Question:
Question: A defendant, who was an indigent, was arrested and charged with possession of less than one ounce of marijuana. Under the relevant state statute, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum of one year in jail and/or a fine of $500. At trial, the defendant pleaded not guilty and requested that an attorney be appointed to represent him. The trial judge refused to honor the defendant's request for an attorney. If the defendant is subsequently found guilty, which of the following is the most severe sentence that can constitutionally be imposed?
Choices
A. A $500 fine.
B. Six months in jail.
C. One year in jail.
D. No sentence, because the defendant was denied the right to counsel.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man was at a hotel bar having a drink when the defendant approached him and sat down next to the man. The man was attracted to the defendant and immediately engaged her in conversation. After having a few drinks together, the man invited the defendant back to his room for a nightcap. Sensing that the man was wealthy, the defendant agreed to accompany him back to his hotel room. When they got back to the room, the man excused himself to go to the bathroom. While he was inside the bathroom, the defendant took some narcotics from her purse and placed them in the man's drink. The defendant realized that the narcotics were a strong sedative and hoped that they would cause the man to pass out. She then planned to steal his wallet and jewelry. Upon returning from the bathroom, the man proceeded to finish his drink. Shortly thereafter, the man passed out. While he was unconscious, the defendant took his watch off his wrist and pulled the wallet out of his pants. She took $300 in cash from the wallet. As she was leaving, the defendant noticed that the man had a diamond earring in his left ear. She then ripped out the earring from his ear and stole that, as well. The man suffered a cut in his earlobe when the defendant snatched the earring. Which of the following crimes should the defendant be convicted of?
Choices
A. Larceny.
B. Robbery.
C. Larceny and robbery.
D. Battery and larceny.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An accountant had an office on the eighth floor of a downtown building. The accountant wanted to have renovations done to the entrance to the office. He hired an interior designer to do the work. The designer told the accountant that he had several options for the type of glass to be used in the door to the office. He could use half-inch thick plate glass, which would look nice and be relatively inexpensive. On the other hand, he could use tempered glass, which would cost twice as much but would be five times stronger than plate glass, more difficult to scratch, and capable of withstanding a blow from a hammer. The designer explained that the great majority of residential and small business establishments use plate glass for such doors. The accountant chose to go with the plate glass. The accountant ordered a plate glass door from a manufacturer and had the designer install the door when it arrived. A few months later, the door shattered when one of the accountant's clients pulled on the handle to open it. The glass cut the client's hand. If the client asserts a claim against the accountant based on negligence and establishes negligent manufacture of the glass door by the manufacturer that was not discoverable through reasonable inspection, the plaintiff will
Choices
A. prevail, because the accountant is liable for its supplier's negligence.
B. prevail, because the accountant instructed the designer to install plate glass rather than the more durable tempered glass.
C. not prevail, because the accountant could not reasonably have been expected to discover the defect.
D. not prevail, because the proper defendant is the manufacturer or the designer, not the accountant.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Police were conducting a house-to-house search for an escaped convict. During the search, a police officer went to a home and rang the doorbell. When a teenage male opened the door, the police officer told him that a convict had escaped and asked if he had seen anyone suspicious in the neighborhood. The teenager said he hadn't but then asked the police officer to come inside to ensure the house was safe. The police officer entered the home and proceeded to look around. When he went into the kitchen, the police officer noticed a bag containing white powder on the counter. Suspecting that the bag contained narcotics, the police officer questioned the teenager as to its contents. The teenager said he didn't live in the house and had never seen it before. The police officer confiscated the bag and took the teenager to the station house for questioning, at which time it was determined that the teenager had escaped from a psychiatric hospital and had broken into the home earlier in the day. Furthermore, the results of a police lab test found that the bag contained heroin. As a result, the police issued an arrest warrant for the owner of the home. He was apprehended and charged with possession of heroin. The homeowner's attorney has filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the heroin confiscated by the police was unlawfully obtained. The motion should be
Choices
A. granted, because the teenager did not have the authority to consent to a search of the house.
B. granted, because the teenager did not have an ownership or shared occupancy interest in the premises.
C. denied, because the police officer reasonably believed that he had permission to enter the dwelling.
D. denied, because the police officer reasonably believed that he had permission to enter the dwelling and reasonably believed that the teenager was competent to give consent.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: In most states, the division of homicide into degrees is distinguished according to which of the following?
Choices
A. the causal relationship between the defendant's act and the resulting death.
B. the attendant circumstances surrounding the death.
C. the nature of the act causing the death.
D. the defendant's state of mind at the time the killing was committed.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man was driving his car when he suddenly hit a pedestrian as she was crossing the street. Following the accident, an ambulance was summoned and the pedestrian was taken to a nearby hospital. The man, who also drove to the hospital, approached the pedestrian in the emergency room while she was being treated for her injuries. When the pedestrian saw the man, she told him, "You went through that red light. You could have killed me. " She then asked the man for $5,000 to cover her anticipated medical expenses. The man replied that he would have to think about it. Shortly thereafter, the man sent a letter to the pedestrian in which he wrote, "I realize I drove through the red light. Naturally, I would like to settle this without any litigation. I'm willing to pay all your medical expenses and give you $2,000 if you don't sue me. " The pedestrian did not accept the man's offer and brought suit against him. At trial, the pedestrian's attorney offers the first sentence of the letter into evidence, and the man objects. The trial judge should rule the evidence
Choices
A. admissible as an admission.
B. inadmissible as an admission made in connection with an offer to pay medical expenses.
C. inadmissible as an admission made in connection with settlement negotiations.
D. inadmissible, because documents must be offered in their entirety.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man was on a date when he realized that he didn't have enough money to pay the bill. The man excused himself and went to the men's room. The man decided to set fire to the waste paper in a trash container. He hoped that the fire would serve as a diversion so he and his date could run out of the restaurant without paying. He set fire to the waste paper and then went back to his table. As he anxiously waited, the maitre d' grabbed the man and told him that he had seen what occurred in the bathroom. The maitre d', who had been seated in a bathroom stall, saw the man, through a crack in the door, set the fire. The maitre d' extinguished the fire, which had charred a portion of the ceiling. This jurisdiction defines arson as the malicious burning of any structure. If charged with arson, the man should be found
Choices
A. guilty, because he was reckless as to the restaurant's being damaged by fire.
B. guilty, because he set the fire for the purpose of committing an unlawful act.
C. not guilty, because he did not intend to burn down the restaurant.
D. not guilty, because the fire only charred a portion of the ceiling.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: What is not true about conversion?
Choices
A. It is an interference with another's right of possession so severe as to warrant defendant to pay full price of chattel.
B. The intent is to do the act that brings about the interference.
C. The remedy is recovery of actual damages from harm to chattel or loss of use.
D. Remedy is damage award of fair market value of chattel.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A rancher was the owner of a parcel of land in fee simple. The rancher left the parcel in 1977 to move to the city. A man took possession of the land in 1978 as an adverse possessor and remained on the land from 1978 to 1988; he then left the property to care for his sick mother for one year, returning the following year, 1990. Meanwhile, during the man's possession, the rancher devised the parcel to his son in 1994. The man remained on the property until2010. Assume that the statutory period for adverse possession in this state is 20 years. Upon the rancher's death in 2010, his son, as his sole heir, brings an ejectment suit to recover possession of the property from the man. In his action, the son will most probably
Choices
A. lose, because the man has acquired title by adverse possession.
B. win, because the statutory period for adverse possession does not run against a remainder- man until his interest becomes possessory.
C. win, because the man left the property to take care of his mother for one year.
D. win, because his title was perfected at the time of conveyance.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman owned four beach houses. Each house had star-shaped windows. As the hurricane season was approaching, she hired a carpenter to build storm windows for the star-shaped and deliver them to the four houses. Because of the unique shape of the windows, the carpenter had to do all work by hand. The carpenter and woman signed a contract under which the carpenter promised to build and deliver the storm windows to all four beach houses within 30 days, and the woman promised to pay $8,000 ($2,000 per beach house) within one week of completion of the job. Two weeks after the contract was signed, a fire destroyed the carpenter's workshop, where he was storing all the completed storm windows before delivery. The carpenter then sent a letter to the woman that read:"The fire destroyed my equipment and inventory  including the storm windows, which had been completed and which were awaiting delivery. I am dead broke and cannot complete my obligations under the contract. " The woman then telephoned the carpenter and told him, "Unless you fulfill your contractual obligations, I will sue you!"In an action for specific performance to compel the carpenter to build and deliver the storm windows, the woman will most likely
Choices
A. succeed, because the carpenter's loss of the inventory would not excuse his duty of performance.
B. succeed, because the beach houses would suffer severe damage in the event a hurricane struck without the storm windows having been installed.
C. not succeed, because the carpenter's performance would be excused by the unforeseeable act of God.
D. not succeed, because the carpenter's loss of inventory would render his performance impossible.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two cousins took title to real estate as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The first cousin put up his interest in the joint tenancy as security for a $20,000 loan and signed a judgment note. It was later entered as a judgment against the first cousin's interest in the real estate. The first cousin died a year later. The second cousin decided to sell the property, but the mortgagee filed an action to prevent the sale and to enforce his interest in the property. The second cousin defended on the basis that any lien on the first cousin's interest in the property was extinguished on the first cousin's death. Will the court enforce the lien of the mortgagee against the sale of the property by the surviving second cousin?
Choices
A. Yes, because the second cousin's assent to the judgment lien was presumed by law and that assent destroyed the joint tenancy.
B. Yes, because a mortgage or judgment lien against one joint tenant destroys the tenancy and destroys the right of survivorship.
C. No, because a joint tenant cannot legally file a judgment note on just that joint tenant's interest because it would be an unconstitutional interference with the other's property rights.
D. No, because when the first cousin died the second cousin became the sole owner due to the right of survivorship, as per the joint tenancy which was still fully intact.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A teachers union, a nongovernmental entity, seeks to picket the local city school board for its decision to require higher certification for instructors who wish to teach in the gifted and talented classes in elementary school. After a few days of picketing, the school board seeks a temporary injunction in the state court to restrain further picketing of the school board. The school board insists that the teachers union has violated Section 101 of the city's picketing ordinance. Section 101 reads as follows:"Section 101. No picketing shall be permitted inside of, or on any sidewalk or street immediately adjacent or contiguous to public elementary and secondary schools without express permission of the mayor. Applications for such permission shall be filed at least three days before such picketing is intended to begin and shall state the purpose, place, and time of the proposed picketing. "The court will most likely
Choices
A. grant relief, because the teachers unionfailed to follow the procedure outlined in theordinance.
B. grant relief, because the ordinance isconstitutional.
C. deny relief, because the picketing ordinancewas unconstitutional on its face.
D. deny relief, because the ordinance does notprovide procedural due process.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man mailed a letter to a woman promising to sell her his motorcycle for $1,000. After receiving the letter, the woman sent the man a fax that stated, "The price is a little high, I'll give you $800. " The man responded by fax, "I will not accept $800. " The next day, the woman telephoned the man and said, "I changed my mind, I will pay $1,000 for the motorcycle. " The man refused to sell the woman his motorcycle. If the woman sues the man for breach of contract, which of the following defenses would be the man's best defense?
Choices
A. Since the woman's purported acceptance was oral, it constituted a different mode of communication from the written offer.
B. The contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, because the woman's purported acceptance was oral.
C. The woman's counter offer terminated her power of acceptance.
D. The man's rejection of the woman's counter offer terminated the woman's power of acceptance.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A freight company offered to purchase a large order of tires from a wholesale tire distributor for specified terms. Before receiving an answer, the purchasing agent called the wholesaler to state, "We are confronting a critical financial crisis and cannot afford to make the purchase." The seller sent an acceptance form the next day, and shipped the goods with an invoice. When the purchasing company did not pay and shipped the goods back, the seller sued for his lost profit. The seller claimed that the purchasing agent's words did not clearly communicate a revocation of the offer. Will the seller prevail?
Choices
A. Yes, because a revocation of an offer requires explicit words of rejection in order to be enforced.
B. Yes, because the seller must be able to rely on a definite order of goods.
C. No, because the words of revocation were clear enough to communicate that the deal was off.
D. No, because a buyer is never in breach of an agreement when it rejects goods prior to their shipment.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state has a statute generally prohibiting the installation and use of radar detection devices in any motor vehicle operating on the roadways within the state. This prohibition was enacted to prevent motorists from evading radar or speed checkpoints on county and state highways. A neighboring state has no such regulation in effect. By the same token, Congress has taken no action on the matter. A resident of the neighboring state has installed a radar detection device in his automobile. While driving to visit his mother he is arrested and charged with violating the aforementioned state statute. The resident files a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the state statute. As applied to the resident, the state prohibition against the use of radar detection devices is likely to be held
Choices
A. constitutional, because it protects a legitimate state interest.
B. constitutional, because the commerce clause does not invalidate a state regulation relating to interstate commerce unless Congress takes express action to do so.
C. unconstitutional, because the state statute fails to give credit to the law of a neighboring state.
D. unconstitutional, because it unduly burdens interstate commerce.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man went shopping to buy a used car. He found one on a used car lot that was offered "as is." He looked at it thoroughly. The tag on the window indicated a special 30-point inspection was done on the car. The 30 points included the drive train, the engine, spark plugs, oil, transmission, and numerous other major items. The man put a $1,000 down payment on the car. He took the car to an independent mechanic who told him that the car had been in an accident and had sustained severe damage, including a cracked engine block. The mechanic offered that the dealer must have known of that kind of massive damage. The man tried to return the car and get his down payment back, but the dealer refused, claiming the car was sold "as is," and all express or implied warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code were disclaimed in the purchase contract. Stuck with a lemon, the man sued the company under a common law fraud theory. The company counterclaimed for the balance of the purchase price. Will the man likely prevail in the litigation against the car dealer?
Choices
A. Yes, because the dealer withheld material information intentionally and knowingly misrepresented the condition of the car.
B. Yes, because the dealer has a duty to give every reason why an "as is" car may go bad and to list those reasons on the window.
C. No, because the dealer cannot be held responsible for possible damage that the used car may have developed after years of use.
D. No, because the dealer is absolutely protected when he sells a used car in "as is" condition, and where the warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code are duly waived.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A teenage male was on trial on charges of illegally entering an owner's property and stealing a car. The witness can only confirm for the prosecution that a car was stolen, the model and type of car, and that it was missing from the property on a certain date. The defense asks witness "isn't it possible that my client did not steal the car, that someone else did it, and that the police are lying about the charges against him? The prosecution objected to the question. Will the court likely sustain the objection?
Choices
A. Yes, because this is an objectionable question based on pure speculation.
B. Yes, because it is not permissible to question the credibility of the police without substantial supporting evidence.
C. No, questioning about the possibility of other perpetrators, or about police misconduct, is always permissible.
D. No, because the witness may know something that he is not revealing and for that reason, a cross-examiner is given wide latitude in questioning.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Several persons together stole a painting from an art museum. One of them, who was the driver, was caught during the commission of another crime. He told police that "I didn't even get any money from the art museum. It all went to the first guy and the second guy." When the first and second guy go on trial for the theft of the art painting, is the driver's statement admissible in court?
Choices
A. Yes, as an admission by a party opponent.
B. Yes, as a statement against the interests of the other defendants.
C. No, because it was made while in custody and therefore is unreliable.
D. No, because the statement was not made in the course of or in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus it is hearsay.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An indigent man was suffering from a chronic asthmatic and bronchial illness. The man redomiciled to a new state and shortly thereafter suffered a severe respiratory attack and was sent by his attending physician to a nonprofit private community hospital. Pursuant to a state statute governing medical care for indigents, the hospital notified county officials that it had in its hospital an indigent who might qualif' for county care and requested that the man be transferred to the county's public hospital facility. In accordance with the approved procedures, the private hospital claimed reimbursement from the county in the amount of $1,069 for the care and services it had provided. Under the relevant state statute:"Individual county governments are charged with the mandatory duty of providing necessary hospital and medical care for their indigent sick. In order to qualif' for such hospital and medical care, an indigent shall be resident of the county for the preceding 12 months in order to be eligible for free non-emergency medical care. "As a consequence, the county refused to admit the man to its public hospital or to reimburse the private hospital because the man had not been a resident of the county for the preceding year. In an action in federal court against the county challenging the constitutionality of the residency requirement for providing free medical care for indigents, the court will most likely declare the statute
Choices
A. constitutional, because the statute promotes a compelling state interest.
B. constitutional, because the statute is a proper exercise of state action.
C. constitutional, because the statute is within the state's police power to regulate the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
D. unconstitutional, because it violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: At approximately 3:00 p. m. on December 3, a motorist was speeding down a street at the same time that a pedestrian was crossing the street. When the pedestrian started to cross the street, she saw the traffic light was red. She momentarily stopped, thought about waiting until the light turned green, but then decided to cross anyway. As the pedestrian was halfway across the street, the motorist, who was driving 50 m. p. h. in a 25 m. p. h. zone, struck her with his vehicle. The pedestrian suffered a broken pelvis and internal injuries in the accident. While in the hospital, the pedestrian's insurance company paid $10,000 of her medical expenses. Six months later, the pedestrian brought suit against the motorist to recover damages for all her medical expenses. This jurisdiction has a "modified" comparative negligence statute in effect. Suppose a jury returned a special verdict with the following findings: (1) The motorist was 60 percent negligent in speeding; (2) The pedestrian was 40 percent at fault in crossing the street against the red light; and (3) The pedestrian suffered damages from the accident totaling $50,000. After the verdict, the court was advised that the pedestrian's insurance company had already paid the pedestrian $10,000. As a result, the court should enter a judgment for the pedestrian in the amount of
Choices
A. $50,000, because the motorist's negligence was greater than the pedestrian's.
B. $30,000, the proportion of the pedestrian's damages caused by the motorist's negligence, but the payment of $10,000 in hospital expenses will be disregarded under the collateral source rule.
C. $20,000, the proportion of the pedestrian's damages caused by her own negligence, but the payment of $10,000 in hospital expenses will be disregarded under the collateral source rule.
D. $10,000, the proportion of the pedestrian's damages caused by her own negligence, less the $10,000 in hospital expenses already paid by the insurance company.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A doctor owned a two-acre tract just outside the city. She subdivided the parcel into 12 lots, numbered1 12, 11 of which she sold to 11 different buyers. The doctor retained lot 12 to live on. Each deed tothe 11 lots sold contained the following restriction:"It is an express covenant and condition that the property hereby conveyed shall not be used for other than single-family residences. "Two years after the doctor subdivided and sold off the parcels, the purchasers of lots 1 11 had each built residences on their property. In December of that year, the doctor dug a well on her property. From that well, the doctor supplied water to all of the lot owners. One year later, a veterinarian, who lived on the lot adjacent to the doctor's, dug a well in her backyard. Her well caused water to be diverted from the doctor's well, and the doctor is no longer able to get any water. In an appropriate action by the doctor against the veterinarian, what remedy, if any, is available?
Choices
A. An injunction should be decreed enjoining the veterinarian from using her well.
B. The doctor should be entitled to recover money damages from the veterinarian.
C. The veterinarian should be required to supply water to the doctor.
D. There is no remedy.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A witness sees a murder in the park and is called to testify in the criminal case. Can the defense attorney ask her on cross examination about her habit of feeding the pigeons? The defense knows that she was cited several times for illegally feeding the pigeons. Defense counsel tries to ask, "You have a longtime habit of feeding the pigeons, don't you? You have in fact been ticketed several times for feeding pigeons, haven't you, and yet you persisted in doing it, isn't that so?" Will the trial court likely allow the witness to be questioned on these matters?
Choices
A. No, because the question has no probative value regarding the credibility of the witness or the guilt of the defendant.
B. No, because a witness can never be asked about personal prior bad acts.
C. Yes, because the statement indicates that the witness' attention was always focused on feeding the pigeons.
D. Yes, because feeding pigeons in the park and persisting in it after being ticketed may show an antisocial trait of the witness.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant decided to rob a bank. She used an unloaded gun in the robbeiy. The defendant approached the bank teller, pointed her unloaded pistol at him and said, "This is a stick-up. . . give me your money and no one will get hurt. "While the teller was handing the money to the defendant, the victim, a bank patron who was in line, saw the defendant pointing the gun at the teller and fainted. He fell backward and cracked his head on the marble floor. This resulted in a fatal head injury. Moments later, the defendant left the bank with the money. Thereafter, the defendant was arrested. If the defendant is prosecuted for felony murder and acquitted, the most likely reason will be because
Choices
A. her gun was unloaded.
B. there was not a sufficient connection between the victim's death and the robbery.
C. the defendant didn't intend to harm anyone during the robbery.
D. this jurisdiction has adopted the Redline limitation to the felony murder rule.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man is on trial for securities fraud. He takes the stand to testify in his own behalf. On direct examination, the man's attorney proffers evidence of his good character. Upon objection by the prosecution, which of the following statements is correct?
Choices
A. The defendant may introduce evidence to show truthfulness.
B. The defendant may introduce evidence to show honesty.
C. The defendant may not introduce evidence to show honesty because character evidence is inadmissible.
D. The defendant may not introduce evidence of truthfulness unless it is inquired into on cross- examination.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A small commercial airplane crashed in State A. The passengers and pilot, all citizens of State B, were killed in the crash. The airline that owned and operated the airplane is incorporated and has its maintenance facilities and principal place of business in State C. One day before the statute of limitations on their claims would have run, the estates of the pilot and each of the passengers filed a wrongful death action against the airline in federal court in State A. The airline was served one week later and wants to prevent the State A federal court from hearing the action. Which of the following motions is most likely to accomplish the airline's goal?
Choices
A. A motion to dismiss the action for improper venue.
B. A motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
C. A motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
D. A motion to transfer the action to a federal court in State C.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state labor code provided that no employer in the state shall knowingly employ an alien who is not lawfully residing in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful residents' right to work. A group of immigrant farm workers were continually refused employment contracts by the labor contractors in the state. Instead, the labor contractors had employed many alien workers since they would toil longer hours for less wages. The immigrant farm workers now bring suit in state court pursuant to the above-mentioned statutory provision. Which of the following determinations would most likely result as a consequence of the immigrant farm workers' lawsuit?
Choices
A. The court would declare the statute unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. The court would declare the statute constitutional as within the realm of rights reserved to the states by the Eleventh Amendment.
C. The court would declare the statute unconstitutional since the regulation of immigration is preempted.
D. The court would declare the statute constitutional since the states are not preempted in the area of economic regulation of illegal aliens.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant was charged with illegally selling arms to a foreign country without a government license. During the trial, the defendant admitted selling the weapons, which included missiles, rocket launchers, bazookas, and ammunition, to agents of the foreign country. In his defense, however, the defendant testified that he did not sell the arms as a private citizen, but rather for his employer, a federal agency. In rebutting the defendant's testimony, the government called a high-ranking official from the federal agency to the stand. He testified that if the defendant were, in fact, a member of the agency, that information would ordinarily be contained in the agency's employment records. Asked whether the defendant's employment records were on file with the agency, the official then testified, "I have searched the agency employment records diligently, but I haven't found any documentation that the defendant was employed by the agency. "Upon objection by the defendant's attorney, the official's testimony is
Choices
A. admissible, because it shows the absence of an entry in the record of a public agency.
B. admissible, because the official had firsthand knowledge of the information contained in the agency's employment records.
C. inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
D. inadmissible, because the agency employment records are the best evidence to substantiate whether the defendant was actually in the employ of the governmental intelligence agency.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman was the fee simple owner of a 20-acre tract of land. When the woman moved to another state, a man took possession of the tract. The man's possession has at all times complied with the requirements of the applicable adverse possession statute in effect. Twelve years after the man took possession, the woman died intestate, leaving her six-year-old son as her only surviving heir. Nine years after the woman's death, when the son was 15, the son's guardian discovered that the man was in possession of the tract. Assume that the statutory period of adverse possession is 20 years and the age of majority is 18. Which of the following correctly describes the state of title to the tract?
Choices
A. The man has acquired title by adverse possession.
B. The man will not acquire title unless he continues in adverse possession for an additional three years, or until the son reaches the age of 18.
C. The man will not acquire title unless he continues in adverse possession for an additional eight years, making a total of 12 years after the woman's death.
D. The man will not acquire title unless he continues in adverse possession for an additional 12years, or nine years after the son attains the ageof 18.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state enacts a statute that will allocate funds generated by state taxes to pay for one-half of the annual salaries of teachers in private schools, whether the schools are public or private, as long as the schools satisfy the requirements established by the United States Department of Education. In an action brought by several state taxpayers, all avowed atheists, to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, the enactment will most likely be declared
Choices
A. unconstitutional, as violative of the First Amendment's establishment clause.
B. unconstitutional, as violative of the First Amendment's establishment clause as applicable through the Fourteenth Amendment.
C. constitutional, as nonviolative of the First Amendment's establishment clause.
D. constitutional, as being within the area of compelling state interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A police detective received an anonymous call that marijuana was being grown in someone's home, but no other details were given. She went to the home with an investigative team including a drug-sniffing dog. On the front porch of the home the dog began pacing back and forth frantically, which indicated smelling illegal drugs. The team retreated while some of them went to get a warrant. A warrant was issued based on the dog's behavior. The search inside revealed large quantities of marijuana. The homeowner was arrested. Through counsel, he filed a motion to suppress based on the assertion that the use of the dog was an illegal search without probable cause thus rendering the warrant invalid. Should the court suppress the evidence?
Choices
A. No, because the detective had probable cause after receiving the anonymous call, which justified the use of the dog for a valid search -- the warrant was thus valid and the evidence will not be suppressed.
B. No, because the detective had a right to take the dog to make a reasonable search, which led to the finding of probable cause and the issuance of a valid warrant.
C. Yes, because the anonymous call was insufficient cause to allow for a search of the front porch with the dog, which made the warrant invalid  the suppression motion will be granted.
D. Yes, because the dog's reaction did nothing to tell them that there were drugs inside  a warrant can never be based on a dog's information.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A purchaser signed an agreement of sale to buy real estate. It had a contingency clause requiring him to make a completed application for a mortgage within a specified time. It said that time was of the essence. The purchaser failed to apply but instead asked a mortgage broker friend for his opinion as to whether he would qualify. The seller told the purchaser that she rescinded the sale because there was no mortgage application within the agreed time. A few days later, the purchaser made a belated application and received approval, but the seller insisted on a rescission of the contract. Will the seller likely prevail in rescinding the transaction?
Choices
A. Yes, because the purchaser did not make a timely application and lost the protection of the contingency clause.
B. Yes, because she rescinded the sale prior to his notifying her of the approval  the first notice communicated is the effective one.
C. No, because the amount of time that he was late was a "de minimus" delay that should not preclude him from the benefit of the bargain.
D. No, because the original request to his mortgage broker friend was a timely application within the spirit of the agreement.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man owned real estate in fee simple. He transferred a life estate in it over to a friend for the friend's lifetime. When the fee simple owner died, the life estate owner conveyed his interest to his children. The deceased fee simple owner's son sued the children on the basis that the life estate was now broken and he owned the property absolutely. Do the children of the life estate owner have an enforceable interest in the property?
Choices
A. No, the life estate was broken when the owner of the fee simple interest died.
B. No, the life estate owner is not allowed to convey his interest to other persons.
C. Yes, the life estate owner became the owner in fee simple when the original fee simple owner predeceased him.
D. Yes, the life estate owner could convey his life estate to third persons.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Loretta Landlord owned a commercial building in a commercial strip surrounded by a residential community. One of her largest spaces was rented on a month-to-month basis at $500 per month by a dance troop which held performances in the facility. The director of the dance troop moved to New York for a starring role Off-Broadway. Unfortunately the troop was unable to find another dance director, so it folded and vacated the space. Sally Sleazy learned of the closure and decided the location would be perfect for a topless strip joint. Sally rented the space from Loretta under a two-year lease at $1,000 per month without disclosing her intended use of the space. One month after the strip joint opened, the County Commissioners passed a new law prohibiting topless strip joints in that neighborhood. Sally told Loretta the new law made it impossible to operate the business, so she was leaving. If Loretta then sued Sally for breach of the lease contract, the likely outcome is a judgment for
Choices
A. Sally, because the law made performance of the lease contract impossible.
B. Loretta, because the new law was passed after the lease was executed.
C. Loretta, only if she did not know of the use Sally intended for the space.
D. Sally, because the lease contract was discharged under impossibility of performance.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state statute contained reasonable provisions for the regulation, sale, possession and use of certain weapons for self-defense in one's home, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns. The statute stressed registration and the individual's personal characteristics. The law prohibited the issuance of a license to felons and mentally ill persons or others presenting a danger of violence. It prohibited the commercial sale of guns from residential locations and required a commercial permit. Certain semi-automatic weapons were prohibited. A citizen who wished to purchase and maintain various guns in a manner violative of the statute sued the state. He claimed that the statute was a violation of the Second Amendment, which provides for the "right to keep and bear arms." The case was accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. What will the Court decide?
Choices
A. The statute is a reasonable regulation that will not hinder the right to possess a handgun for self-defense in the home and the individual's lawsuit will be dismissed.
B. The Second Amendment prohibits all forms of gun control because of the need for a strong militia, and the man's lawsuit will be successful.
C. Semi-automatic guns cannot be restricted in any way and the lawsuit will be successful.
D. The regulation of firearms for the safety of society is an absolute, unfettered right of the state governments and the individual's lawsuit is dismissed for that reason.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A chef owned a summer cottage on the lake. In order to facilitate the access to the cottage, the chef entered into an agreement with a neighbor, an adjoining land owner, whereby the neighbor, in writing, granted the chef a right-of-way over a strip of land 30 feet in width and a quarter of a mile in length along the eastern margin of the neighbor's property. Without notifying the neighbor, the chef proceeded to improve the roadbed by having the road asphalted in order to make it more accessible for motor vehicle traffic. Several years later, the neighbor started a sand business, which required him to do heavy hauling that subsequently destroyed the asphalted surface on the road. Ten years after the neighbor started his sand business, the chef sold his lakefront property to his assistant. Shortly after the assistant took possession of the cottage and property, the neighbor erected wooden barriers across the roadway, thus obstructing the access to the assistant's property. The assistant's strongest argument in an action against the neighbor for removal of the barriers, which are obstructing his access to the property, would be that
Choices
A. an easement appurtenant is alienable in that any conveyance transferring possession of the dominant tenement also passes the easement privilege.
B. the assistant, as a bonafide purchaser, is protected from the neighbor's obstruction, even though the easement was unrecorded.
C. because the easement was created by implication, the chef's prior and continuous use gave rise to a prescriptive easement.
D. the chef and the assistant, being in privity of estate, could "tack on" their successive use periods.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A brother and a sister purchased land under a deed that conveyed title to them as joint tenants with right ofsurvivorship. Common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute in the jurisdiction. The purchase price was $50,000, of which the sister paid $10,000 and the brother paid $40,000. The sisterlater mortgaged her interest in the land. The brother then died testate, leaving his entire estate to a cousin. Thesister later paid off her mortgage debt, and the mortgage was released. At the present time, who owns the land?
Choices
A. The answer depends on whether the jurisdiction follows the lien theory or the title theory ofmortgages.
B. Title is entirely in the sister as the surviving joint tenant.
C. Title is in the sister and the cousin as equal tenants in common.
D. Title is in the sister and the cousin as tenants in common, with the sister having a 20% interest and thecousin having an 80% interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two people who have been cohabitating decide to get married. The man asks the woman to agree that all of his property that he now owns will remain in his name if they ever get divorced. She agrees to that but demands a written document. However, they got married without having signed anything. Three months later, the husband leaves the wife for another woman. He sends her notice to vacate the home due to their prenuptial agreement. When she doesn't move, husband sues, asking for enforcement of the oral prenuptial contract. Will the court likely enforce the husband's claim?
Choices
A. Yes, because the consideration for the contract was the marriage and the consummation of the marriage made the contract complete and enforceable.
B. Yes, because prenuptial agreements are given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to enforcement decisions.
C. No, because a contract in consideration of marriage must be in writing and the prenuptial was therefore not legal as long as it remained oral.
D. No, because husband did not live up to his promise to put the agreement in writing and therefore he was guilty of fraud.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A hiker was enjoying a journey through a large forest when he was caught in an unexpected blizzard. As it grew dark and the snow continued, he realized he was completely lost. He felt sure that he would freeze to death during the night. When all hope seemed lost, he stumbled across a small cabin. He knocked on the door, but no one answered. He tried to open the door, realized it was not locked, and went inside. In the cabin, he found some food to eat and some blankets that kept him warm through the night. By the next morning, the snow had stopped, and he was able to make his way out of the forest. If the owner of the cabin sues the hiker, seeking to recover damages for the cost of the food and for the use of his cabin, what is the most likely outcome of the case?
Choices
A. The hiker does not owe anything because the importance of his survival outweighs the property interests of the cabin owner.
B. The hiker must pay for the cost of the food and the rental value of the cabin for one night.
C. The hiker must pay for the use of the cabin, but nothing else.
D. The hiker must pay for the cost of the food, but nothing else.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman owned a 10-acre tract of rural farmland in fee simple absolute. The woman agreed to sell the farmland to a man, and each signed a writing stating that the farmland was beitig sold: ". . . for $10,000, receipt of which is acknowledged. " In actuality, the man had not yet paid the woman the $10,000. At the date set for closing, the woman transferred a deed to the farmland to the man, who gave the woman a check for $10,000. Howevei, a few days after the woman deposited the check, she received notice from her bank that the check had not cleared, due to insufficient funds in the account. The woman then brought suit against the man. At trial, the woman seeks to testify that the man did not in fact pay her the $10,000 as recited in their written instrument. The man objects to the woman's proposed testimony. Will the trial court judge be correct in sustaining the man's objection?
Choices
A. No, because the parol evidence rule does not apply to events occurring after the forming of the writing.
B. No, because the parol evidence rule does not operate to exclude evidence to show lack or want of consideration.
C. Yes, because the written instrument appears to be a complete integration of the parties' agreement.
D. Yes, because the doctrine of promissory estoppel will prevent the woman from denying her own signed acknowledgment that she received the $10,000.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man entered a store with a gun, planning to rob the store. He was unfamiliar with guns and thought that the safety lock was on. When the store manager refused to give him any money, the man shook the gun at her to scare her into cooperating. The gun fired, killing the manager. A clerk ran in from the back stockroom. The man fired a shot into the air to scare the clerk. Unbeknownst to the man, the clerk had a heart condition, and the fright caused her to suffer a fatal heart attack. Can the man properly be convicted of felony murder?
Choices
A. No.
B. Yes, but only for the death of the store manager.
C. Yes, but only for the death of the clerk.
D. Yes, for the deaths of both the manager and the clerk.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A preacher and his posse make a habit of showing up at funerals of soldiers suspected to be gay, carrying obnoxious signs and yelling out hurtful epithets. Finally, the parents of one dead soldier has enough and sues the preacher, and the case goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Would the Court likely find in favor of the preacher or the father?
Choices
A. The father, as a funeral is a private affair.
B. The preacher, because it involves a matter of public interest.
C. The father, because time, place, and manner restrictions should have been in place.
D. The father, because the First Amendment does not include protection for vicious verbal assaults such as this.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A plaintiff filed an action in federal district court and served the defendant with the summons and complaint. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Instead of opposing the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action and filed a new action, alleging the same claims but also addressing the pleading defects outlined in the defendant's motion to dismiss. The defendant then moved to dismiss the second action, and the plaintiff again voluntarily dismissed the second action instead of filing opposition papers. The plaintiff then filed a third action, alleging the same claims but also including additional allegations that were responsive to the defendant's second motion. The defendant has moved to dismiss the third action; the plaintiff opposes the motion. Is the court likely to grant the defendant's motion?
Choices
A. No, because the plaintiff has promptly and diligently attempted to address the pleading defects.
B. No, because the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed each previous action before the defendant filed an answer or moved for summary judgment.
C. Yes, because the plaintiff failed to seek a court order dismissing the second action.
D. Yes, because the plaintiff's previously dismissed actions asserting the same claims dismissed actions asserting the same claims operate as an adjudication on the merits.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A city enacted an ordinance prohibiting the singing and chanting of songs from 1:00P. M. to 1:00A. M. by two or more persons if such noise is audible off the premises where the singing takes place. The ordinance expressly exempted from its purview the singing or chanting of religious songs. After the ordinance was enacted and went into effect, several college students were walking down the street on their way to a victory celebration following a big college football game. They began loudly chanting, "We're number 1. . . we're number 1. " One of the residents who lived on the street was greatly disturbed by the noise and reported the incident to the police, who were immediately summoned to the scene. The students who engaged in the chanting were arrested and charged with violating the ordinance. The students who were prosecuted now bring suit challenging the constitutionality of the city ordinance. Which of the following would constitute their WEAKEST argument against enforcement of the city ordinance?
Choices
A. The ordinance deprives persons of their freedom of expression, in violation of the First andFourteenth Amendments.
B. The ordinance deprives persons of their liberty without due process of law because the ordinance is not related to any legitimate community interest.
C. The statutory language of the ordinance is vague and overbroad since it attempts to encompass all forms of singing.
D. The ordinance deprives the persons of the equal protection of the laws by impermissibly distinguishing between religiously inspired singing and all forms of singing.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries that the plaintiff suffered when he was struck by the defendant's car. At trial, the plaintiff testified that he was walking across the street inside a crosswalk at the time the defendant's car hit him. This action takes place in a jurisdiction that has a statute in effect requiring all motorists to stop and permit pedestrians to cross streets at designated crosswalks. The defendant contended that the plaintiff ran into the street outside the crosswalk. Furthermore, the defendant testified that he immediately applied his brakes when he saw the plaintiff dart into the street, but couldn't stop his car in time to avoid hitting him. In support of the defendant's testimony, the defendant calls a neighbor to testify that she has observed the plaintiff frequently during the years that she has lived on that street, and that the plaintiff "always crosses the street outside the crosswalk. "The neighbor's testimony is likely to be
Choices
A. admitted, because it tends to show that the plaintiff was careless.
B. admitted, because it is probative of the plaintiff's habit of crossing the street outside the crosswalk.
C. excluded, because the neighbor was not an eyewitness to the accident.
D. excluded, because her testimony is impermissible evidence of character to show defendant's plaintiff's conduct on a particular occasion.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant shot and killed a victim at close range with a revolver. After the shooting death, the defendant was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. In this jurisdiction, first-degree murder is defined as "knowingly or willfully causing the death of another human being. "Which of the following situations, if believed by the jury, would most likely result in the defendant's acquittal of the first-degree murder charge?
Choices
A. The victim, who was the defendant's brother, suffered from an incurable case of cancer and asked the defendant to kill him to put an end to his pain and suffering.
B. The killing was not done with premeditation or deliberation.
C. The defendant intended to kill himself, but the bullet grazed his head and struck and killed the victim.
D. The defendant intended to kill another man, but the victim unknowingly stepped in front of the other man and was struck and killed by the bullet.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A defendant was wearing a black leather jacket when he entered a deli for lunch. He placed his jacket on a coat rack located in the front of the deli. After his meal, the defendant picked up a similar black leather jacket, believing it to be his own. The jacket he took, however, belonged to another customer. The defendant left the deli and walked a short distance before realizing he had taken the wrong jacket by mistake. He then returned to the deli and placed the jacket back on the coat rack. He found his own jacket, which had been partially hidden under a stack of other coats. If the defendant were arrested and charged with larceny of the other customer's jacket, he will most likely be acquitted because
Choices
A. there was a mistake of fact.
B. he returned the jacket after discovering his mistake.
C. he lacked the requisite state of mind.
D. there was no fraudulent conversion.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A plaintiff domiciled in State A brought a wrongful death action in a federal court in State A against a State B parent corporation and one of its foreign subsidiaries. The plaintiff alleged that a tire manufactured by the subsidiary in Europe had caused his wife's death in an automobile accident in Europe. The parent corporation does significant business throughout the United States, including in State A. The subsidiary conducts no business and has no employees or bank accounts in State A. The no employees or bank accounts in State A. The subsidiary manufactures its tires for the European market, but 2% of its tires are distributed in State A by the parent corporation. The subsidiary has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the subsidiary's motion?
Choices
A. No, because 2% of the subsidiary's tires entered State A through the stream of commerce.
B. No, because of the general personal jurisdiction established over the parent corporation.
C. Yes, because the accident did not occur in the United States.
D. Yes, because the subsidiary lacks continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with State A.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: The State of Florida is prosecuting a former police officer for extortion of money from prostitutes. One of the State's witnesses is Sally. Sally has an adult conviction for vehicular homicide. She was charged with driving a car in a reckless manner resulting in the death of her sister, a passenger in the car. Sally pleaded nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty and received a suspended sentence although she could have received a sentence of state imprisonment up to 5 years. At trial, evidence of this conviction is
Choices
A. admissible to impeach Sally because vehicular homicide carries a maximum penalty in excess of 1 year.
B. inadmissible to impeach Sally because she never admitted her guilt since she entered a plea of nolo contendere.
C. inadmissible to impeach Sally because she received a suspended sentence.
D. inadmissible to impeach Sally because she is only a witness and not the criminal defendant.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A manufacturer of widgets sent a letter to an international widget retailer offering to sell ten truckloads of construction-quality widgets for $1,000 per truck. The retailer emailed a note back saying "Please send 10 truckloads as promised." No shipment was sent, but four months later when the market demand for widgets skyrocketed, the retailer sued the manufacturer for breach claiming that the retailer suffered damages by not having received the shipment of ten trucks as agreed. Does the retailer have a legal right to collect damages under these facts?
Choices
A. Yes, there is a specific and detailed enough offer, followed by an unequivocal acceptance, indicating an intent to form a contract.
B. No, the parties do not set a date for delivery, which always invalidates a contract between merchants for the delivery of goods.
C. No, the retailer never called back and asked for the widgets, which means that the contract was not finally confirmed and legalized.
D. Yes, the retailer is entitled to collect damages because the manufacturer violated the doctrine of avoidable consequences.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: The Traditional Religion Advocacy Party (TRAP) has successfully lobbied the State of Texarkana for a statute named "Equal Rights for All Religions." The law requires broadcasters that air segments discussing Christianity to allow equal time for segments on Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. The American Atheism Association (AAA) has put together a broadcast segment about atheism, rejecting all religions, but four of the five Texarkana stations have declined to air the segment because they believe it would violate the statute. AAA has filed suit against the state, challenging the constitutionality of the statute. What is the strongest argument AAA can make in support of striking down the Equal Rights for All Religions statute?
Choices
A. The First Amendment prohibits government interference with freedom of the press.
B. The fact that the statute involves only broadcast media and not print media is an Equal Protection violation.
C. The First Amendment prohibits government interference with the free exercise of religion.
D. The statute is not narrowly tailored to promote a compelling governmental interest.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A car manufacturer produced a car that was sold nationwide. Problems with the car's brakes allegedly caused several accidents and injuries. Two individual buyers of the car each filed a class action, in different states, against the manufacturer, asserting the same products liability claims on behalf of all buyers nationwide. One class action was filed in federal court and the other was filed in state court. The parties in the federal action reached a court- approved settlement, and the court entered judgment dismissing the action with prejudice. The manufacturer's attorney has moved to dismiss the state court action on the basis of res judicata (claim preclusion). Should the state court look to federal or state law to decide the effect of the judgment?
Choices
A. Federal law, because the judgment was entered in federal court.
B. Federal law, because the judgment was the result of a nationwide action governed by the federal class action rule.
C. State law, because the judgment is being asserted in a state court.
D. State law, because there is no general federal common law and preclusion is a common law doctrine.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A state was facing a fiscal problem. In order to raise funds, the state decided to consider the creation of a state postal service that only its residents may use for intrastate mail. The price for stamps printed by the state postal service would be half the cost of stamps printed by the U. S. Postal Service and would always be guaranteed to arrive within 24 hours. In addition, any employees of the state would be able to send their mail for free through the state postal service. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument against the proposed legislation?
Choices
A. It constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws, because employees of the state receive personal benefits that are not enjoyed by employees of other states.
B. The negative implications that flow from the delegation to Congress of the power to establish a post office prohibit such a state postal service.
C. It denies citizens of the state who are not state government employees their rights under the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. It interferes with the sovereign autonomy of the U. S. Postal Service to operate as an independent federal agency.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: In 1993, a rancher had good record title to a 20-acre orange grove in fee simple absolute. In 1994, the rancher delivered to his son, for a sum of $1,000, a deed signed by the rancher, naming the son and his heirs as grantee, and appearing valid on its face. The son neglected to record the deed. In 1998, a farmer, aware of the existence of the rancher-to-son deed, sought out the rancher and asked to buy for $10,000 a deed to the orange grove from the rancher to the fanner and his heirs. The rancher executed such a deed, and the fanner promptly recorded it. The farmer's intent was to acquire color of title and obtain ownership of the orange grove by adverse possession. In 1998, the farmer constructed a fence around the orange grove. In 1999, the son presented his deed of the orange grove to a retiree, and for $15,000, paid by the retiree, signed and delivered a deed of the orange grove in favor of the retiree and his heirs. After receiving the deed, the retiree made no effort to search the title, to examine the property, or to record the deed. In 2003, a buyer paid the fanner $20,000, and the farmer delivered to the buyer a deed of the orange grove in favor of the buyer and his heirs. The buyer had examined the property, had searched the title, and had no knowledge of the farmer's awareness of the prior rancher-to-son instrument. Although the buyer did not reside on the property, he regularly visited the orange grove twice a week. The buyer recorded his deed. In 2007 for $25,000 paid by an orange grower, the retiree signed and delivered adeed of the orange grove naming the orange grower and his heirs as grantees. Before the grower had paid the retiree and taken his deed, the grower visited the orange grove and observed the fence. However, the buyer was not present when the grower visited the property and nothing suggested who if anyone was using it. In any case, the grower did not attempt to search the title before making his purchase. This jurisdiction uses Grantor Grantee Indices and has no Tract Index. In 2008, what is the present state of title to the orange grove if the jurisdiction's recording act provides: "Every conveyance of real property shall be invalid as against any person, except the grantor, his heirs, and assigns, having actual notice thereof, unless it is recorded as provided by statute"?
Choices
A. In a notice jurisdiction, the grower, as a subsequent bonafide purchaser, is only chargeable with notice of what appears in his chain of title and, therefore, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
B. In a race notice jurisdiction, the farmer would acquire equitable title to the orange grove, because he erected the fence and failed to inform the buyer of the prior rancher-to-son instrument.
C. In a race notice jurisdiction, the buyer, as subsequent bonafide purchaser without notice of the prior rancher-to-son instrument, would acquire record title to the orange grove.
D. In a notice jurisdiction, the retiree would acquire record title to the orange grove even though he failed to record his deed.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A young boy and a young girl were playing with a football on the sidewalk next to a street. They were laughing as they pushed and pulled each other, trying to get the ball and keep it away from each other. Just as a car approached on the street, the girl lost her balance and fell off the sidewalk and into the street. The driver of the car tried to swerve to avoid her, but ran over her leg. The girl suffered a broken leg. If the girl's parents assert a claim on her behalf against the driver to recover damages for her injuries, they will most likely
Choices
A. prevail, unless the driver was driving his vehicle within the posted speed limit.
B. prevail, unless the girl fell because the boy negligently pushed her toward the street.
C. not prevail, unless the driver was driving negligently when the accident occurred.
D. not prevail, unless the driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Each year, the local boys' and girls' club sponsors a "Baseball Card Bonanza. " During the three- day event, collectors of baseball cards gather, exchanging and swapping old cards. A boy and a girl, both 12-year-old youngsters at the bonanza, were looking at each other's cards when they were approached by a 32-year-old collector. The collector asked the boy and girl if he could look through their baseball cards. The boy and girl nodded affirmatively. As the collector was flipping through the boy's cards, he found a 1948 card featuring Branch Rickey, the former owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The collector, who knew the card was worth more than $500, offered the boy 50 cents for the card. The boy thought the card had very little value because he knew that Rickey was not a major league baseball player. The boy accepted the 50 cents and gave the Rickey baseball card to the collector. The next day the boy found out that the baseball card was worth$600. If the boy asserts a claim against the collector for deceit, will the boy prevail?
Choices
A. Yes, because the collector did not disclose the true value of the card.
B. Yes, because the boy was the true owner of the card and was entitled to the benefit of the bargain.
C. No, because the collector made no false representations of fact.
D. No, because the boy was not justified in relying on the collector's offer.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: On January 31, a supermarket entered into a written contract with a produce company to purchase oranges. The contract contained a provision wherein the supermarket promised to purchase "as many oranges as required, but at a minimum 100 bushels per month at a price of $20 per bushel for the next year. " The agreement also provided that any modifications must be in writing. On February 1, the produce company shipped the supermarket 70 bushels of oranges, which were accepted and paid for. On March 1, the produce company tendered 80 bushels of oranges, which the supermarket accepted and paid for. On April 1, the produce company delivered 100 bushels of oranges to the supermarket. This shipment was accepted and also was promptly paid for. On April 2, the manager of the supermarket became concerned because a Florida drought had resulted in a sharp increase in the price of oranges. Consequently, the manager consulted the supermarket's attorney, who advised him to demand adequate assurances that the produce company would perform its obligations under the terms of the contract. Heeding the attorney's advice, the manager sent a letter on April 3 to the produce company, expressing his concern and requesting an adequate assurance of due performance for the balance of the contract. This letter was received by the produce company on April 4. Which of the following best states the supermarket's legal rights against the produce company?
Choices
A. Cancel the contract on May 1, cover immediately and then sue for damages.
B. Wait until the May 1 shipment; if it doesn't comply, demand adequate assurances, and not obtaining them, then sue for damages.
C. Wait until the end of the contract and then sue for damages.
D. Wait a reasonable time not to exceed 30 days; if adequate assurances are not received, cancel the contract, cover immediately and then sue for damages.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A uniformed United States Park Policeman pulled over a motorist for going through a red light. The man reacted gruffly, telling the officer that he had no authority to stop him. There was a brief scuffle, and the officer issued two more charges, for disorderly conduct and failure to obey an officer. Eventually, the defendant pled guilty to the red light citation and the other two charges were dismissed. He then filed a federal court action against the park policeman in which he asserted a Bivens civil rights claim for false arrest and malicious prosecution. The first legal theory was that the park officer lacked authority to stop the plaintiff on a New York street and arrest him for a state traffic violation. He claimed that the officer was outside of his federal park land jurisdiction. Will the court likely uphold the authority of the park police under these facts?
Choices
A. The U.S. Park Police have the authority to make a warrantless arrest for a state law violation because of statutory grants of authority from the various states.
B. All federal officers can make arrests for all criminal offenses within a state's geographical jurisdiction under the priority status of federal law and federal law officers.
C. The federal officer was way outside his scope of authority and he clearly cannot make an arrest outside of the confines of the federal park systems.
D. The federal officer is allowed to arrest for homicide and serious felonies but cannot make traffic arrests within a state's geographical jurisdiction.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: An avowed corrimunist was elected vice president of a union. A senator, in his investigation of communist infiltration of national labor unions, found a provision in a statute passed by Congress, which makes it a crime for a member of the communist party to act as an official of a labor union. After a subsequent legislative hearing, the communist is dismissed from his position by the union. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the applicable rule of constitutional law regarding the aforementioned provision of the statute?
Choices
A. The statutory provision is a form of unconstitutional prior restraint on a person's First Amendment right of free association.
B. Making it a crime for a Communist to hold a union office is a suspect classification, which violates the equal protection clause.
C. The statutory prohibition is a reasonable method of discrimination since the benefit to the public outweighs the injury or restrictions that would be inflicted upon the person.
D. The statutory provision in the act is a form of legislative punishment violative of the Constitution as a bill of attainder.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A bakery incorporated and headquartered in State A had a dispute with a mill incorporated and headquartered in State B over the quality of the flour the mill had delivered to the bakery. The bakery sued the mill in a federal court in State A for breach of contract, seeking $100,000 in damages. The contract between the bakery and the mill contained a clause designating State B courts as the sole venue for litigating disputes arising under the contract. Under precedent of the highest court in State A, forum-selection clauses are unenforceable as against public policy; under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, such clauses are enforceable. The mill has moved to transfer the case to a federal court in State B, citing the forum-selection clause in the parties' contract and asserting the facts that the flour was produced in State B and that the majority of likely witnesses are in State B. Is the court likely to grant the mill's motion?
Choices
A. No, because State A law treats forum- selection clauses as unenforceable.
B. No, because the mill should have instead filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue.
C. Yes, because federal common law makes the forum-selection clause controlling.
D. Yes, because federal law governs transfers of venue, and it would be more convenient for the witnesses and parties to litigate the claim in State B.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A 16-year-old boy was bullied regularly at school by several older boys. The 16-year-old was developmentally disabled and his mannerisms were a magnet for malicious bullies. One day the boy stole his father's licensed handgun and shot one of the bullies dead. The district attorney announced prosecution of the teen as an adult and asked for the death penalty due to aggravating circumstances. The trial court certified the boy over to adult criminal court. The boy was convicted and sentenced to death. An appeal was taken on his behalf all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on the merits. Will the Court affirm the sentence of death?
Choices
A. Yes, children aged 14 and older are treated as adults and, as adults, they are subject to the same capital punishment penalty as other adults.
B. No, a minor under 16 cannot be tried in adult court because the Eighth Amendment clause against cruel and unusual punishment forbids it, and the whole prosecution was unconstitutional.
C. Yes, when a crime is committed by malice aforethought, the age of the perpetrator doesn't matter because the same criminal intent requires the same punishment.
D. No, the Court applied the bright-line test that forbids capital punishment of youth under the age of 18 because there are distinct differences between an adolescent and an adult.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A recent law school graduate took and passed the bar examination. Before the swearing-in ceremony, however, the graduate received a letter from the bar examiners indicating that his admission would be delayed until a character fitness investigation had been completed. The examiners also requested information as to whether the graduate had ever been arrested, convicted, or placed on probation for a criminal offense. The graduate had been arrested as a juvenile for possession of marijuana. He was placed in a special drug education program for first- time juvenile offenders and was told that the arrest would be expunged. Since the graduate believed that he had been totally exonerated of criminal liability, he didn't report the arrest on his bar application form. The bar examiners had, in fact, received an anonymous letter making reference to the graduate's juvenile arrest and suggesting that he was not morally fit to be admitted as an attorney. In addition, the letter provided detailed information about the facts related to the offense. As a result, the examiners hired a special investigator, to look into the matter. As part of the investigator's inquiry, he went to the clerk of the juvenile court where the offense occurred and demanded access to the records concerning the graduate. The clerk refused, citing a state statute that required all court and police records relating to juveniles be sealed. After all other attempts to gain access to the records proved futile, the bar examiners filed suit in federal district court demanding access to the relevant documents. The court should rule that, as applied to this case, the state statute regarding the sealing of juvenile records is
Choices
A. constitutional, because juveniles are entitled to the equal protection of the laws.
B. constitutional, because the state has a strong and legitimate interest in rehabilitating juvenile offenders, and this is furthered by protecting them from embarrassment in later life through revelation ofjuvenile offenses.
C. unconstitutional, because the bar examiners, as a quasi-judicial agency, is entitled to haveaccess to all relevant public documents.
D. unconstitutional, because it hinders the interests of justice by preventing the bar examiners from determining the fitness of candidates to practice law.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A construction worker sued an insulation manufacturer in federal court, claiming that he had developed a chronic health condition as a result of 20 years of exposure to the manufacturer's insulation at his work sites. The manufacturer answered, denying all liability and stating that it had never supplied its insulation to the worker's employer. The worker's attorney deposed the manufacturer's president, and the manufacturer's attorney deposed the worker. Immediately thereafter, the manufacturer moved for summary judgment on the ground that the worker had no evidence showing that the insulation had ever been used by the worker's employer. What would be the worker's best response to the motion for summary judgment?
Choices
A. Argue that more time is needed for additional discovery to show the manufacturer's liability, and attach a declaration describing the desired discovery.
B. Argue that the motion should be denied, because a central issue in the case will be the manufacturer's credibility on the question of its distribution of the insulation, and only a jury can decide questions of credibility.
C. Argue that the motion should be denied, because the manufacturer failed to attach any evidence to its motion to show that the insulation was not used by the worker's employer.
D. Make a cross-motion for summary judgment arguing that the manufacturer has introduced no evidence to show that its insulation did not harm the worker.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: Two days before his home was to be sold at a foreclosure sale, a homeowner obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court that prevented his lender from proceeding with the sale for 14 days or until a preliminary injunction hearing could take place, whichever was sooner. When a preliminary injunction hearing could not be scheduled within the original 14-day period, the court extended the TRO for another 30 days. The lender appealed the court's order extending the TRO. The homeowner has moved to dismiss the appeal. Is the appellate court likely to dismiss the appeal?
Choices
A. No, because a TRO is immediately appealable.
B. No, because the 30-day extension makes the TRO equivalent to a preliminary injunction and therefore appealable.
C. Yes, because a TRO is not appealable under the interlocutory appeals statute.
D. Yes, because there is no final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A woman was seven months pregnant with her first child. One afternoon, the woman was in the kitchen of her home preparing a snack when she glanced out the window and saw a horrible crime being committed. The woman watched in horror as a local gang member pulled out a handgun and used it to shoot the victim, a member of a rival gang. The gang member did not know anyone was witnessing his act of shooting the victim. The woman watched as the victim collapsed and fell dead on her neighbor's front lawn. As a result of her shock from viewing this horrible incident, the woman suffered a miscarriage. If the woman asserts a claim against the local gang member who shot the victim, the woman will
Choices
A. recover, because she suffered a physical injury, rather than just emotional harm.
B. recover, because the gang member acted intentionally in shooting the victim.
C. not recover, because the woman was not within the zone of danger.
D. not recover, because the gang member was unaware that the woman was watching.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A man allowed his friend to borrow a debit card to buy a computer. When the friend refused to return the card during a later conversation in a bar, the man pointed a handgun at the friend, held his finger on the trigger, and said, "Give it back!" A bystander screamed and threw a beer bottle at the man. The bottle struck the man's hand and caused the gun to discharge, killing the friend instantly. The man was convicted of murder in a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide. On appeal, he argues that the evidence, which essentially set out the facts above, was insufficient to support a verdict of murder. Should the man's conviction be reversed?
Choices
A. No, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of depraved-heart murder.
B. No, because the evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of felony murder.
C. Yes, because the evidence showed that the man did not intentionally pull the trigger.
D. Yes, because the evidence showed that the man's intent was not to kill the friend, but to take property from him under a claim of right.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


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

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: After a severe thunderstorm had struck the area, a homeowner discovered that her roof had suffered extensive damage. She telephoned a roofer to inquire about having the necessary repairs done to her roof. The roofer agreed to finish the work within 30 days, and the homeowner promised to pay$10,000. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
Choices
A. The performance of the roofer would be a constructive condition precedent to the performance by the homeowner.
B. The performance by the homeowner would be an implied condition subsequent to the performance by the roofer.
C. The performances of the homeowner and the roofer would be constructive concurrent conditions.
D. The contract would be unenforceable, because it was oral.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A county owns a large expanse of land next to the ocean. Four years ago, in order to enhance the recreational aspects of the land, the county leased most of it to a private company. The lease required the company to construct and operate a first-rate golf course and country club complete with bar, restaurant, and private marina and to pay the county 15% of its net profits as rent. The company set up bylaws, which were reviewed and approved by the county at the time the lease was negotiated. According to the bylaws, the golf course and country club, complete with its restaurant and bar, would be open to members only, and the membership committee is empowered to set up strict membership "standards," as well as the cost of membership fees and dues. Upon completion of the facilities, the state granted the company a license to sell alcoholic beverages in its restaurant and bar. The membership committee announced that the membership fee is $5,000 and the monthly dues $75 per month. Furthermore, the membership committee had a policy of approving only membership applications for Latino Men, while disapproving and denying all applications of women, African Americans, white Americans, and other minorities. A white resident of the county, upon denial of membership, brings an action against the company seeking injunctive relief to compel his admission claiming that denial of membership to white residents violates his right to equal protection. Which of the following statements is most accurate?
Choices
A. The company will prevail because its denial of membership lacks the requisite state action.
B. The plaintiff will win because even though the company is a privately owned corporation, the state has affirmatively encouraged or facilitated its discriminating acts.
C. The company will win, because the plaintiff lacks standing to assert the rights of discrimination against white Americans as a group.
D. The plaintiff will win, because denial of membership to white residents cannot be justified by a rational basis.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: A national distributor of windows selected a retailer to sell its windows in a specified geographic area. The parties negotiated a written distribution agreement, which stated that any order for windows placed by the retailer would be binding on the distributor "only when expressly accepted by the distributor." For the next two years, the retailer forwarded orders to the distributor, and the distributor always filled the orders. In the third year, the distributor accused the retailer of overcharging customers to install the distributor's windows. The retailer responded that the distributor had no control over the retailer's installation prices. When the distributor received the retailer's next order for windows, it refused to fill the order. If the retailer sues the distributor for breach of contract, will it be likely to prevail?
Choices
A. No, because the retailer's forwarding of orders to the distributor did not give rise to an obligation on the distributor's part to fill the orders.
B. No, because the retailer's practice of overcharging customers excused the distributor's refusal to fill the order.
C. Yes, because the distributor's claim regarding overcharging customers is independent of its obligation to fill the retailer's order.
D. Yes, because the parties' course of dealing binds the distributor to fill the retailer's order.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D


Question:
Question: One evening, a defendant set fire to an occupied house. As a result of the blaze, the homeowner's daughter was killed. The defendant was charged with felony murder on the first count and arson on the second count of the two-count indictment. The jury found the defendant guilty on the first count, but returned a not guilty verdict on the second count. The defendant's attorney's motion to set aside the guilty verdict on the felony murder charge will be
Choices
A. granted, because the guilty verdict is plain error that adversely affects the defendant's constitutional rights.
B. granted, because the verdicts are legally inconsistent and should lead to an acquittal of both charges.
C. denied, because the verdicts do not amount to a reversible error.
D. denied, because the defendant's proper remedy is to seek an appellate review for a non-constitutional error.

Choices:
- A
- B
- C
- D