memo was inconsistent with the terms of the salesperson's oral offer.
C. The salesperson's defense is not valid, because the salesperson failed to respond to the man's memo within a reasonable period of time.
D. The salesperson's defense is not valid, because under the UCC the statute of frauds is not applicable in agreements between merchants.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Before a proposal to merge two towns was placed on a ballot, the state attorney general issued an advisory opinion stating that the measure did not, in her opinion, violate any statutory or constitutional provisions. Thereafter, the proposal was placed on the ballot and was overwhelmingly passed by the voters in both towns. After the election, but before the merger had officially been carried out, two taxpayers from one of the towns initiated suit to enjoin the unification, attacking the constitutionality of the proposal. The suit reached the state supreme court and was found to be constitutional under both state and federal law. The plaintiffs now file a motion seeking to have thiscase reviewed by the U. S. Supreme Court. The Court may
Choices
A. not hear the case, because it was decided on independent state grounds.
B. not hear the case, but may have it remanded to federal district court.
C. hear the federal issues involved, but decline to rule on the state issue.
D. rely on the advisory opinion rendered by the state attorney general and not hear the case on its merits.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Police received a tip from a reliable informant that a man was dealing cocaine from his home. Officers then submitted to a magistrate an affidavit setting forth circumstances showing probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant. The magistrate issued a search warrant for narcotics at the man's address. Police officers went to the man's home and rang the door bell. When no one answered, the police broke in and entered the dwelling. They searched the rooms on the first floor and found no incriminating evidence, then walked outside and noticed a separate entrance leading up to the second floor of the dwelling. They ascended the stairway and entered an upstairs bedroom. Inside the room the officers found a stash of cocaine lying on a dresser. As the officers were continuing their search of the bedroom, the defendant entered the room. The police asked the defendant if he was the man. The defendant identified himself and told the police that they were in his bedroom and he occupied the second floor of the dwelling. The defendant explained that the man resided on the first floor and his living quarters were separate from the defendant's. Nonetheless, the defendant was placed under arrest and charged with possession of cocaine. The defendant has filed a motion to exclude the cocaine from being admitted into evidence. The defendant's motion should be
Choices
A. granted, because the warrant did not name the defendant.
B. granted, because the warrant did not state with specificity the area to be searched.
C. denied, because the police reasonably believed they were searching the man's residence when they entered the defendant's living quarters.
D. denied, because the warrant was valid and issued with probable cause.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A supermarket had just reopened after a two- week closing for renovations. On the morning of the reopening, a woman was shopping when she suddenly fell and suffered a broken leg. Thereafter, the woman sued the supermarket for personal injuries. In her suit, the woman claimed that she tripped over a paint bucket that had been lying in one of the aisles. At trial, the woman called another customer to testify that while he was shopping he heard a thud, turned around and saw the woman fall on the floor. He also testified that he saw an empty paint bucket lying a few feet from the woman's leg. On cross- examination, the customer got into an argumentative exchange with the supermarket's attorney. When asked his opinion of what caused the woman's fall, the customer testified, "She fell because she tripped on the bucket. " He admitted on cross-examination, however, that he didn't actually see the woman trip on the bucket. The supermarket's attorney then asked the customer the following question:"If you didn't see the woman trip on the bucket, how do you know that she fell because of it?" The customer answered, "Because my girlfriend who was shopping with me told me later that she saw the woman trip over the bucket. "The supermarket's attorney moves to strike the customer's last answer. If the trial judge overrules the defendant's motion and permits the customer's answer to stand, it will most likely be because
Choices
A. the customer's answer was invited by the supermarket's attorney's question.
B. the customer's answer was based on firsthand knowledge.
C. the customer's answer was a statement of recent perception.
D. the customer's answer was a present sense impression.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A rancher is currently the owner of record of a parcel of land designated as "A. " It is the higher of two neighboring properties on a mountain. A farmer is the owner of parcel "B," which is situated lower than "A" on the mountainside. In 2000, the rancher, who owned both parcels of land, constructed a private drainage system. This system consisted of an underground pipeline that extended across both 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 rancher sold parcel "B" to the farmer. The deed to the farmer did not contain any mention of the rancher's drainage system. Located on each of the parcels are large ranch-style homes occupied by the respective owners. Lately, the sewage drain has begun to emit an unpleasant odor across parcel "B. " As a result, the farmer sued the rancher in trespass praying for damages caused by the drainage system. Judgment should be for
Choices
A. the rancher, because the deed to the farmer did not contain any covenants restricting the rancher's use of the land.
B. the rancher, because the farmer's proper cause of action would be for nuisance, rather than trespass.
C. the farmer, because the drainage system was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages as a matter of law.
D. the farmer, because the rancher did not have the right to improve his own land in a manner that caused harm to another.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Under which one of the following situations would the defendant(s) most likely be found guilty of larceny?
Choices
A. A customer took his watch to a jeweler for repairs. The defendant inspected the watch and informed the customer that the watch needed a minor adjustment, which he would perform that afternoon. The customer gave the watch to the defendant and told him that he would return the following day to pick it up. As the defendant was repairing the watch, he discovered that it was an extremely valuable antique. He then substituted a less-expensive look-alike for the watch, which the customer picked up the next day.
B. As two defendants were walking down the street, they noticed a victim park his metallic gold sports car and enter the pool hail. When they approached the car, one of the defendants observed that the victim had left the keys in the ignition. Knowing that the victim would be hustling pool all evening, the defendants hopped into the sports car and drove off, intending to return the car later that evening.
C. During a craps game in the back room of a bar, the defendant lost $150 to the victim. The defendant left the bar after losing his money and returned an hour later with a gun in his possession. Honestly believing that the $150 still belonged to him, the defendant confronted the victim in the back room and demanded the return of his money. Frightened, the victim handed the money back to the defendant.
D. One afternoon, the defendant noticed the victim riding his racing bike in the park. The defendant, who always wanted to own a racing bike, saw his opportunity when the victim left his bike unattended to participate in a touch football game. The defendant jumped on the bike and quickly rode away. Later that evening, the defendant called the victim and demanded $200 for the return of the bike. The victim agreed to the defendant's demand. The following day, the victim paid the defendant the money, and the defendant, in turn, returned the bike.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: One afternoon a motorist was driving her car when she struck a pedestrian who entered the intersection. The pedestrian was seriously injured in the accident and sued the motorist to recover damages for personal injuries. There were no witnesses to the accident. The motorist claims that the traffic light was green at the time she entered the intersection. The pedestrian now has amnesia and cannot remember how the accident occurred. At trial, the pedestrian's attorney calls a witness to testify. The witness proposes to testify that she was in the emergency room at the hospital when the pedestrian was brought in following the accident. The witness further testifies that while the pedestrian was being treated for his injuries, the nurse asked him, "How did you get hurt?" The pedestrian replied, "The car ran the red light and struck me as I was walking through the intersection. "Upon objection, this evidence is
Choices
A. admissible as a statement made for purposes of medical treatment and diagnosis.
B. admissible as a present sense impression.
C. inadmissible, because the witness was eavesdropping on a confidential communication between the pedestrian and a hospital representative.
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman had spent many years converting her back yard to an authentic Japanese-style garden. Her garden had become a showplace for the neighborhood, and various civic groups and organizations frequently visited the woman's property to enjoy the beauty of the yard. Recently, the woman had read about a particular cymbidium that was native to Japan. Desiring to have one of these cymbidiums planted in her garden, she contacted a number of plant distributors, only to discover that this particular cymbidium had not yet been imported to the United States. She contacted a plant distributor, who she knew had ties to Japan, and asked if it would be possible to acquire one of these cymbidiums from Japan. After checking with local and Japanese authorities, the distributor determined that he could indeed acquire the plant for the woman. The parties then signed a contract that stated the distributor would acquire the cymbidium from a nursery in Japan, have it shipped to the United States and have it planted in the woman's garden for the price of $5,000. The distributor promised that the plant would be in place within six months, and the woman promised to pay $1,000 at the time of the execution of the contract and$4,000 when the cymbidium was planted in her garden. The woman then handed a check for $1,000 to the distributor. Two weeks later, agricultural officials discovered that a special type of beetle that attacked citrus plants had adapted to using cymbidiums for nesting purposes. The female beetle would lay eggs among the roots of the cymbidiums, and it would sometimes take up to one year for the eggs to hatch. Fearing for the safety of the citrus crops in the United States, the United States government adopted a ban on the importation of all cymbidiums grown in foreign countries. As a result, the distributor was not able to acquire the cymbidium for the woman. Which of the following best states the legal relationship at this point between the distributor the woman?
Choices
A. The distributor's performance was excused because of impossibility, but the woman can seek restitution.
B. The distributor's performance was not excused because of the supervening illegality, and the woman can recover damages because of the distributor's prospective inability to perform.
C. The distributor's performance was not excused because of the supervening illegality, and the woman can recover damages, provided she waits until the date performance was due before filing suit.
D. Both parties are excused from performance because of the supervening illegality, and neither can recover from the other.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A landlord, an owner in fee simple, leased a three- story house to a tenant for a term of 10 years. By the terms of the lease, the tenant expressly covenanted to pay a monthly rental of $300 and to pay the taxes on the premises during the term of the lease. The lease also stipulated that the tenant, as lessee, may not assign or sublease the said premises. The tenant and his family lived in the house for two years. Then the tenant, still owing the landlord three months back rent, assigned his leasehold interest in the property to a student, who was unaware of the prohibition against assignments. This written assignment expressly provided that the student would pay the landlord the monthly rental of $300, but was silent concerning the payment of taxes. The landlord never objected to this assignment. Six months after the assignment, the landlord conveyed his property interest in the premises to a new owner. The student failed to pay the taxes on the property. The new owner, after paying the taxes, brought suit against the student for the amount paid. Judgment should be for
Choices
A. the new owner.
B. the student, because he did not contract with the tenant to pay the taxes on the property.
C. the student, because the covenant to pay taxes will not "run with the land," unless the intent is clearly expressed in the original lease.
D. the student, because the covenant to pay taxes is merely collateral and does not "run with the land. "

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman attended a private university. One afternoon she was approached by a photographer for a magazine, who asked her if she would be interested in posing nude for an upcoming issue. The woman, who was an aspiring model, agreed and posed for a number of nude pictures, which subsequently appeared in the magazine. Afterward, administrators and professors at the university began to harass her for what they considered to be imprudent behavior. During class, her instructors frequently called her "Playmate" and "Stripper. " Consequently, the woman brought suit in federal court against the university, alleging harassment, and seeking an injunction and damages. After this action was instituted, the university signed a stipulation agreeing not to harass her in the future. The federal court should now
Choices
A. hear the case.
B. dismiss the action as moot.
C. dismiss the action since the issues are no longer ripe.
D. dismiss the action because there is no case or controversy.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant was arrested and charged with possession of heroin. At the defendant's preliminary hearing, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant was arrested while riding in a car. The heroin was found in a briefcase containing no identification, but several papers found inside contained references to the defendant. The defendant's attorney argued that the briefcase did not belong to the defendant, and the defendant had no idea how the heroin got inside the briefcase. The court ruled that there was insufficient probable cause to support a prosecution of the defendant on the heroin possession charge. The defendant was released from custody and charges were dropped. Several weeks later, a grand jury was convened to determine if the defendant should be re-indicted for heroin possession based on the same alleged incident reviewed at the preliminary hearing. The defendant was called to testif' as a witness at the grand jury hearing. He appeared and was sworn in as a witness. The defendant proceeded to challenge the proceeding on the basis that any grand jury indictment for heroin possession would constitute a violation of the double jeopardy clause. The defendant's double jeopardy challenge should be
Choices
A. granted, because by voluntarily appearing at the grand jury hearing, the defendant has standing to challenge the indictment.
B. granted, because the heroin possession charge was formally dismissed at the preliminary hearing.
C. denied, because there is no basis for a double jeopardy challenge.
D. denied, because double jeopardy rights do not attach unless there has been an acquittal or conviction.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state highway runs through the center of a city's business district. As the highway passes through this business district, there is a stretch where the highway is too narrow to satisfS' the safety standards for state roadways. Along this narrow stretch and on opposite sides of the street are located two businesses. Situated on the east side of the street is a bar and grill; directly across the street on the west side is a lounge. In order to comply with state highway regulations, the state highway department, acting pursuant to state statute, ordered the city to prohibit parking on one side of the highway within the business district. The city council convened a special meeting to determine whether parking should be prohibited on the east or west side of the street. During the meeting, the council was unable to resolve the issue. Finally, the city council president decided the only fair way to resolve the matter was to flip a coin. After the coin flip, the city prohibited parking at all times on the west side of the highway. On account of this decision, parking in front of the lounge was permanently prohibited. This caused the lounge to suffer a substantial decline in business because of the unavailability of on-street parking. As a consequence, the owner of the lounge brought suit for declarative relief against the city alleging that the parking ban on his side of the street was unconstitutional. In all likelihood, will the plaintiff be successful in this cause of action?
Choices
A. No, because as a governmental entity, the city enjoys immunity from such suits under the Eleventh Amendment.
B. No, because the city's action was reasonable.
C. Yes, because the action of the city violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. Yes, because responsible government officials cannot conduct or formulate their decisionmaking processes by means of coin flips.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A passenger on a subway car placed her pocketbook on the seat next to her and began to zip up her jacket. Defendant was standing in front of the passenger and holding on to the hand rail. Seeing the pocketbook unattended, he suddenly grabbed it and tried to run away. As he did so, the passenger became very frightened and fell backward. She struck her head against the window and was knocked unconscious. In the commotion, Defendant dropped the pocketbook and hurriedly exited the subway car empty-handed. Defendant should be found guilty of
Choices
A. larceny.
B. attempted larceny.
C. assault.
D. robbery.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A plaintiff sued a utility company that owns a reservoir that is open to the public for recreation pursuant to a license from a federal agency. The plaintiff was severely injured in the reservoir when he dove from a boat into what he thought was deep water and hit an unmarked submerged island. The plaintiff alleges that the company was negligent in failing to mark the submerged island. At trial, the plaintiff has called an engineer and qualified him as plaintiff has called an engineer and qualified him as an expert in managing reservoirs. Which of the following opinions by the plaintiff's expert is the court most likely to admit?
Choices
A. "The accident probably occurred in the manner shown by this computer-animated film I made."
B. "The company could have marked the island in a day and at a cost of $300."
C. "The company was required by federal law to mark the island."
D. "The plaintiff was not contributorily negligent."

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A manufacturer sued a buyer in federal court for failing to make timely payments under the parties' sales contract. The case was tried to the court solely on documentary evidence. Immediately after the close of the evidence, the judge announced from the bench, "Judgment shall be entered for the manufacturer," and judgment was so entered. The buyer has appealed the judgment. What is the buyer's best argument for persuading the appellate court to reverse the judgment?
Choices
A. The judgment is clearly erroneous because it was based solely on documentary evidence.
B. The manufacturer was required to file proposed findings and conclusions before the trial court ruled.
C. The trial court erred because it announced the judgment without giving the parties an opportunity to submit proposed findings and conclusions.
D. The trial court erred by not providing findings and conclusions.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A writer's latest novel created a debate among critics regarding whether the sexual references and the graphic practices in the book made it obscene. While the publisher was readying the book for distribution, the head of a state commission for morality contacted her to tell her that the book was obscene and that she should collect all copies and turn them over for seizure by the government. He also advised that the commission was putting the book on a list of obscene works that retailers should not handle. She responded that dozens of retailers already had the book for an opening day promotion. The commission seized all of the books from the retailers and destroyed them, without any due process procedural safeguards to the author or the publisher. The author and publisher appealed the case and eventually received a writ of certiorari issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. Will the Court uphold the procedure that was used to declare the book obscene and to restrain its distribution?
Choices
A. Yes, if the authorities determine the book to be obscene, then they may seize and prevent its prospective distribution for the protection of the public.
B. Yes, the determination of obscenity can be made prior to publication because the local authorities have a right to determine the local "community morals" standard.
C. No, the state must first give the publisher and author a preliminary hearing before a magistrate to get a determination if the book is obscene.
D. No, the state cannot exercise prior restraint over published material because that has a chilling effect on free speech; a full judicial determination, with a criminal trial, is required before there can be a finding of a work being obscene.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A developer recently acquired a large vacant lot and wished to build a series of 10 tract homes on the lot to offer for sale. On May 1, he telephoned a number of contractors whom he had dealt with in the past and asked them to submit bids to build the homes. One of the contractors in turn sought bids from several subcontractors to determine the overall cost of the job. He notified each subcontractor that he intended to use their bids in submitting a general bid to the developer. A plumber submitted a bid to the contractor in the amount of $50,000, which the contractor used in computing the bid he sent to the developer. On June 1, the contractor submitted a bid to the developer in which he offered to build the 10 tract homes for $500,000. On June 4, the plumber notified the contractor that he had overbooked his crews and could not possibly do the work on the developer's job. On June 5, the developer sent the contractor a signed confirmation letter wherein he stated, "I hereby accept your offer to build the 10 tract homes for $500,000. ', Thereafter, the contractor hired another plumber to complete the plumbing work at a cost of $60,000. The contractor then explained the situation to the developer and requested that the overall cost of the job be increased to $510,000. The developer refused on the grounds that he had a contract for $500,000 and that this was the contractor's problem. The contractor then built the 10 tract homes, and the developer sent him a check for $500,000. Which of the following best supports a claim for $10,000 by the contractor against the plumber who refused to do the work?
Choices
A. The plumber made an offer that the contractor accepted by using the plumber's bid in computing the bid he submitted to the developer.
B. The plumber's bid was a "firm offer" that was not revocable, since both the plumber and the contractor were merchants.
C. The contractor made an offer to the plumber that the plumber accepted when he submitted his bid.
D. An option contract was created, because the contractor, with the plumber's knowledge, used the plumber's bid in computing the bid he submitted to the developer.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A plaintiff is the beneficiary of a policy issued by an insurance company insuring the life of his wife, now deceased. The policy contains a clause providing that double indemnity is payable in the event that death of the insured "results directly, and independently of all other causes, from bodily injury effected solely through external violent and accidental means. "The plaintiff's wife met her death in the silage shed of her farm. The death resulted from wounds caused by the discharge of a double-barreled shotgun. The plaintiff was arrested and prosecuted for the murder of his wife. After a lengthy trial, the plaintiff was acquitted of the charge. After the insurance company refused to pay the plaintiff's insurance claim, the plaintiff instituted this civil action. The complaint sets forth the policy, alleges the facts surrounding the death of the insured, avers that the death was within the policy provisions for double indemnity payment, and demands judgment accordingly. At trial, the insurance company's attorney proposes to introduce excerpts from the plaintiff's murder trial. The plaintiff's attorney objects to the introduction of such evidence. The trial judge should rule the proffered evidence
Choices
A. admissible as a declaration against interest.
B. admissible as former testimony.
C. inadmissible, because of collateral estoppel.
D. inadmissible, because of double jeopardy.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A victim and a defendant both worked as longshoremen at a shipyard. After the victim was shot to death, the defendant was tried for murder and acquitted. Following the acquittal, the victim's estate sued the defendant in a wrongful death action. During the civil trial, the victim's estate called a witness to testify. The witness, who worked with both men at the shipyard, testified that two weeks before the shooting, the victim came to work with a broken nose and said that the defendant had caused it. The attorney for the victim's estate then asked the witness the following question, "Was the defendant present during your conversation with the victim, and if so, did he say anything about the victim's broken nose?" The witness replied, "Yes, the defendant was present, and after the victim told me that the defendant broke his nose, the defendant said, And that's only the beginning. "Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the witness's testimony is
Choices
A. admissible, because it reports a declaration against interest.
B. admissible, because it reports the defendant's adoptive admission of the victim's assertion.
C. inadmissible, because of the principle of collateral estoppel.
D. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state education agency, following all statutory requirements, obtained a parcel of land through eminent domain. The landowner accepted the award of fair market value and did not appeal. For the next 15 years, the agency held the property but did not implement an educational use for it. In year 16, the agency abandoned the intended education use and sold it at a properly advertised auction under state law. The original landowner appealed, arguing that the agency only took a fee simple determinable and when it ceased its intended educational use, superior fee simple title reverted back to the original owner. Will the appellate court likely rule that the landowner can assert rights to stop the attempted transfer?
Choices
A. No, because the state also acquired fee simple title by adverse possession after 11 continuous, uninterrupted years of possession.
B. No, because the original transfer was legally conducted and the landowner received fair market value, thereby allowing a presumption of fee simple title in the agency.
C. Yes, eminent domain is restricted to taking property that is urgently needed for a public use and the failure to use it for that purpose defeated fee simple ownership in the agency.
D. Yes, because every eminent domain taking implies a fee simple determinable aspect to the governmental acquisition.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A landlord owned a three-story home in fee simple and leased it to his friend for a term of 10 years. By the terms of the lease, the friend expressly covenanted to pay a monthly rental of $300 and to pay the taxes on the premises during the term of the lease. The lease also stipulated that the friend, as lessee, may not assign or sublease the said premises. The friend and his family lived in the house for two years. Then the friend, still owing the landlord three months back rent, assigned his leasehold interest in the property to a professor, who was unaware of the prohibition against assignments. This written assignment expressly provided that the professor would pay the landlord the monthly rental of $300, but was silent concerning the payment of taxes. The landlord never objected to this assignment. Six months after the assignment, the landlord conveyed his property interest in the premises to a new owner. After residing in the house for a year, the professor subleased the third floor to a student for a term of two years; the agreement provided that the professor would receive a monthly rental payment of $100. After the student had made regular rental payments to the professor for the first six months of the sublease, he defaulted. The following month, the professor sent the new owner $200 as payment for rent and notified him that he should collect the remaining $100 from the student, who refused to vacate the premises. In an action by the new owner against the student to recover the additional $100 for rent due, he will most probably
Choices
A. recover, because the landlord and sublessee are in privity of estate.
B. recover, even though he never objected to the sublease.
C. not recover, because the professor would only be held liable.
D. not recover, because the professor remains liable.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A city has adopted ordinance 172 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 police chief 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 foreign exchange student planned to hold a demonstration at park in the city. Although the student's previous protest rallies attracted fewer than 25 demonstrators, he decided to apply for a permit pursuant to city ordinance 172. After meeting with the student, 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. Subsequently, the student and his fellow demonstrators staged their rally at the park. The rally attracted only about 20 protestors and was conducted peacefully. As the student was making his final remarks to the gathering, the police arrived at the park and arrested the student and his fellow demonstrators charging them with violating ordinance 172. Which of the following would be the most accurate statement with regard to the arrest of the student and the other demonstrators?
Choices
A. The police were justified in arresting the student, because he and his fellow demonstrators violated the ordinance by staging the rally.
B. The police were justified in halting the rally and arresting the demonstrators, because of the threat of imminent physical disturbance.
C. The police were not justified in arresting the student and the demonstrators, because they did not violate the ordinance.
D. The police were not justified in arresting the student, because the group was not required to comply with the ordinance.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An auto retailer started a marketing promotion on a new hybrid model sedan. It advertised that anyone who purchased the car in 2013 and did not get at least 50 miles per gallon average gas mileage during the first 60 days, would receive a payment of $10,000 cash from the company. Record-keeping and inspection procedures were required to assure accurate reporting by the vehicle owner. The promotion was widely publicized. A female customer purchased a hybrid model during the promotion period, followed all the rules, and recorded only 42 mpg in the first 60 days. She demanded the rebate but the company stalled for months and then stopped responding to her inquiries. Does she have a contractual right to collect the $10,000?
Choices
A. Yes, because this is a classic bilateral contract, making it necessary that the company live up to its set of promises made to her.
B. No, this was merely puffing, was not an offer to contract with any particular person and was without consideration.
C. Yes, this was a unilateral contract in which the offeree acted upon the offer by performing the terms of the offer, thus creating a binding contract.
D. No, because she did not formally notify the company that she was accepting the offer before she started performing.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A wedding planner owned a summer cottage on the lake. In order to facilitate the access to the cottage, which is located on a knoll above the lake, the wedding planner entered into an agreement with a neighbor, an adjoining land owner, whereby the neighbor, in writing, granted the wedding planner a right-of-way over a strip of land 30 feet in width and a quarter of a mile in length along the eastern margin of the neighbor's property. Without notif'ing the neighbor, the wedding planner proceeded with his plan to improve the roadbed by having the road asphalted in order to make it more accessible for motor vehicle traffic. Several years later, the neighbor started a sand business, which required him to do heavy hauling that subsequently destroyed the asphalted surface on the road. Ten years after the neighbor started his sand business, the wedding planner sold his lakefront property to an artist. Shortly after the artist took possession of the cottage and property, the neighbor erected wooden barriers across the roadway, thus obstructing the access to the artist's property. The interest that the wedding planner acquired in the access road may best be described as
Choices
A. an easement in gross.
B. an easement implied by prior use.
C. an easement by necessity.
D. an express easement.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A mother hated a girl because she always seemed to outperform her daughter and make her feel inferior. Fearing that the girl would beat out her daughter for the last cheerleading position, the mother decided to kill the girl. One night while the mother and her boyfriend were having dinner, the mother asked him to kill the girl. The mother handed her boyfriend a gun and gave him the home address where the girl lived. Unknown to the boyfriend, the mother gave him the wrong address. By mistake, the boyfriend went to the home of a family who lived across the street from the girl. The boyfriend rang the doorbell and a woman opened the door. The boyfriend asked the woman if her daughter was home. The woman called for her daughter to come to the front door. When she did so, the boyfriend shot and killed both the woman and her daughter. The mother should be found guilty for which, if any, of the following crimes?
Choices
A. Conspiracy and voluntary manslaughter.
B. Conspiracy, attempted murder, and two counts of murder.
C. Solicitation and two counts of murder.
D. Solicitation and attempted murder.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A toy collector had purchased 10 antique toys over the last several years and had had them restored by an expert in toy restoration. On June 1, the collector sent the 11th antique toy to the expert with a signed note that read: "Here is another toy for you to restore. As with all prior jobs, I will pay $500 for the work, but no more." On June 4, after receipt of the collector's June 1 note and the toy, the expert began restoring the toy. On June 6, the collector unexpectedly died. On June 7, unaware of the collector's death, the expert sent the collector a note that stated that the restoration work had begun on June 4. The following day, the expert learned of the collector's death. Does a contract exist that binds the expert and the collector's estate?
Choices
A. No, because the collector died before the expert sent the June 7 note.
B. No, because the offer lapsed when the collector died.
C. Yes, because the expert sent the June 7 note before learning of the collector's death.
D. Yes, because the offer was accepted before the collector's death.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A farm and an orchard are adjoining tracts of land located in a county. In 2006, a farmer purchased the farm, a 10-acre tract, in fee simple absolute. The orchard, a 20-acre tract situated to the north of the farm, was owned by a rancher in fee simple absolute. A remote predecessor of the farmer had granted to a shepherd a way for egress and ingress across the farm under such terms and circumstances that an easement appurtenant to the orchard was created. This right-of-way was executed by deed and properly recorded. The shepherd, however, never made any actual use of the right-of-way. In 2010, the rancher conveyed the orchard to the farmer. The next year, the farmer conveyed the orchard by deed to an investor for a consideration of $250,000, receipt of which was acknowledged. Neither the rancher farmer deed nor the farmer  investor deed contained any reference to the easement for right-of-way. The investor has now claimed that she has a right-of-way across the farm. The farmer, on the other hand, has informed the investor that no such easement exists. Assume that both the farm and the orchard abut a public highway and that ingress and egress are afforded the investor by that highway. In an appropriate action by the investor to determine her right to use the right-of-way across the farm, she should
Choices
A. lose, because the easement was extinguished by merger when the farmer acquired the orchard from the rancher.
B. lose, because the right-of-way was abandoned inasmuch as there never was any actual use made.
C. win, because the farmer had constructive notice of the easement.
D. win, because the investor acquired an easement by implication.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man and a woman were partners in an automobile leasing agency. For some time, the man had been embezzling money from the agency. The woman became suspicious and told the man that she wanted to engage an accounting firm to audit the agency's books. In a panic to prevent the audit and avoid being discovered, the man decided to have the woman killed. He contacted a professional killer and hired him to kill the woman for $10,000. A short time later, the woman died in a car crash arranged by the killer. In addition to embezzlement, of what crime or crimes may the man properly be convicted?
Choices
A. Conspiracy and murder.
B. Murder.
C. Solicitation and conspiracy.
D. Solicitation, conspiracy, and murder.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A patient who had suffered a severe fracture of her leg was treated by an orthopedist, who set the patient's leg and put it in a cast. When the leg continued to bother the patient six months later, she consulted a second orthopedist in the same town. The second orthopedist surgically inserted a pin to facilitate healing. The patient brought a malpractice action against the first orthopedist, claiming that he should have surgically inserted a pin at the time of initial treatment. The only evidence that the patient offered in support of her malpractice claim was the testimony of the second orthopedist, as follows: In response to the question "Would you have inserted a pin initially?" the second orthopedist testified, "I personally would not have been satisfied that the leg would heal properly without a pin." At the close of the patient's evidence, the first orthopedist moved for judgment as a matter of law. Should the motion be granted?
Choices
A. No, because the patient has introduced evidence that the first orthopedist failed to give the care that the second orthopedist would have provided.
B. No, because the second orthopedist practices in the same town and field of specialty as the first orthopedist.
C. Yes, because the patient has failed to introduce evidence that the first orthopedist's care fell below the professional standard of care.
D. Yes, because the second orthopedist also treated the patient and is thus not sufficiently objective to offer expert testimony.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A seat in a movie theater collapsed, causing the customer sitting in that seat to fall to the ground and suffer a back injury. In a personal injury action by the customer against the theater, the customer will most likely
Choices
A. recover, because the theater was under an absolute duty of care to make the premises safe for the protection of its customers.
B. recover, only if the theater had prior knowledge of the dangerous condition of the seat.
C. not recover, because the theater was under no obligation to inspect the premises to discover unknown dangers.
D. not recover, unless the theater failed to make a reasonable inspection of the seats for the safety of its customers.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A police officer received a call from a friend who owned a business. The friend told him that a former employee, who was a "hothead", was making harassing phone calls and threats. He faxed the officer a oneparagraph summary of the matter. The officer questioned the prior employee, who became verbally abusive and vehemently denied making the calls. The officer arrested him for criminal harassment and wrongful use of a communications device, stating, "I'm going to teach you a lesson." The criminal case was thrown out, however, at the preliminary hearing when the police could not produce proof that the former employee made any phone calls to the business. The former employee then sued the police officer and the business owner for the tort of malicious prosecution. Leaving aside any considerations of immunity for the officer, can the former employee allege facts sufficient to support a malicious prosecution case?
Choices
A. No, because the officer received enough facts from the owner to establish the elements of the criminal charges that he filed against the former employee.
B. Yes, there were sufficient facts for the former employee to establish the basic elements of the malicious prosecution tort.
C. No, because the business owner knew that it was the former employee who made the calls even if he could not prove it.
D. Yes, the officer committed abuse of legal process when he improperly initiated the case.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A landowner, advancing in age, realizes that he is no longer able to farm his 1,000 acres and therefore decides to sell some of the farmland in parcels of 250 acres. The president of a development company is interested in purchasing three of the four parcels. The president buys the three parcels from the landowner and begins formulating plans for constructing single-family dwelling units on the land. The original deed between the landowner and the development company contains a provision expressly binding "upon all subsequent grantees, their heirs, and assigns," stipulating that any further subdivisions by any such persons shall be restricted to minimum two-acre lots to be used for single family dwelling units only. The development company immediately subdivided two of the parcels into lots of three, four, and five acres, and began construction of homes thereon. The original deed restrictions were enumerated within the special warranty deeds and were given to the purchasers of the homes in the new development, called phase 1. Two years later, the president sold the remaining parcel, which had not been included in the phase 1 subdivision plan, to a contractor. The contractor, in turn, drafted a subdivision plan for the last 250-acre parcel dividing it into one-acre lots. The contractor then commenced construction of single-family dwelling units in the new development, to be known as phase 2. There was no mention of the restriction for two-acre minimum lots in the deeds to the purchasers of the new homes in phase 2. Meanwhile, after the landowner's death, his estate is required to sell the remaining 250-acre parcel of his farmland. The buyer is an investor, who proposes to construct a two-level shopping center and parking lot on the property. The deed for the remaining 250-acre parcel contained the identical restrictions as the deeds to the other three parcels. The investor, ignoring these restrictions, was able to use his political influence to persuade the county zoning board to rezone the said parcel for commercial use. The residents of phase I seek to enjoin the construction of the shopping center. The residents will have
Choices
A. little chance of preventing the projected commercial development.
B. no standing to enjoin the construction of the shopping center.
C. no chance of succeeding, because the zoning ordinance takes precedence over the covenant running with the land.
D. success in their cause of action in accordance with the common development scheme.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An older and younger brother had always done everything together. They had grown up together, gone to school together, and partied together. One night, while drinking at a bar, both brothers decided that they wanted a little more action than the bar was offering up, so they left and went to a strip club. At the strip club, they paid for private dances and attempted to have conversations with the women. As hard as they tried, the women who worked in the club did not seem as interested in the brothers as they were in the women. As the night wore on, the brothers decided that they would wait behind the club until closing for the women to come out. The victim, who had given a dance to one of the brothers, came out and proceeded to walk to her car. One of the brothers grabbed the victim from behind and pulled her to the ground while the other brother sexually assaulted her. Both brothers were arrested and charged with the rape of the victim. Their long-time family attorney represented them both at their trial. The younger brother intended to testify that his older brother had forced him to hold the victim down by threatening him with a gun. If appropriate objections are made by either brother, the court should rule that the attorney's representation of the brothers at trial
Choices
A. violated the younger brother's Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
B. constituted an impermissible conflict of interest.
C. violated the younger brother's constitutional rights, but did not infringe on the older brother's constitutional rights.
D. did not violate the older brother's constitutional rights if he separately paid for his representation.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man is charged with murder. During the trial, defense counsel offers the testimony of a man on death row admitting he hired another man to shoot the victim. The testimony is
Choices
A. not hearsay.
B. hearsay, but admissible as an admission.
C. hearsay, but admissible as a dying declaration.
D. hearsay not within any recognized exception.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: In 1995, an investor purchased a 100-acre tract located in a rural county. Shortly thereafter, the investor prepared a subdivision plan, which created 90 one-acre residential building lots on this tract with the remaining 10-acre lot proposed for a public school building. In the investor's sales brochure promoting the subdivision, he stated that "in addition to the close proximity of the proposed school for subdivision residents, the county school district would not need to expend tax money to acquire this property for school construction. " In 1996, the subdivision plan was recorded with the county recorder's office. During the next few years, the investor sold 50 residential lots to individual purchasers. In 2002, the investor conveyed the remaining 40 lots and the 10-acre tract to a builder by deed that included language identical to that contained in the first 50 deeds. By 2007, the builder had sold all of the 40 lots. Each of these deeds identified each lot as being a part of the subdivision. On January 9, 2008, the builder sold the 10-acre tract to a buyer. This deed made no mention of the subdivision. On January 15, 2008, the county school board voted to build a new school on the 10-acre tract. Two weeks later, the buyer began construction of a pizzeria on the 10-acre tract. In an action by the school board against the buyer to enjoin construction of the pizzeria on the 10-acre tract, the court would grant judgment for
Choices
A. the buyer, because his own deed made no mention of the subdivision.
B. the buyer, because the dedication was not made to the public in general.
C. the school district, because the 10-acre tract was designated for public use.
D. the school district, because the 10-acre tract constituted an equitable servitude.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: On March 1, a homeowner and a painter entered into a written contract wherein the painter promised to paint the exterior of the homeowner's house for $3,000. Prior to the signing of the contract, the homeowner and the painter orally agreed that their contract would be null and void unless the homeowner was able to obtain a $3,000 loan from National Bank before April 1. On March 31, the homeowner was informed by National Bank that his loan application had been rejected. The next day, the homeowner telephoned the painter and informed him that the deal was off. If the painter brings an action for breach of contract against the homeowner, would the latter's inability to secure the loan provide him with a valid defense?
Choices
A. No, because the homeowner is estopped to deny the validity of the written contract.
B. No, because the agreement regarding the loan varied the express terms of the writing.
C. Yes, because the agreement regarding the loan constituted a valid modification of the writing.
D. Yes, because the loan agreement was a condition precedent to the existence of the contract.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state trooper was convicted in federal court in 2008 of taking bribes. He was sentenced to probation. He had served as a state trooper since 1978, and in 1998, he became fully qualified for his pension upon retirement. In 2006, the trooper retired and immediately started receiving monthly state pension checks. In 2009, the governor of the state signed into law a statute, which provided in part:"Section 8. Any member of the state law enforcement staff. . . who is convicted of. . . briberyshall not be entitled to receive any retirement or other benefit or payment of any kind from the stateSuch conviction shall be considered a breach of the staff member's employment contractSection 12. The provisions of this Act shall be retroactive to December 31, 1975. Section 14. This Act shall take effect immediately. "Following the enactment of the statute, the state trooper received a letter from the state which stated that pursuant to the statute, the state is immediately discontinuing pension benefit payments to you on account of your 2008 bribery conviction. "The trooper contacted an attorney, who challenged the discontinuance of benefits on the grounds that the new law was unconstitutional. Assume that the state's highest court holds the statute constitutional. The trooper might still be able to eventually have his pension reinstated if
Choices
A. he exercises his constitutional right to discretionary review in the U. S. Supreme Court.
B. he receives a presidential pardon for his bribery offense.
C. he can show that he was convicted before the effective date of thestatute.
D. he can show that the statute violates the dormant commerce clause.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state legislature enacts a statute prohibiting the sale of contraceptive devices to married persons. This state statute prohibits the use of contraceptive devices by married persons. A physician who practices in the state brings suit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the state contraceptive statute. The physician attacks the validity of the statute on the grounds that it prevents him from giving professional advice concerning the use of contraceptives to three patients, all of whom are married, whose condition of health might be endangered by child bearing. The plaintiff is likely
Choices
A. to have standing.
B. to have standing jus tertii.
C. not to have standing.
D. not to have standing jus tertii.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man decided to enroll in a creative writing course at a local adult education facility. The man signed an agreement with the facility that he would attend weekly classes at the facility for six months and would pay $500 on the first of each month. Upon signing the contract, the man made his first payment of $500 and attended the weekly class sessions. On the first day of the second month, the man once again made his $500 payment and continued to attend the session. At the start of the third month, the man told the director of the facility's accounting office that he was having financial difficulties, and asked for an extension. The director agreed to permit the man to attend classes while the man tried to get the money to pay the facility. One week later, the man received a letter from the facility informing him that he would be barred from attending any further classes unless the next $500 payment was made. Is the facility justified in refusing to permit the man to attend classes?
Choices
A. No, because by permitting the man to attend classes without having paid the third monthly installment, the facility waived its right to have that installment fee paid on time.
B. No, because the facility's allowing the man to attend classes without paying the third monthly installment created an implied contract, thus permitting him to complete the classes without advance payment of the installments.
C. Yes, because the man's failure to make the third monthly installment payment constituted an anticipatory breach.
D. Yes, because there was no consideration to extinguish the payment of the third monthly installment fee, which was a material part of the contract.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: During the final days of his presidency, many of the President's Cabinet members began leaking rather embarrassing stories about the President to the press. In one such story, which appeared in a newspaper, an unidentified Cabinet member was quoted as saying that the President pardoned the owner of a professional baseball team, for a previous felony conviction because the owner promised to give the President a lifetime pass to all future games. Upset by these news "leaks," the President, in his last official act, issued an executive order banning all executive employees from having conversations with members of the press unless prior permission had been obtained from an administrative supervisor. The executive order called for the dismissal of any employee willfully in violation of that order. After the President left office, the press made repeated references to the executive order and derisively referred to it as the President's legacy. Nonetheless, after the new President took office he promised to abide by the order. Thereafter one of the Vice President's senior advisers, leaked a story to a magazine stating that the Vice President told staff members that the only reason he visited a city following an earthquake was because he wanted to play golf at a nearby golf course. The magazine printed the story and named the senior adviser as the source. In compliance with civil service regulations, a hearing was conducted and the senior adviser was found to have violated the executive order barring unauthorized conununications with print media. Subsequently, the senior adviser was summarily dismissed from his executive staff position. The senior adviser brings an appropriate action seeking reinstatement and challenges the constitutionality of the executive order. If this case reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, the justices should rule the executive order is
Choices
A. constitutional, because governmental employment is a privilege and not a right.
B. constitutional, because the President has plenary power to set forth employment regulations for executive department employees.
C. unconstitutional, because Congress, not the President, has authority to regulate the terms and conditions of federal employment.
D. unconstitutional, because the President cannot broadly limit all executive employees' freedom of speech and association.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A national association brought suit in federal court against a city. The suit charged the city with violating several federal statutes. During the trial, the association's attorney called the city attorney as an adverse witness. The city attorney asserted the attorney-client privilege and objected that the matters communicated to him were intended to be confidential. The issues raised by the objections of the city attorney should be resolved under
Choices
A. federal privilege law.
B. the privilege law of the forum state.
C. either federal privilege law or the privilege law of the forum state as determined by the court.
D. either federal privilege law or the privilege law of the forum state, whichever the court determines is more likely to admit the evidence.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two brothers broke into the home of a bank's president and kidnapped the president's wife. The brothers took the wife hostage, pointed a gun at her head, and demanded that she drive them in her car to their hideout. As the wife was driving down the street, a woman pushing her baby in a stroller suddenly stopped in the middle of the intersection. In order to avoid hitting the woman and her child, the wife veered the car to the left, and intentionally struck a bystander, instantly killing him. If the wife is subsequently prosecuted for the murder of the bystander, she will most likely be found
Choices
A. guilty, because she intentionally veered the car, striking the bystander.
B. not guilty, by reason of necessity.
C. not guilty, by reason of duress.
D. not guilty, by reason of self-defense.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant was going out to dinner, and she parked her car at a parking lot across the street from the restaurant. The parking attendant directed the defendant to leave her keys in the car, and he handed her a receipt as she left. Following dinner, the defendant went back to the parking lot and handed her receipt to the attendant who informed her that the parking charge would be $14. Visibly irate, she told the attendant that $14 was much too high for a two-hour parking fee. The parking attendant responded that unless she paid the $14, he could not return her car. She adamantly refused to pay the $14, and her friend, with whom she was having dinner, drove the defendant home in her car. Later that same night, the defendant decided to regain possession of her car with a spare set of keys. She returned to the lot and drove her car home. If the defendant is subsequently charged with larceny, she will most likely be found
Choices
A. guilty, because she failed to pay the $14 before regaining possession of her car.
B. guilty, because she was under a binding contractual obligation to pay the parking fee.
C. not guilty, because the $14 charge was excessively high.
D. not guilty, because the defendant cannot be charged with larceny of her own motor vehicle.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A grantor conveyed his property to his son "for life, remainder after (the son's) death to his heirs. " Two years later, the son entered into a real estate agreement for the sale of the property to his friend, whereby the son agreed to convey the premises to his friend in fee simple absolute. Prior to the settlement date, the friend contacted the son, telling him that he would not perform his part of the agreement because the son could not convey a fee simple. If the Rule in Shelley's Case is followed in this jurisdiction, the outcome of a suit by the son for specific performance of the real estate contract would result in
Choices
A. the son's not succeeding, because he could not convey marketable title.
B. the son's succeeding, because he had a fee simple to convey.
C. the son's not succeeding, because his heirs have to join in the transaction in order to convey marketable title.
D. the son's succeeding, because the son's conveyance of his life estate to the friend divested the contingent remainder of his heirs.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man entered a local retail store and approached the proprietor. The man explained that he was participating in a local run for charity and wondered if the proprietor would be interested in sponsoring him. The proprietor believed the publicity would be good for his business and agreed, provided the man would wear a shirt with the retail store's logo on it during the run. The man readily agreed. The proprietor thought that sponsorship meant paying a set fee for every mile covered during the charity run. However, the man expected the proprietor, in addition to paying the fee for each mile coverÃ§d during the run, to also pay his entrance fee and be in attendance at the finish line to greet the man when he finished the charity run. Assume that the man and the proprietor entered into an enforceable contract. Which of the following, if true, would not help to establish that the manifestations of the parties were operative according to the meaning adjudged by the proprietor?
Choices
A. The customary practice of the other chrity runs in the community is the same as the proprietor's understanding, that the sponsor be responsible for paying only a set fee for each mile covered during the charity run.
B. A reasonably objective individual would have attached the same meaning to the manifestations of the parties as did the proprietor.
C. At the time the agreement was entered into, the man had reason to know the proprietor's understanding of what the parties meant, although the proprietor did not know the man's understanding was different from his.
D. The proprietor subjectively believed that the man understood that the proprietor would only be obligated to pay a set fee for each mile covered during the charity run.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two men agreed to burglarize a home. While they were planning the burglary, the two men learned that the home had a sophisticated alarm system that needed to be disarmed. One of the men told the other that he knew an alarm specialist who could help disarm the security system. One of the men then approached the alarm specialist and asked if he would assist them in disarming the home's alarm system. The alarm specialist said that he didn't want to participate in the crime but told the man how he could disarm the system himself. The two men thereafter went to the home to commit the burglary. When they arrived at the home, they saw a vicious guard dog patrolling the fenced-in area of the home. Deciding it would be too risky to confront the dog, the two men abandoned their planned burglary. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the criminal liability of the two men and the alarm specialist?
Choices
A. The two men are guilty of conspiracy.
B. The two men and the alarm specialist are guilty of conspiracy.
C. The two men are guilty of conspiracy and the two men and the alarm specialist are guilty of attempted burglary.
D. The two men and the alarm specialist are guilty of both conspiracy and attempted burglary.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man drinks a great deal of punch at a party. He was unaware that it contained PCP. Later in the evening, in an uncontrollable psychotic rage brought on by the drugs he kills someone at the party. The prosecution asks for second degree murder. What defense would have the best chance to succeed under the circumstances?
Choices
A. Voluntary intoxication
B. Irresistible Impulse
C. Involuntary intoxication
D. Ignorance or Mistake

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant is on trial for bribing a government procurement officer by providing the officer with free vacation facilities. When the defendant was approached by an FBI investigator, the defendant stated that her invitation to the procurement officer to spend his vacation in the defendant's mountain cabin was a favor to a friend, unrelated to his government office. The defendant also said to the investigator that she would reveal some "hot" information on a large-scale fraud in exchange for the investigator's promise to "stop worrying about a little vacation." a little vacation." Is the investigator's testimony about the defendant's offer to give information admissible?
Choices
A. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B. No, because the defendant made the offer in a negotiation for settlement of a criminal investigation.
C. Yes, as a matter observed and reported by the investigator pursuant to a duty imposed by law.
D. Yes, as a statement of an opposing party.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A farmer was the fee-simple owner of a tract of land inthe country. The farmer moved to the city in 1986. Aman took possession of the land in 1987 as an adversepossessor and remained on the land from 1987 to 1997;he then left the property to care for his sick mother forone year, returning the following year, 1999. Assume that the statutory period for adverse possession in this state is 20 years. In 2010, the farmer wanted to move back to the tract because he desired to return to the country. Finding the man in possession, the farmer initiated a suit in ejectment against the man. The most probable judicial determination would be
Choices
A. the farmer would lose, because the man's possession was open, hostile, and continuous.
B. the farmer would lose, because the man had fulfilled the required statutory period to become an adverse possessor.
C. the farmer would win, because the man's possession was not continuous.
D. the farmer would win, because he is the titleholder of record.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man claims to have inherited property from a wealthy businessman. The man's birth certificate shows that he was born out of wedlock. The record of a proceeding for a support order shows that the businessman was adjudged to be father of the man. However, the man can establish his status as heir of the businessman only if he was legitimated by the marriage of his mother and the businessman subsequent to his birth. Thus, the man must prove that this marriage occurred. The man's attorney has not been able to discover any marriage license or certificate. However, the attorney does have a photograph that shows a couple dressed in wedding clothes. The scene is the front of a church. Bystanders are seen to be throwing rice at the couple and they seem to be responding by smiling and bowing down. The attorney was given the photograph by the man. He found it in his mother's effects following her death. The man believes that the bride in the picture is his mother. He cannot identify the groom. The attorney was informed by a former acquaintance of the businessman who has seen the snapshot that he thinks the groom is the businessman. If the attorney seeks to introduce the photograph as proof that the mother and the businessman were married, the trial judge should rule the photograph
Choices
A. admissible, only if the photographer is available to testify concerning the circumstances under which the photograph was taken.
B. admissible, only if a witness verifies that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts.
C. inadmissible as non-verbal hearsay not within any recognized exception.
D. inadmissible as not the best evidence.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Seller says a circumstance has occurred that makes performing a sales contract impractical. Which of the following is not correct about discharge for impracticability?
Choices
A. The problem must not have been caused by the fault of the party seeking to invoke the defense.
B. A price increase is sufficient for discharge.
C. The failure to excuse performance would result in grave injustice.
D. The impracticality must go to a basic assumption on which the contract was made.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman inherited her father's farm when he died testate. Prior to her father's death, the woman had already taken over the operations on the father's farm due to his declining health. Recently, the woman had granted a coal company rights to strip-mine coal from underneath the farm. Their agreement stipulated that the coal company would pay the woman a per-ton royalty for the coal extracted. In addition, the coal company agreed to fill in the excavated area and replace top soil on the surface of the land. After the coal company commenced its strip-mining operations, the woman noticed that the company was not filling in the excavated area as previously agreed. However, because the company paid the woman all the coal royalties from the strip mining, she did not voice any objection regarding its failure to replace the top soil. Two years later, the coal company had now completed its strip-mining operation under its arrangement with the woman. The coal company's right to strip-mine coal from the woman's property would be an example of a (an)
Choices
A. profit-a-prendre.
B. license.
C. easement in gross.
D. voluntary waste.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Three friends decided to go bowling together. They made a friendly wager on the match, with the winner receiving a free beer from the other two guys. In the second frame of the first game, the first friend apparently got a strike when he knocked down all 10 pins. However, the second friend accused the first friend of fouling because his foot went over the line. The first friend denied fouling and wanted to mark down a strike on the scorecard. The second friend refused to give the first friend a strike and wrote in a zero on the scoring sheet. The first friend became enraged. The second friend then went to bowl his frame. As the second friend turned his back, the first friend approached from behind with a bowling ball in his hand. The first friend then raised the bowling ball threatening to hit the back of the second friend's head. The second friend, who had his back turned, did not see the first friend's actions. The third friend saw what the first friend was about to do and could easily have warned the second friend; but the third friend remained silent. The first friend then struck the second friend on the back of the head with the bowling ball, causing a deep scalp wound. If the second friend asserts a cause of action against the third friend, he should
Choices
A. prevail, because the third friend was aware of the danger.
B. prevail, on account of the third friend's omission to act.
C. not prevail, because the first friend was responsible for his injury.
D. not prevail, because the third friend was under no duty to warn the second friend of the danger.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D