instruction
stringlengths 53
4.17k
| response
stringlengths 1
3.48k
|
|---|---|
In March, when Ohm was 17, Stereo delivered to $\mathrm{Ohm}$ a television set. At that time Ohm agreed in writing to pay $ 400$ for the set on July 1 , when he would reach his 18 th birthday. Eighteen is the applicable statutory age of majority, and on that date $\mathrm{Ohm}$ was to receive the proceeds of a trust. On July 1, when the reasonable value of the television set was $ 250$, Ohm sent Stereo a signed letter stating, "I'll only pay you $ 300$. That is all the set is worth." In an action against $\mathrm{Ohm}$ for money damages on July 2 , what is the maximum amount that Stereo will be entitled to recover?
Options:
A. Nothing.
B. $ 250$, the reasonable value of the set.
C. $ 300$, the amount $\mathrm{Ohm}$ promised to pay in his letter of July 1.
D. $ 400$, the original sale price. | C |
Zall, a resident of the state of Paxico, brought suit in federal district court against Motors, Inc., a Paxico corporation. Zall seeks recovery of $ 12,000$ actual and $ 12,000$ punitive damages arising from Motors's sale to him of a defective automobile. Zall's suit is based only on a common law contract theory. From a constitutional standpoint, should the federal district court hear this suit on its merits?
Options:
A. Yes, because Article III vests federal courts with jurisdiction over cases involving the obligation of contracts.
B. Yes, because it is an action affecting interstate commerce.
C. No, because this suit is not within the jurisdiction of an Article III court.
D. No, because there is no case or controversy within the meaning of Article III. | C |
A statute of the state of Lanape flatly bans the sale or distribution of contraceptive devices to minors. Drugs, Inc., a national retailer of drugs and related items, is charged with violating the Lanape statute. Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument Drugs, Inc., could make in defending itself against prosecution for violation of this statute?
Options:
A. The statute constitutes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
B. The statute denies minors one of their fundamental rights without due process.
C. The statute denies Drugs, Inc., a privilege or immunity of state citizenship.
D. The statute violates the First Amendment right to freedom of religion because it regulates morals. | B |
A written contract was entered into between Bouquet, a financier-investor, and Vintage Corporation, a winery and grape-grower. The contract provided that Bouquet would invest $ 1$ million in Vintage for its capital expansion and, in return, that Vintage, from grapes grown in its famous vineyards, would produce and market at least 500,000 bottles of wine each year for five years under the label "Premium Vintage-Bouquet." The contract included provisions that the parties would share equally the profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by Vintage only through Claret, a wholesale distributor of fine wines. Neither Bouquet nor Vintage had previously dealt with Claret. Claret learned of the contract two days later from reading a trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immediately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility. 81. If Vintage refuses to distribute the wine through Claret and Claret then sues Vintage for breach of contract, is it likely that Claret will prevail? (A) Yes, because Vintage's performance was to run to Claret rather than to Bouquet. (B) Yes, because Bouquet and Vintage could reasonably foresee that Claret would change his position in reliance on the contract. (C) No, because Bouquet and Vintage did not expressly agree that Claret would have enforceable rights under their contract. (D) No, because Bouquet and Vintage, having no apparent motive to benefit Claret, appeared in making the contract to have been protecting or serving only their own interests. For this question only, assume the following facts. Soon after making its contract with Bouquet, Vintage, without Bouquet's knowledge or assent, sold its vineyards but not its winery to Agribiz, a large agricultural corporation. Under the terms of this sale, Agribiz agreed to sell to Vintage all grapes grown on the land for five years. Agribiz's employees have no experience in wine-grape production, and Agribiz has no reputation in the wine industry as a grape producer or otherwise. The BouquetVintage contract was silent on the matter of Vintage's selling any or all of its business assets. If Bouquet seeks an appropriate judicial remedy against Vintage for entering into the Vintage-Agribiz transaction, is Bouquet likely to prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because the Vintage-Agribiz transaction created a significant risk of diminishing the profits in which Bouquet would share under his contract with Vintage.
B. Yes, because the Bouquet-Vintage contract did not contain a provision authorizing a delegation of Vintage's duties.
C. No, because Vintage remains in a position to perform under the Bouquet-Vintage contract.
D. No, because Vintage, as a corporation, must necessarily perform its contracts by delegating duties to individuals. | A |
All lawyers practicing in the state of Erewhon must be members of the State Bar Association, by order of the state supreme court. Several state officials serve on the Bar Association's Board of Bar Governors. The Board of Bar Governors authorizes the payment of dues for two staff members to the Cosmopolitan Club, a private dining club licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. The Cosmopolitan Club is frequented by affluent businessmen and professionals and by legislators. It is generally known that the purpose of the membership of the Bar Association staff is to enable them to go where members of the "elite" meet and to lobby for legislation in which the Bar Association is interested. The State Association has numerous committees and subcommittees concerned with family law, real estate law, unauthorized practice, etc., and its recommendations often influence state policy. Some committee meetings are held at the Cosmopolitan Club. The club is known to have rules which restrict membership by race, religion, and sex. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, who are members of the Erewhon Bar Association, petition the Board of Bar Governors to adopt a resolution prohibiting the payment of club dues to and the holding of meetings of the Bar Association or its committees at places that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex. After substantial public discussion, the Board of Bar Governors, by a close vote, fails to pass such a resolution. These events receive extensive coverage in the local newspapers. Plaintiffs bring an action in federal court seeking an injunction against such payments and the holding of meetings in such places as the Cosmopolitan Club. Which of the following actions should a federal district court take with respect to jurisdiction?
Options:
A. Hear the case on the merits, because a federal claim is presented.
B. Hear the case on the merits, because the expenditure of state funds in support of segregation is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment.
C. Abstain from jurisdiction, because the constitutional issue should be litigated first in a state court.
D. Dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, because the issue of Bar Association activities is solely within the domain of state law. | A |
Although by all appearances Herb and Edna, an elderly couple, were destitute, they had, in fact, substantial cash in the bank. Their new neighbors, the Smiths, feeling sorry for them on Thanksgiving, bought a month's supply of food and gave it to Herb and Edna. Later, Edna confided in the Smiths that she and Herb had money and told them that, because they had been so kind, she was leaving them money in her will. All of Herb's and Edna's bank accounts were held in joint tenancy. When Edna died, at the Smiths' request Herb gave the Smiths the following signed instrument: "In consideration of my wife's promise to the Smiths, and their agreement not to sue her estate, I agree to pay them the sum of $ 5,000$." When Herb died of a heart attack several days later, the Smiths asked the administrator of his estate to pay them the $ 5,000$. The administrator refused on the ground that there was no consideration for the agreement. On which of the following theories would it be most likely that the Smiths would recover?
Options:
A. Herb's written instrument was a binding unilateral contract.
B. Herb's acceptance of the food was fraudulent.
C. Herb is bound by promissory estoppel.
D. Herb and the Smiths entered into a valid compromise. | D |
Johnston purchased 100 bolts of standard blue wool, No. 1 quality, from McHugh. The sales contract provided that Johnston would make payment prior to inspection. The 100 bolts were shipped and Johnston paid McHugh. Upon inspection, however, Johnston discovered that the wool was No. 2 quality. Johnston thereupon tendered back the wool to McHugh and demanded return of his payment. McHugh refused on the ground that there is no difference between No. 1 quality wool and No. 2 quality wool. What is Johnston's remedy because the wool was nonconforming?
Options:
A. Specific performance.
B. Damages measured by the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of conforming goods.
C. Damages measured by the price paid plus the difference between the contract price and the cost of buying substitute goods.
D. None, since he waived his remedies by agreeing to pay before inspection. | C |
Assume for the purposes of this question that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state. The committee wants you to $\mathrm{draft}$ legislation to make all restrictions on land use, imposed by deeds (now or hereafter recorded), unenforceable in the future so that public landuse planning through zoning will have exclusive control in matters of land use. Which of the following is least likely to be a consideration in the drafting of such legislation?
Options:
A. Compensation for property rights taken by public authority.
B. Impairment of contract.
C. Sovereign immunity.
D. Police power. | C |
The state of Missoula has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. None of its provisions conflict with federal statutes. The Missoula election code provides that in a special-purpose election for directors of a state watershed improvement district, the franchise is limited to landowners within the district, because they are the only ones directly affected by the outcome. Each vote is weighted according to the proportion of the holding of that individual in relation to the total affected property. The best argument in support of the statute and against the application of the "one person, one vote" principle in this situation is that the principle:
Options:
A. Applies only to election of individuals to statewide public office.
B. Does not apply where property rights are involved.
C. Does not apply because the actions of such a district principally affect landowners.
D. Does not apply because of rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. | C |
Osif owned Broadacres in fee simple. For a consideration of $ 5,000$, Osif gave Bard a written option to purchase Broadacres for $ 300,000$. The option was assignable. For a consideration of $ 10,000$, Bard subsequently gave an option to Cutter to purchase Broadacres for $ 325,000$. Cutter exercised his option. Bard thereupon exercised his option. Bard paid the agreed price of $ 300,000$, and took title to Broadacres by deed from Osif. Thereafter, Cutter refused to consummate his purchase. Bard brought an appropriate action against Cutter for specific performance, or, if that should be denied, then for damages. Cutter counterclaimed for return of the $ 10,000$. In this action, the court will:
Options:
A. Grant money damages only to Bard.
B. Grant specific performance to Bard.
C. Grant Bard only the right to retain the $ 10,000$.
D. Require Bard to refund the $ 10,000$ to Cutter. | B |
Drake owned a small warehouse that he leased to Teague, who used it as a storage and distribution center for fresh cut flowers being shipped to area florists. Drake wanted to put Teague out of business so that he could lease the warehouse to someone else at a higher rent. $\mathrm{He}$ entered the warehouse one night using a master key, and turned off the cooling system to destroy the flowers. To ensure that all of Teague's inventory would be destroyed, he also deployed several kerosene space heaters. While he was filling one, a small amount of kerosene spilled and was ignited by an ash from his cigarette. Although the fire that started was small at first, Drake panicked when he saw the flames and ran out of the building. The fire eventually spread to the walls of the building and heavily damaged it before being extinguished by firefighters. If Drake is charged with arson, can he be found guilty?
Options:
A. Yes, because Drake caused the fire during the commission of a malicious felony.
B. Yes, because Drake did nothing when the kerosene caught on fire.
C. No, because Drake did not intend to set the building on fire.
D. No, because Drake cannot be liable for arson of a building that he owned. | B |
Harold and Wanda, once married to each other, had gone through a bitter divorce. The divorce decree awarded custody of the couple's four-year-old son Jake to Wanda, with Harold receiving visitation rights. On the first opportunity that Harold had to take Jake for the weekend, Harold disappeared with Jake. Wanda was greatly distressed and called Harold's parents, Grandmaw and Grandpaw, on a weekly basis, always asking if they knew anything about the whereabouts of Harold and Jake. Grandmaw and Grandpaw knew quite well where Harold and Jake were, and they often sent money to help support Harold while he was on the run. However, they always insisted that they knew nothing about the child. Four years after Jake was abducted, the police arrested Harold and returned Jake to his mother. Wanda files an action against Grandmaw and Grandpaw alleging infliction of emotional distress. Will Wanda prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because Grandmaw and Grandpaw acted in deliberate disregard of a high probability that their actions would cause Wanda to suffer emotional distress.
B. Yes, but only if Grandmaw and Grandpaw actually knew that their actions would cause Wanda to suffer emotional distress.
C. No, unless Wanda can prove that she suffered physical harm.
D. No, because Wanda never was in a zone of danger. | A |
Four years ago, Owen held Blackacre, a tract of land, in fee simple absolute. In that year he executed and delivered to Price a quitclaim deed which purported to release and quitclaim to Price all of the right, title, and interest of Owen in Blackacre. Price accepted the quitclaim and placed the deed in his safe deposit box. Owen was indebted to Crider in the amount of $ 35,000$. In September of the current year, Owen executed and delivered to Crider a warranty deed, purporting to convey the fee simple to Blackacre, in exchange for a full release of the debt he owed to Crider. Crider immediately recorded his deed. In December, Price caused his quitclaim deed to Blackacre to be recorded and notified Crider that he (Price) claimed title. Assume that there is no evidence of occupancy of Blackacre and assume, further, that the jurisdiction where Blackacre is situated has a recording statute which required good faith and value as elements of the junior claimant's priority. Which of the following is the best comment concerning the conflicting claims of Price and Crider?
Options:
A. Price cannot succeed, because the quitclaim deed through which he claims prevents him from being bona fide (in good faith).
B. The outcome will turn on the view taken as to whether Crider paid value within the meaning of the statute requiring this element.
C. The outcome will turn on whether Price paid value (a fact not given in the statement).
D. Price's failure to record until December of the current year estops him from asserting title against Crider. | B |
Otto conveyed Goldacre to "Andy, his heirs and assigns, but if Andy dies and is not survived by children by his present wife, Jane, then to Bob and his heirs and assigns." Shortly after taking possession, Andy discovered rich metal deposits on the land, opened a mining operation, and removed and sold a considerable quantity of valuable ore without giving Bob any notice of his action. Andy has no children. Andy, Jane, and Bob are all still living. Bob brought an action in equity for an accounting of the value of the ore removed and for an injunction against further removal. If the decision is for Andy, it will be because:
Options:
A. Bob has no interest in Goldacre.
B. The right to take minerals is an incident of a defeasible fee simple.
C. The right to take minerals is an incident of the right to possession.
D. There was no showing that Andy acted in bad faith. | B |
Duncan was charged with aggravated assault. At trial Duncan did not testify; however, he sought to offer opinion evidence of his good character for truth and veracity. This testimony should be:
Options:
A. Admitted, because a criminal defendant is entitled to offer evidence of his good character.
B. Admitted, because a party's credibility is necessarily in issue.
C. Excluded, because evidence of character is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity therewith.
D. Excluded, because it is evidence of a trait not pertinent to the case. | D |
Dray was prosecuted for bank robbery. At trial, the bank teller, Wall, was unable to identify Dray, now bearded, as the bank robber. The prosecutor then showed Wall a group of photographs, and Wall testified that she had previously told the prosecutor that the middle picture (concededly a picture of Dray before he grew a beard) was a picture of the bank robber. Wall's testimony is:
Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B. Inadmissible, because it is a violation of Dray's right of confrontation.
C. Admissible as prior identification by the witness.
D. Admissible as past recollection recorded. | C |
In a contract suit by Perez against Drake, each of the following is an accepted method of authenticating Drake's signature on a document offered by Perez except:
Options:
A. A nonexpert who, in preparation for trial, has familiarized himself with Drake's usual signature testifies that, in his opinion, the questioned signature is genuine.
B. The jury, without the assistance of an expert, compares the questioned signature with an admittedly authentic sample of Drake's handwriting.
C. A witness offers proof that the signature is on a document that has been in existence for at least 20 years, that was in a place where it would likely be if it was authentic, and that has no suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
D. A witness testifies that Drake admitted that the signature was his. | A |
Jaywalking (crossing a street outside of a crosswalk or not at an intersection) is punishable by a fine in Metropolis. Bert, who had lived in Metropolis all of his 67 years, was out windowshopping with his wife, Ruth, also 67 , when he saw a friend across the street at a diner they both frequented. Telling Ruth that he would be right back, he saw that there were no cars nearby and so strode briskly across the street in the middle of the block. As he reached the other sidewalk, a police officer who had been checking parked cars for parking violations stepped up to Bert and said, "Hold it buddy, let's see your driver's license," and then reached for her citation book. Bert, a city dweller from birth, had always walked or used public transportation, had never learned to drive, and did not have a driver's license. When he told the officer that he did not have a driver's license, she said, "All right, I'm taking you in," and seized his wrist, twisting it up and behind him in a personnel control lock. A black belt in judo, Bert easily slipped the officer's grasp. "You asked for it," she then growled, and pulled her baton from her belt. When she attempted to strike Bert, he moved swiftly to the side, chopped at her arm, and caused the baton to fall from her grasp to the pavement. At that point two other officers arrived on the scene and arrested Bert. Ruth watched the entire episode from across the street and became greatly distressed. 34. Bert brings an action against the first officer for battery. What will be the probable outcome of this litigation? (A) He will lose, because he struck the officer. (B) He will lose, because the offense was committed in the officer's presence. (C) He will win, unless he is found guilty of jaywalking. (D) He will win, because the officer was not privileged to arrest him. If Dunken is charged with first degree murder for the death of the security guard, the court should charge the jury on the issue of the defense of intoxication that:
Options:
A. Voluntary intoxication is no defense to the crime of first degree murder as defined by the statute.
B. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crime of first degree murder if Dunken would not have killed the security guard but for the intoxication.
C. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to the crime of first degree murder if it prevented Dunken from forming the intent to commit a burglary. | C |
As part of a comprehensive federal aid-toeducation program, Congress included the following provisions as conditions for state receipt of federal funds: (1) Whenever textbooks are provided to students without charge, they must include no religious instruction and must be made available on the same terms to students in all public and private schools accredited by the state educational authority. (2) Salary supplements can be paid to teachers in public and private schools, up to $10 \%$ of existing salary schedules, where present compensation is less than the average salary for persons of comparable training and experience, provided that no such supplement is paid to any teacher who instructs in religious subjects. (3) Construction grants can be made toward the cost of physical plants at private colleges and universities, provided that no part of the grant is used for buildings in which instruction in religious subject matters is offered. Federal taxpayer Bates also challenges the construction grants to church-operated private colleges and universities. The most likely result is that the construction grants will be:
Options:
A. Sustained, because aid to one aspect of an institution of higher education not shown to be pervasively sectarian does not necessarily free it to spend its other resources for religious purposes.
B. Sustained, because bricks and mortar do not aid religion in a way forbidden by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
C. Held unconstitutional, because any financial aid to a church-operated school strengthens the religious purposes of the institution.
D. Held unconstitutional, because the grants involve or cause an excessive entanglement with religion. | A |
Seller and Buyer executed an agreement for the sale of real property. Assume for this question only that Seller dies before closing and his will leaves his personal property to Perry and his real property to Rose. There being no breach of the agreement by either party, which of the following is correct?
Options:
A. Death, an eventuality for which the parties could have provided, terminates the agreement if they did not so provide.
B. Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes, because the doctrine of equitable conversion does not apply to these circumstances.
C. Perry is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes.
D. Title was rendered unmarketable by Seller's death. | C |
Dunbar and Balcom went into a drugstore, where Dunbar reached into the cash register and took out $ 200$. Stone, the owner of the store, came out of a back room, saw what had happened, and told Dunbar to put the money back. Balcom then took a revolver from under his coat and shot and killed Stone. Dunbar claims that Stone owed her $ 200$ and that she went to the drugstore to try to collect the debt. She said that she asked Balcom to come along just in case Stone made trouble but that she did not plan on using any force and did not know that Balcom was armed. 145. If Dunbar is prosecuted for murder on the basis of felony murder and the jury believes her claim, she should be found: (A) Guilty, because her companion, Balcom, committed a homicide in the course of a felony. (B) Guilty, because her taking Balcom with her to the store created the risk of death that occurred during the commission of a felony. (C) Not guilty, because she did not know that Balcom was armed and thus did not have the required mental state for felony murder. (D) Not guilty, because she believed she was entitled to the money and thus did not intend to steal. The modification between Barnes and Stevens reducing the contractual amounts by $50 \%$ was:
Options:
A. Enforceable in all respects.
B. Enforceable only to the extent of beeswax tendered by Stevens.
C. Unenforceable, because there was no consideration for Barnes's promise to take only one-half of the production. | A |
A statute of the state of Tuscarora made it a misdemeanor to construct any building of more than five stories without an automatic fire sprinkler system. A local construction company built, in Tuscarora, a 10-story federal office building. It constructed the building according to the precise specifications of a federal contract authorized by federal statutes. Because the building was built without the automatic fire sprinkler system required by state law, Tuscarora prosecutes the private contractor. Which of the following is the company's strongest defense to that prosecution?
Options:
A. The state sprinkler requirement denies the company property or liberty without due process.
B. The state sprinkler requirement denies the company equal protection of the laws.
C. As applied, the state sprinkler requirement violates the Supremacy Clause.
D. As applied, the state sprinkler requirement violates the Obligation of Contracts Clause. | C |
David is being tried in federal court for criminal conspiracy with John to violate federal narcotics law. At trial, the prosecutor calls David's new wife, Wanda, and asks her to testify about a meeting between David and John that she observed before she married David. Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the applicable rule concerning whether Wanda may testify?
Options:
A. The choice is Wanda's.
B. The choice is David's.
C. Wanda is permitted to testify only if both Wanda and David agree.
D. Wanda is compelled to testify even if both Wanda and David object. | A |
For a valuable consideration, Amato, the owner of Riveracre, signed and gave to Barton a duly executed instrument that provided as follows: "The grantor may or may not sell Riveracre during her lifetime, but at her death, or if she earlier decides to sell, the property will be offered to Barton at $ 500$ per acre. Barton shall exercise this right, if at all, within 60 days of receipt of said offer to sell." Barton recorded the instrument. The instrument was not valid as a will. Is Barton's right under the instrument valid?
Options:
A. Yes, because the instrument is recorded.
B. Yes, because Barton's right to purchase will vest or fail within the period prescribed by the Rule Against Perpetuities.
C. No, because Barton's right to purchase is a restraint on the owner's power to make a testamentary disposition.
D. No, because Barton's right to purchase is an unreasonable restraint on alienation. | B |
Husband and Wife were going through a nasty divorce. Wife hired Patrick, a retired detective, to spy on Husband. Patrick followed Husband to Hotel, where he saw Husband meet a woman and go into her hotel room. Patrick checked into the adjoining room, placed an electronic listening device on the wall, and listened to the activities of Husband and the woman in the next room. While Patrick was listening, a burglar broke into Patrick's room and hit Patrick over the head with a blackjack. As a result, Patrick was hospitalized. A state statute makes adultery a crime. 121. If Patrick sues Hotel for his injuries: (A) Patrick will prevail if Hotel's management had reason to believe the hotel room locks were inadequate. (B) Patrick will prevail, because innkeepers owe their guests a very high degree of care. (C) Hotel will prevail, because the burglar was a superseding intervening cause. (D) Hotel will prevail if it was in compliance with a state statute setting minimum standards for hotel room locks. Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, what would be the probable measure of Farquart's damages in an action against Sawtooth for breach of contract?
Options:
A. Restitution of the three monthly installments paid in August, September, and October.
B. What it would cost to get the house completed by another contractor, minus installments not yet paid to Sawtooth.
C. The difference between the market value of the partly built house, as of the time of Sawtooth's breach, and the market value of the house if completed according to specifications. | B |
Congress passes an Energy Conservation Act. The Act requires all users of energy in this country to reduce their consumption by a specified percentage, to be set by a presidential executive order. The Act sets forth specific standards the President must use in setting the percentage and detailed procedures to be followed. The provision that allows the President to set the exact percentage is probably:
Options:
A. Constitutional, because it creates a limited administrative power to implement the statute.
B. Constitutional, because inherent executive powers permit such action even without statutory authorization.
C. Unconstitutional as an undue delegation of legislative power to the executive.
D. Unconstitutional, because it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. | A |
A recently enacted state law forbids nonresident aliens from owning more than 100 acres of land within the state and directs the state attorney general to bring an action of ejectment whenever a nonresident alien owns such land. Zane, a nonresident alien, has obtained title to 200 acres of land in the state, and he brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the statute. The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint. The federal court should:
Options:
A. Dismiss the action, because under the Constitution, nonresident aliens may not sue in federal court.
B. Dismiss the action, because a state has plenary power to determine the qualifications for landholding within its boundaries.
C. Hear the action, because the United Nations Charter forbids such discrimination.
D. Hear the action, because a federal question is presented. | D |
The state of Champlain enacts the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act, which provides that, before any persons less than 30 years of age may be issued a marriage license, they must receive at least five hours of marriage counseling from a state-licensed social worker. This counseling is designed to ensure that applicants for marriage licenses know their legal rights and duties in relation to marriage and parenthood, understand the "true nature" of the marriage relationship, and understand the procedures for obtaining divorces. In a case in which the constitutionality of the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is in issue, the burden of persuasion will probably be on the:
Options:
A. Person challenging the law, because there is a strong presumption that elected state legislators acted properly.
B. Person challenging the law, because the Tenth Amendment authorizes states to determine the conditions on which they issue marriage licenses.
C. State, because there is a substantial impact on the right to marry, and that right is fundamental.
D. State, because there is a substantial impact on the discrete and insular class of young adults. | C |
Amy Docent, a state college instructor, was discharged because of her refusal to comply with a state statute requiring public employees to swear or affirm that they will (1) "uphold and defend" the state and federal constitutions, and (2) "oppose the overthrow" of the state or federal governments "by force, violence, or by any improper method." The statute had previously been held constitutional by the state supreme court. Docent filed a complaint in federal district court alleging the unconstitutionality of the statute and seeking an injunction and damages. Which of the following is the state's strongest argument for sustaining the validity of the statute?
Options:
A. Government employment is a privilege, not a right.
B. The oath as a whole is only a commitment to abide by constitutional processes.
C. The First and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to fix the conditions of state employment.
D. The state has a compelling need to keep disloyal persons out of governmental positions of trust. | B |
Hunko, a popular professional wrestler, entered into a written agency contract with Adman, who agreed to try to get Hunko's picture on a variety of food products. Hunko promised that Adman would have the exclusive right to promote Hunko on food product lines. They agreed that Hunko would receive $70 \%$ of the proceeds and Adman would receive $30 \%$. Adman was able to persuade the makers of "Chocolate Charms" breakfast cereal to put Hunko's picture on the cereal boxes. Shortly after Adman confirmed the Chocolate Charms deal with the cereal manufacturer, Hunko and Adman agreed orally that henceforth Hunko would receive $50 \%$ of the proceeds, including proceeds from the Chocolate Charms deal, and Adman would receive the other $50 \%$. Hunko received a $ 10,000$ check from Chocolate Charms, and he promptly sent Adman a check for $ 3,000$. Adman demanded an additional $ 2,000$, but Hunko refused to pay. If Adman sues Hunko for the $ 2,000$, the party likely to prevail is:
Options:
A. Hunko, because of the parol evidence rule.
B. Adman, because consideration is not required for a modification.
C. Hunko, because Adman had a preexisting legal duty to secure food product promotions for Hunko.
D. Hunko, because an exclusive contract requires that the party given the privileges of exclusivity use his best efforts. | C |
Cycle Company manufactured a bicycle that it sold to Bike Shop, a retail bicycle dealer, which in turn sold it to Roth. Shortly thereafter, while Roth was riding the bicycle along a city street, he saw a traffic light facing him turn from green to amber. He sped up, hoping to cross the intersection before the light turned red. However, Roth quickly realized that he could not do so and applied the brake, which failed. To avoid the traffic that was then crossing in front of him, Roth turned sharply to his right and onto the sidewalk, where he struck Perez, a pedestrian. Both Perez and Roth sustained injuries. Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. For this question only, assume the following facts. Amicusbank lent Bouquet $ 200,000$ and Bouquet executed a written instrument providing that Amicusbank "is entitled to collect the debt from my share of the profits, if any, under the Vintage-Bouquet contract." Amicusbank gave prompt notice of this transaction to Vintage. If Vintage thereafter refuses to account for any profits to Amicusbank and Amicusbank sues Vintage for Bouquet's share of profits then realized, Vintage's strongest argument in defense is that:
Options:
A. The Bouquet-Vintage contract did not expressly authorize an assignment of rights.
B. Bouquet and Vintage are partners, not simply debtor and creditor.
C. Amicusbank is not an assignee of Bouquet's rights under the BouquetVintage contract.
D. Amicusbank is not an intended thirdparty beneficiary of the BouquetVintage contract. | C |
Three states, East Winnetka, Midland, and West Hampton, are located next to one another in that order. The states of East Winnetka and West Hampton permit the hunting and trapping of snipe, but the state of Midland strictly forbids it in order to protect snipe, a rare species of animal, from extinction. The state of Midland has a state statute that provides, "Possession of snipe traps is prohibited. Any game warden finding a snipe trap within the state shall seize and destroy it." Snipe traps cost about $ 15$ each. Prentis is a resident of West Hampton and an ardent snipe trapper. She drove her car to East Winnetka to purchase a new improved snipe trap from a manufacturer there. In the course of her trip back across Midland with the trap in her car, Prentis stopped in a Midland state park to camp for a few nights. While she was in that park, a Midland game warden saw the trap, which was visible on the front seat of her car. The warden seized the trap and destroyed it in accordance with the Midland statute after Prentis admitted that the seized item was a prohibited snipe trap. No federal statutes or federal administrative regulations apply. For this question only, assume that Prentis demonstrates that common carriers are permitted to transport snipe traps as cargo across Midland for delivery to another state and that, in practice, the Midland statute is enforced only against private individuals transporting those traps in private vehicles. If Prentis challenges the application of the Midland statute to her on the basis only of a denial of equal protection, this application of the statute will probably be found:
Options:
A. Constitutional, because the traps constitute contraband in which Prentis could have no protected property interest.
B. Constitutional, because there is a rational basis for differentiating between the possession of snipe traps as interstate cargo by common carriers and the possession of snipe traps by private individuals.
C. Unconstitutional, because the state cannot demonstrate a compelling public purpose for making this differentiation between common carriers and such private individuals.
D. Unconstitutional, because interstate travel is a fundamental right that may not be burdened by state law. | B |
Congress enacted a law prohibiting the killing, capture, or removal of any form of wildlife upon or from any federally owned land. Which of the following is the most easily justifiable source of national authority for this federal law?
Options:
A. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.
B. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
C. The Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3. | D |
The state of Missoula has enacted a new election code designed to increase voter responsibility in the exercise of the franchise and to enlarge citizen participation in the electoral process. None of its provisions conflict with federal statutes. Which of the following is the strongest reason for finding unconstitutional a requirement in the Missoula election code that each voter must be literate in English?
Options:
A. The requirement violates Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which provides that representatives to Congress be chosen "by the people of the several States."
B. The requirement violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to "make or alter" state regulations providing for the "times" and "manner" of holding elections for senators and representatives.
C. The requirement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
D. The requirement violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | D |
The state of Champlain enacts the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act, which provides that, before any persons less than 30 years of age may be issued a marriage license, they must receive at least five hours of marriage counseling from a state-licensed social worker. This counseling is designed to ensure that applicants for marriage licenses know their legal rights and duties in relation to marriage and parenthood, understand the "true nature" of the marriage relationship, and understand the procedures for obtaining divorces. Pine, aged 25 , contemplates marrying Ross, aged 25. Both are residents of the state of Champlain. Pine has not yet proposed to Ross because he is offended by the counseling requirement. Pine sues in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the Young Adult Marriage Counseling Act is unconstitutional. Which of the following is the clearest ground for dismissal of this action by the court?
Options:
A. Pine and Ross are residents of the same state.
B. No substantial federal question is presented.
C. The suit presents a nonjusticiable political question.
D. The suit is unripe. | D |
In a telephone call on March 1, Adams, an unemployed, retired person, said to Dawes, "I will sell my automobile for $ 3,000$ cash. I will hold this offer open through March 14." On March 12, Adams called Dawes and told her that he had sold the automobile to Clark. Adams in fact had not sold the automobile to anyone. On March 14, Dawes learned that Adams still owned the automobile, and on that date called Adams and said, "I' $\mathrm{m}$ coming over to your place with $ 3,000$." Adams replied, "Don't bother. I won' $t$ deliver the automobile to you under any circumstances." Dawes protested, but made no further attempt to pay for or take delivery of the automobile. In an action by Dawes against Adams for breach of contract, Dawes probably will:
Options:
A. Succeed, because Adams had assured her that the offer would remain open through March 14.
B. Succeed, because Adams had not in fact sold the automobile to Clark.
C. Not succeed, because Dawes had not tendered the $ 3,000$ to Adams on or before March 14.
D. Not succeed, because on March 12, Adams had told Dawes that he had sold the automobile to Clark. | D |
Zeller contracted in writing to deliver to Baker 100 bushels of wheat on August 1 at $ 3.50$ per bushel. Because his suppliers had not delivered enough wheat to him by that time, Zeller on August 1 had only 95 bushels of wheat with which to fulfill his contract with Baker. If Zeller tenders 95 bushels of wheat to Baker on August 1, and Baker refuses to accept or pay for any of the wheat, which of the following best states the legal relationship between Zeller and Baker?
Options:
A. Zeller has a cause of action against Baker, because Zeller has substantially performed his contract.
B. Zeller is excused from performing his contract because of impossibility of performance.
C. Baker has a cause of action against Zeller for Zeller's failure to deliver 100 bushels of wheat.
D. Baker is obligated to give Zeller a reasonable time to attempt to obtain the other five bushels of wheat. | C |
Which of the following is most likely to be found to be a strict liability offense?
Options:
A. A city ordinance providing for a fine of not more than $ 200$ for shoplifting.
B. A federal statute making it a felony to possess heroin.
C. A state statute making it a felony to fail to register a firearm.
D. A state statute making the sale of adulterated milk a misdemeanor. | D |
A group of children, ranging in age from 8 to 15 , regularly played football on the common area of an apartment complex owned by O'Neill. Most of the children lived in the apartment complex, but some lived elsewhere. O'Neill knew that the children played on the common area and had not objected. Peter, a 13-year-old who did not live in the apartment complex, fell over a sprinkler head while running for a pass and broke his leg. Although Peter had played football on the common area before, he had never noticed the sprinkler heads, which protruded one inch above the ground and were part of a permanently installed underground sprinkler system. If a claim is asserted on Peter's behalf, Peter will:
Options:
A. Prevail, if the sprinkler head was a hazard that Peter probably would not discover.
B. Prevail, because O'Neill had not objected to children playing on the common area.
C. Not prevail, because Peter did not live in the apartment complex.
D. Not prevail, unless the sprinkler heads were abnormally dangerous to users of the common area. | A |
An appropriations act passed by Congress over the President's veto directs that $ 1$ billion "shall be spent" by the federal government for the development of a new military weapons system, which is available only from the Arms Corporation. On the order of the President, the Secretary of Defense refuses to authorize a contract for purchase of the weapons system. The Arms Corporation sues the Secretary of Defense, alleging an unlawful withholding of these federal funds. The strongest constitutional argument for the Arms Corporation is that:
Options:
A. Passage of an appropriation over a veto makes the spending mandatory.
B. Congress's power to appropriate funds includes the power to require that the funds will be spent as directed.
C. The President's independent constitutional powers do not specifically refer to spending.
D. The President's power to withhold such funds is limited to cases where foreign affairs are directly involved. | B |
Paulsen sued Daly for nonpayment of a personal loan to Daly, as evidenced by Daly's promissory note to Paulsen. Paulsen called Walters to testify that he knows Daly's handwriting and that the signature on the note is Daly's. On direct examination, to identify himself, Walters gave his name and address and testified that he had been employed by a roofing company for seven years. During presentation of Daly's case, Daly called Wilson to testify that she is the roofing company's personnel manager and that she had determined, by examining the company's employment records, that Walters had worked there only three years. The trial judge should rule that Wilson's testimony is:
Options:
A. Inadmissible, because it is not the best evidence.
B. Inadmissible, because it is impeachment on a collateral question.
C. Admissible as evidence of a regularly conducted activity.
D. Admissible as tending to impeach Walters's credibility. | B |
Acting on an anonymous telephone call, police went to Desmond's apartment, knocked on the door, and demanded to search it for narcotics. When Desmond refused, the police forced the door open and placed him under arrest. As they were removing him from the apartment, Desmond offered to give the officers "valuable information" in exchange for his release. Before he could say anything else, Desmond was given Miranda warnings by the police. Thereafter, he told the police that he had stored some heroin in his friend's apartment and that he and his friend had been going to sell it. The heroin was recovered, and Desmond was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics and for possession of narcotics. At his trial, Desmond moved to suppress his statements. Which of the following is Desmond's best argument in support of the motion to suppress?
Options:
A. Desmond is entitled to know the identity of his accuser, and the state cannot supply this information.
B. The police should have given Desmond Miranda warnings prior to entry into the apartment, and the warnings were ineffectual once Desmond offered to give the police information.
C. Desmond was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law.
D. The statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect his right against self-incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest. | D |
Arthur and Celia, brother and sister, both of legal age, inherited Goodacre, their childhood home, from their father. They thereby became tenants in common. Goodacre had never been used as anything except a residence. Arthur had been residing on Goodacre with his father at the time his father died. Celia had been residing in a distant city. After their father's funeral, Arthur continued to live on Goodacre, but Celia returned to her own residence. There was no discussion between Arthur and Celia concerning their common ownership, nor had there ever been any administration of their father's estate. Arthur paid all taxes, insurance, and other carrying charges on Goodacre. He paid no rent or other compensation to Celia, nor did Celia request any such payment. Thirty years later, a series of disputes arose between Arthur and Celia for the first time concerning their respective rights to Goodacre. The jurisdiction where the land is located recognizes the usual common law types of cotenancies, and there is no applicable legislation on the subject. If Arthur claims the entire title to Goodacre in fee simple and brings an action against Celia to quiet title in himself, and if the state where the land is located has an ordinary 20 -year adverse possession statute, the decision should be for:
Options:
A. Arthur, because during the past 30 years Arthur has exercised the type of occupancy ordinarily considered sufficient to satisfy the adverse possession requirements.
B. Arthur, because the acts of the parties indicate Celia's intention to renounce her right to inheritance.
C. Celia, because there is no evidence that Arthur has performed sufficient acts to constitute her ouster.
D. Celia, because one co-tenant cannot acquire title by adverse possession against another. | C |
In compliance with a federal statute requiring buildings to be made accessible to persons with disabilities, Walter installed wheelchair ramps at both entrances to his office building located on Blackacre, which he had owned for many years. One year later, Walter entered into a contract with Barbara to sell Blackacre, including the office building. After having the property surveyed, Barbara notified Walter that she was not going to complete the sale because the wheelchair ramp on the south side of the building extended over the property line and into the adjoining parcel of Whiteacre, making the title unmarketable. Walter insisted that Barbara proceed with the sale, and brought an action to compel her performance. If the court were to find that title is marketable, it will be because:
Options:
A. The wheelchair ramp is required by federal law.
B. Walter currently owns Whiteacre and acquired Whiteacre and Blackacre as part of a larger parcel.
C. The wheelchair ramp extends only 10 inches over the property line.
D. The contract between Walter and Barbara requires Walter to convey only a quitclaim deed. | B |
Peters sued Dietrich, claiming that they had entered into an oral agreement whereby Dietrich agreed to hire Peters as Chief Engineer of Dietrich Products and Peters agreed to take the job at a specified salary, and that Dietrich had subsequently breached their employment contract by refusing to hire Peters. At the trial of Peters's suit, Dietrich took the stand and denied having any contract with Peters for employment or otherwise. In response, Peters offers into evidence a properly authenticated phone message to Dietrich's wife, Wanda, that Dietrich had left with the switchboard operator at her office. The message stated, "I know you won't be happy, but I've offered Peters the Chief Engineer position and he's accepted." Dietrich's attorney objects. The phone message should be ruled:
Options:
A. Admissible, because it is the statement of a party-opponent.
B. Admissible, if it is a recent perception.
C. Inadmissible, because it is a privileged communication between husband and wife.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. | A |
Plummer, a well-known politician, was scheduled to address a large crowd at a political dinner. Just as Plummer was about to sit down at the head table, Devon pushed Plummer's chair to one side. As a result, Plummer fell to the floor. Plummer was embarrassed at being made to look foolish before a large audience but suffered no physical harm. If Plummer asserts a claim against Devon for damages because of his embarrassment, will Plummer prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, if Devon knew that Plummer was about to sit on the chair.
B. Yes, if Devon negligently failed to notice that Plummer was about to sit on the chair.
C. No, because Plummer suffered no physical harm along with his embarrassment.
D. No, if in moving the chair Devon intended only a good-natured practical joke on Plummer. | A |
In a civil suit by Pine against Decker, Decker called Wall, a chemist, as an expert witness and asked him a number of questions about his education and experience in chemistry. Over Pine's objection that Wall was not shown to be qualified in chemistry, the trial court permitted Wall to testify as to his opinion in response to a hypothetical question. On cross-examination, Pine asked Wall if he had failed two chemistry courses while doing his graduate work. The answer should be:
Options:
A. Admitted, because it is relevant to the weight to be given Wall's testimony.
B. Admitted, because specific acts bearing on truthfulness may be inquired about on cross-examination.
C. Excluded, because the court has determined that Wall is qualified to testify as an expert.
D. Excluded, because Wall's character has not been put in issue. | A |
In a writing signed by both parties, Paul Plannah, a renowned architect, agreed for a fee of $ 25,000$ to design and supervise construction of a new house for Phoebe Threedee, a famous sculptor, the fee to be paid upon completion of the house. Plannah and Threedee got along poorly and, when the design plans were about two-thirds complete, they had a heated argument over the proper location of a marble staircase. Hoping to avoid such encounters, Plannah, without Threedee's knowledge, assigned to Donna Drafty, a newly licensed architect practicing solo, "all of my rights and duties under my design and construction-supervision contract with Threedee." Drafty expressly promised Plannah to carry out the work to the best of Drafty's ability. For this question only, assume that Threedee, on learning of the assignment, refused to allow Drafty to proceed as architect and brought an action against Plannah to compel him to resume and complete performance of the contract. Is Threedee entitled to such relief?
Options:
A. Yes, because Plannah's services under the contract are unique.
B. Yes, because Plannah has personally completed two-thirds of the design work.
C. No, because the Plannah-Threedee contract is one for personal services by Plannah.
D. No, because Plannah effectively delegated his remaining duties under the Plannah-Threedee contract to Drafty. | C |
In a writing signed by both parties, Paul Plannah, a renowned architect, agreed for a fee of $ 25,000$ to design and supervise construction of a new house for Phoebe Threedee, a famous sculptor, the fee to be paid upon completion of the house. Plannah and Threedee got along poorly and, when the design plans were about two-thirds complete, they had a heated argument over the proper location of a marble staircase. Hoping to avoid such encounters, Plannah, without Threedee's knowledge, assigned to Donna Drafty, a newly licensed architect practicing solo, "all of my rights and duties under my design and construction-supervision contract with Threedee." Drafty expressly promised Plannah to carry out the work to the best of Drafty's ability. For this question only, assume that Threedee allowed Drafty to proceed with the design work, but that Drafty, without legal excuse, abandoned the project shortly after construction began. Which of the following legal conclusions are correct? I. Plannah is liable to Threedee for legal damages, if any, caused by Drafty's default. II. Drafty is liable to Threedee for legal damages, if any, caused by Drafty's default. III. Threedee is indebted to Drafty, on a divisible contract theory, for a prorated portion of the agreed $ 25,000$ architect's fee promised to Plannah.
Options:
A. I. and II. only.
B. I. and III. only.
C. II. and III. only.
D. I., II., and III. | A |
Hammond decided to kill his wife by poisoning her. He asked his friend, Jordan, a pharmacist, to obtain some curare, a deadly poison, and to give it to him without recording the transaction. Because Jordan suspected Hammond's motive, she supplied Hammond with a small quantity of Marvane, an antibiotic, instead of curare. Marvane is harmless if administered in small quantities, except for the less than $1 \%$ of the population who are allergic to the drug. Hammond injected his wife with the Marvane while she slept. She was allergic to the drug and died from the injection. Jordan was distraught and confessed the entire affair to the police, explaining that she had failed to report Hammond's conduct to the authorities because she feared that it would end their friendship if she did. Jordan is an accomplice to:
Options:
A. Murder.
B. Manslaughter.
C. Criminally negligent homicide.
D. No degree of criminal homicide. | D |
A newly enacted criminal statute provides, in its entirety, "No person shall utter to another person in a public place any annoying, disturbing or unwelcome language." Smith followed an elderly woman for three blocks down a public street, yelling in her ear offensive four-letter words. The woman repeatedly asked Smith to leave her alone, but he refused. In the subsequent prosecution of Smith, the first under this statute, Smith will:
Options:
A. Not prevail.
B. Prevail, because speech of the sort described here may not be punished by the state because of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
C. Prevail, because though his speech may be punished by the state, the state may not do so under this statute.
D. Prevail, because the average user of a public street would think his speech/action here was amusing and ridiculous rather than "annoying," etc. | C |
A federal criminal law makes it a crime for any citizen of the United States not specifically authorized by the President to negotiate with a foreign government for the purpose of influencing the foreign government in relation to a dispute with the United States. The strongest constitutional ground for the validity of this law is that:
Options:
A. Under several of its enumerated powers, Congress may legislate to preserve the monopoly of the national government over the conduct of United States foreign affairs.
B. The President's inherent power to negotiate for the United States with foreign countries authorizes the President, even in the absence of statutory authorization, to punish citizens who engage in such negotiations without permission.
C. The law deals with foreign relations and therefore is not governed by the First Amendment.
D. Federal criminal laws dealing with international affairs need not be as specific as those dealing with domestic affairs. | A |
At trial of Pendergast's battery action against Dellacourt, arising from an incident in which Dellacourt allegedly bit off Pendergast's ear, Winchester testified that he was taking a shortcut through an urban alley one morning and heard someone cry "Help!" Rushing around the corner of a building, Winchester saw Pendergast lying on the sidewalk in a pool of blood, with his left ear missing. Dellacourt, who was standing nearby, turned quickly and made a move as if to approach Winchester, and so Winchester ran down the sidewalk away from Dellacourt to summon the police. The following exchange then occurred during cross-examination of Winchester by Dellacourt's counsel. D: "You didn't actually see my client bite off the plaintiff's ear, did you, Mr. Winchester?" W: "No." D: "For all you know, my client could have been an innocent bystander like yourself, but one who didn't run away but stayed to offer assistance." W: "I ran away because I was afraid of the defendant and because I wanted to call the police." D: "For all we know you might have been running out of that alley because you had just committed a crime yourself, Mr. Winchester." W: "Look, Dellacourt is the one who bit off the ear, not me!" D: "If you arrived on the scene after the alleged ear biting, how can you possibly know my client is the one who bit off the plaintiff's ear?"' W: "Because I read in the newspaper the next day that an eyewitness to the entire event told police that he saw Dellacourt spit the ear out after I left." Dellacourt then moved to have Winchester's last remark stricken from the record. If the trial court denies Dellacourt's motion, that ruling is most strongly supported by which of the following?
Options:
A. The report of the eyewitness was an excited utterance.
B. The report of the eyewitness was a statement of recent perception.
C. The error in admitting the statement could not be cured by an appropriate jury instruction.
D. The remark was invited by the crossexaminer's questions. | D |
Egbert, who was sent to prison for nine years for car theft, vowed to get even with Charles, the prosecutor at his trial. While in prison, Egbert was told by another prisoner, Duane, that when Charles was in private practice as a criminal defense attorney, he had represented Duane in a drug charge. Duane claimed that because he did not have the cash to pay Charles his fees, he offered to pay his fees with five ounces of cocaine, and Charles accepted. Although Egbert had no independent reason to believe that what Duane said was true, when he got out of prison he learned that Charles was running for District Attorney. Egbert went to one of the local papers and sold them the story for $ 1,000$. In the article that resulted, Egbert was quoted as saying "I only hope that Charles suffers like I had to suffer for the last nine years." Although the allegation was false, Charles withdrew from the race as a result of the article. In a suit by Charles against Egbert for defamation, the probable result would be:
Options:
A. Charles prevails because Egbert acted with deliberate malice towards Charles.
B. Charles prevails if Egbert should have known that the story was false.
C. Egbert prevails because the story was a matter of public concern.
D. Egbert prevails if he honestly believed the truth of the assertion made by Duane. | D |
Donaldson broke into Professor Ruiz's office to look at examination questions. The questions were locked in a drawer, and Donaldson could not find them. Donaldson believed that looking at examination questions was a crime, but in this belief he was mistaken. Charged with burglary, Donaldson should be:
Options:
A. Acquitted, because he did not complete the crime and he has not been charged with attempt.
B. Acquitted, because what he intended to do when he broke in was not a crime.
C. Convicted, because he had the necessary mental state and committed the act of breaking and entering.
D. Convicted, because factual impossibility is not a defense. | B |
Lordsville was a small, agricultural village with a population of 400 . It was a quiet, conservative town, and $90 \%$ of the inhabitants belonged to the Lordsville Church of Jesus, a whitewashed frame building located on Lordsville's main street. The Lordsville Village Council consisted of five members, all of whom were members of the Lordsville Church of Jesus. The Council unanimously appropriated $ 350$ to pay Mower to mow the lawn of the Lordsville Church of Jesus for a year. Mower was a 15-year-old resident of Lordsville and a member of the Lordsville Church of Jesus whose father had been killed the previous year when he was struck by lightning. Curmudgeon, a Lordsville resident, lived in a tiny house and paid only $200 per year in village and county property taxes, but he was incensed that any of it should go to support what he called "a bunch of holier-thanthou, superstitious, holy-rollers." Curmudgeon filed suit in federal district court to strike down the Council's appropriation to mow the church lawn. Should the court entertain Curmudgeon's suit?
Options:
A. No, because Curmudgeon paid so little in taxes that his interest in the matter, if any, is too minimal.
B. No, because taxpayers lack standing to sue over appropriations by duly constituted legislative bodies.
C. Yes, because a taxpayer may sue under the authority of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause if a fund into which he has paid is being used for religious purposes.
D. Yes, because taxpayers have standing to sue when questions involving constitutional rights are at issue. | C |
Torgeson, a prosperous widower, owned Fruitacre, a large tract of land located near Sunbelt City. Fruitacre was primarily used for extensive citrus orchards, but Torgeson was sure that rapidly growing Sunbelt City would expand toward Fruitacre, and that Fruitacre would be a prime tract for a residential subdivision within 20 years. Torgeson wanted to see his three grandchildren, Hubert (age 22), Dubert (age 17), and Luberta (age 15), benefit from the large price that he was sure Fruitacre would bring, but he was also concerned that the grandchildren be of sufficient maturity. Torgeson suggested to his only child, Diana, that he give her a life interest in Fruitacre, and that Diana's children take Fruitacre upon her death. Diana told Torgeson that she did not need the income from Fruitacre and would prefer that Torgeson give the land directly to Hubert, Dubert, and Luberta. Torgeson arrived at what he felt was a reasonable compromise, using his good friend, Fran (age 55), as the person to whom he conveyed the land. Torgeson's conveyance read, in pertinent part, as follows: "I convey Fruitacre to Fran for life, remainder to all of my grandchildren who ever attain the age of 25 , and if none of them attains such age, to the Sisters of Charity." 44. The grandchildren's interest can best be described as: (A) A contingent remainder. (B) A vested remainder. (C) An executory interest. (D) Nothing. Which of the following is the strongest argument in favor of the constitutionality of free distribution of textbooks to the students at Stone School?
Options:
A. Private religious schools, like public nonsectarian schools, fulfill an important educational function.
B. Religious instruction in private schools is not constitutionally objectionable.
C. The purpose and effect of the free distribution of these textbooks is secular and does not entangle church and state.
D. The Free Exercise Clause requires identical treatment by the state of students in public and private schools. | C |
Jaywalking (crossing a street outside of a crosswalk or not at an intersection) is punishable by a fine in Metropolis. Bert, who had lived in Metropolis all of his 67 years, was out windowshopping with his wife, Ruth, also 67 , when he saw a friend across the street at a diner they both frequented. Telling Ruth that he would be right back, he saw that there were no cars nearby and so strode briskly across the street in the middle of the block. As he reached the other sidewalk, a police officer who had been checking parked cars for parking violations stepped up to Bert and said, "Hold it buddy, let's see your driver's license," and then reached for her citation book. Bert, a city dweller from birth, had always walked or used public transportation, had never learned to drive, and did not have a driver's license. When he told the officer that he did not have a driver's license, she said, "All right, I'm taking you in," and seized his wrist, twisting it up and behind him in a personnel control lock. A black belt in judo, Bert easily slipped the officer's grasp. "You asked for it," she then growled, and pulled her baton from her belt. When she attempted to strike Bert, he moved swiftly to the side, chopped at her arm, and caused the baton to fall from her grasp to the pavement. At that point two other officers arrived on the scene and arrested Bert. Ruth watched the entire episode from across the street and became greatly distressed. 34. Bert brings an action against the first officer for battery. What will be the probable outcome of this litigation? (A) He will lose, because he struck the officer. (B) He will lose, because the offense was committed in the officer's presence. (C) He will win, unless he is found guilty of jaywalking. (D) He will win, because the officer was not privileged to arrest him. Ruth also sues the officer, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress. Will she recover?
Options:
A. No, unless the officer knew that Ruth and Bert were husband and wife.
B. No, if the officer did not know that Ruth was watching from across the street.
C. Yes, because the officer's conduct regarding Bert was extreme and outrageous.
D. Yes, because the officer's conduct caused Ruth to be severely emotionally disturbed. | B |
Seller and Buyer executed an agreement for the sale of real property. Assume for this question only that Buyer dies before closing, there being no breach of the agreement by either party. Which of the following is appropriate in most jurisdictions?
Options:
A. Buyer's heir may specifically enforce the agreement.
B. Seller has the right to return the down payment and cancel the contract.
C. Death terminates the agreement.
D. Any title acquired would be unmarketable by reason of Buyer's death. | A |
Although by all appearances Herb and Edna, an elderly couple, were destitute, they had, in fact, substantial cash in the bank. Their new neighbors, the Smiths, feeling sorry for them on Thanksgiving, bought a month's supply of food and gave it to Herb and Edna. Later, Edna confided in the Smiths that she and Herb had money and told them that, because they had been so kind, she was leaving them money in her will. All of Herb's and Edna's bank accounts were held in joint tenancy. When Edna died, at the Smiths' request Herb gave the Smiths the following signed instrument: "In consideration of my wife's promise to the Smiths, and their agreement not to sue her estate, I agree to pay them the sum of $ 5,000$." When Herb died of a heart attack several days later, the Smiths asked the administrator of his estate to pay them the $ 5,000$. The administrator refused on the ground that there was no consideration for the agreement. Besides the consideration stated in Herb's written instrument, what other fact would strengthen the Smiths' claim?
Options:
A. They would have never given the food if they had known Herb and Edna had money.
B. They believed they could sue Edna's estate.
C. The majority of the funds in the bank were left to Edna by her parents.
D. Edna's promise to them was in writing. | B |
Congress provides by statute that any state that fails to prohibit automobile speeds of over 55 miles per hour on highways within the state shall be denied federal highway construction funding. The state of Atlantic, one of the richest and most highway-oriented states in the country, refuses to enact such a statute. The best argument that can be made in support of the constitutionality of this federal statute is that:
Options:
A. The states conceded their authority over highways to the national government when the states accepted federal grants to help finance the highways.
B. The federal government can regulate the use of state highways without limitation because the federal government paid for most of their construction costs.
C. Reasonable legislators could believe that the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit will ensure that the federal money spent on highways results in greater benefit than harm to the public.
D. A recent public opinion survey demonstrates that $90 \%$ of the people in this country support a 55 mile-perhour speed limit. | C |
The state of Yuma provides by statute, "No person may be awarded any state construction contract without agreeing to employ only citizens of the state and of the United States in performance of the contract." If the Yuma statute is attacked as violating the Commerce Clause, which of the following defenses is the weakest?
Options:
A. The statute will help protect the workers of the state of Yuma from competition by foreign workers.
B. The statute will help ensure that workers with jobs directly affecting the performance of public contracts are dedicated to their jobs.
C. The statute will help ensure a continuously available and stable work force for the execution of public contracts.
D. The statute will help ensure that only the most qualified individuals work on public contracts. | A |
After several days of negotiations, Ohner wrote to Plummer: "Will pay you $ 3,000$ if you will install new plumbing in my office building according to the specifications I have sent you. I must have your reply by March 30 ." Plummer replied by a letter that Ohner received on March 15: "Will not do it for less than $ 3,500$." On March 20, Plummer wrote to Ohner: "Have changed my mind. I will do the work for $ 3,000$. Unless I hear from you to the contrary, I will begin work on April 5." Ohner received this letter on March 22 but did not reply to it. Plummer, without Ohner's knowledge, began the work on April 5. Which of the following best characterizes the legal relationship between Ohner and Plummer as of April 5?
Options:
A. A contract was formed on March 20 when Plummer posted his letter.
B. A contract was formed on March 22 when Ohner received Plummer's letter.
C. A contract was formed on April 5 when Plummer began work.
D. There was no contract between the parties as of April 5. | D |
An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing he must be in Bank before it closed at 2 p.m. and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute and the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules. If Ned asserts a claim against Parker, the most likely result is that Ned will:
Options:
A. Recover, because Parker's action was negligence per se.
B. Recover, because Parker's action was a continuing wrong that contributed to Ned's injuries.
C. Not recover, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to Ned as a result of Parker's action.
D. Not recover, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action. | C |
A federal statute set up a program of dental education. The statute provided that the Secretary of Health and Human Services "shall, on a current basis, spend all of the money appropriated for this purpose" and "shall distribute the appropriated funds" by a specified formula to state health departments that agree to participate in the program. In the current year Congress appropriated $100$ million for expenditure on this program. To ensure a budget surplus in the current fiscal year, the President issued an executive order directing the various Cabinet Secretaries to cut expenditures in this year by $10 \%$ in all categories. He also ordered certain programs to be cut more drastically because he believed that "they are not as important to the general welfare as other programs." The President identified the dental education program as such a program and ordered it to be cut by $50 \%$. Assume that no other federal statutes are relevant. To satisfy constitutional requirements, how much money must the Secretary of Health and Human Services distribute for the dental education program this year?
Options:
A. $50 million, because the President could reasonably determine that this program is not as important to the general welfare as other programs.
B. $50 million, because as chief executive the President has the constitutional authority to control the actions of all of his subordinates by executive order.
C. $ 90$ million, because any more drastic cut for the program would be a denial of equal protection to beneficiaries of this program as compared to beneficiaries of other programs.
D. $100 million, because the President may not unilaterally suspend the effect of a valid federal statute imposing a duty to spend appropriated monies. | D |
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of the crime charged?
Options:
A. Without the permission of Owner, Defendant takes Owner's car with the intention of driving it three miles to a grocery store and back. Defendant is charged with larceny.
B. Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by falsely promising to return it, although he does not intend to do so. Two days later, he changes his mind and returns the car. Defendant is charged with larceny by trick.
C. Defendant gets permission to borrow Owner's car for the evening by misrepresenting his identity and falsely claiming he has a valid driver's license. He returns the car the next day. Defendant is charged with obtaining property by false pretenses.
D. With permission, Defendant, promising to return it by 9 p.m., borrows Owner's car. Later in the evening, Defendant decides to keep the car until the next morning and does so. Defendant is charged with embezzlement. | B |
The industrial city of Tunbridge suffered from battles over gang turf and a rash of drive-by shootings. Most street gangs were affiliated with one of the two loose gang confederations that fought for dominance, the Assassins and the Ghouls. To "issue a warning" to the Ghouls, a carload of Assassins, armed with Uzi submachine guns, sped into the Ghouls' neighborhood. It was late at night when the car passed a corner store, around which the Ghouls were known to congregate during daylight hours. The Assassins knew that the store closed at 6 p.m. and that the Ghouls went elsewhere after nightfall. As the Assassins drove by, they sprayed the store with submachine gunfire, smashing the windows and pocking the brick exteriors. One of the bullets struck and killed Jamie, a six-yearold girl who was asleep in an apartment located on the second floor, above the corner store. A few days later, the police arrested Dennison, who admitted to being a member of the Assassins and to having been in the car when the Assassins shot up the store. Dennison was placed on trial for the murder of Jamie. If Dennison takes the stand in his own defense, and the jury believes Dennison's testimony, which of the following assertions by Dennison would be his best defense to the murder charge?
Options:
A. "I was the driver of the car and did not actually shoot into the building."
B. "I took a lot of drugs that night, and I was so high that I don't even remember the incident; I was certainly in no condition to form an intent to kill somebody."
C. "Another member of my gang pointed a gun at me. I was really scared that if I didn't shoot into the building I would be seriously injured or killed myself."
D. "I believed that the building was abandoned and had no idea that there would be people inside it." | D |
A statute authorizes a specified federal administrative agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress. The provision of this statute relating to the power of the designated standing joint committee of Congress is:
Options:
A. Constitutional, because it is a necessary and proper means of ensuring that the rules issued by this agency are actually consistent with the will of Congress.
B. Constitutional, because discretionary money grants authorized by statute are privileges, not rights, and, therefore, Congress has greater freedom to intervene in their administration than it has to intervene in the administration of regulatory laws.
C. Unconstitutional, because it denies equal protection of the laws to members of Congress who are not appointed to the joint legislative committee authorized to set aside rules of this agency.
D. Unconstitutional, because it authorizes a congressional change of legal rights and obligations by means other than those specified in the Constitution for the enactment of laws. | D |
The town of Hometown had a municipal auditorium that all groups were permitted to use. Lately, Bhagwan Bigbucks has begun to hold recruiting seminars for his religious cult at the auditorium. Sensing the displeasure of the voting public and fearing that the auditorium would become a mecca of fringe religious groups, the Hometown Town Council adopted the following ordinance: "Effective immediately, no religious groups will be permitted to use the Municipal Auditorium for meetings, speeches, or other public gatherings." Bigbucks, who was having great success recruiting followers in Hometown, challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance in federal court. His suit should:
Options:
A. Fail, because the ordinance treats all religions equally.
B. Fail, because continuing to allow religious groups to use the auditorium would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
C. Succeed, because "religious groups" is an unconstitutionally vague term.
D. Succeed, unless Hometown can show that the ordinance serves a compelling government interest. | D |
Eureka, Inc., inventor of the LBVC, a laserbeam vegetable chopper, ran a television ad that described the chopper and said, "The LBVC is yours for only $ 49.99$ if you send your check or money order to Box 007, Greenville. Not available in stores." Gourmet, who owned a retail specialty shop, wrote Eureka, "What's your best, firm price for two dozen LBVCs?" Eureka sent a written reply that said in its entirety, "We quote you for prompt acceptance $ 39.99$ per unit for 24 LBVCs." Gourmet subsequently mailed a check to Eureka in the appropriate amount, with a memo enclosed saying, "I accept your offer for 24 LBVCs." Assume for this question only that Seller dies before closing and his will leaves his personal property to Perry and his real property to Rose. There being no breach of the agreement by either party, which of the following is correct?
Options:
A. Death, an eventuality for which the parties could have provided, terminates the agreement if they did not so provide.
B. Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes, because the doctrine of equitable conversion does not apply to these circumstances.
C. Perry is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes.
D. Title was rendered unmarketable by Seller's death. | C |
Orris had title to Brownacre in fee simple. Without Orris's knowledge, Hull entered Brownacre in 1950 and constructed an earthen dam across a watercourse. The earthen dam trapped water that Hull used to water a herd of cattle he owned. After 12 years of possession of Brownacre, Hull gave possession of Brownacre to Burns. At the same time, Hull also purported to transfer his cattle and all his interests in the dam and water to Burns by a document that was sufficient as a bill of sale to transfer personal property but was insufficient as a deed to transfer real property. One year later, Burns entered into a lease with Orris to lease Brownacre for a period of five years. After the end of the five-year term of the lease, Burns remained on Brownacre for an additional three years and then left Brownacre. At that time Orris conveyed Brownacre by a quitclaim deed to Powell. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Besides the consideration stated in Herb's written instrument, what other fact would strengthen the Smiths' claim?
Options:
A. They would have never given the food if they had known Herb and Edna had money.
B. They believed they could sue Edna's estate.
C. The majority of the funds in the bank were left to Edna by her parents.
D. Edna's promise to them was in writing. | B |
Congress enacts a statute punishing "each and every conspiracy entered into by any two or more persons for the purpose of denying black persons housing, employment, or education, solely because of their race." Under which of the following constitutional provisions is the authority of Congress to pass such a statute most clearly and easily justifiable?
Options:
A. The Obligation of Contracts Clause.
B. The General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8. | C |
A state statute makes fraud for personal financial gain a crime. Jones was convicted of violating this statute on three separate occasions. Following his most recent conviction, he professed to have undergone a religious conversion and proclaimed himself to be the divine minister of "St. Rockport," an alleged messiah who would shortly be making his appearance on earth. Jones solicited cash donations from the public to support his efforts to spread the word of St. Rockport and his coming appearance on earth. Following complaints by several contributors who claimed he defrauded them, Jones was again charged with fraud under this state statute. The charge was that Jones "should have known that his representations about St. Rockport were false and, therefore, that he made them solely to collect cash donations for his personal gain." A witness for the prosecution in Jones's trial stated that Jones had admitted that, at times, he had doubts about the existence of St. Rockport. Jones was the only religious minister prosecuted for fraud under this state statute. The strongest constitutional defense that Jones could assert would be that this prosecution:
Options:
A. Deprived him of the equal protection of the laws because other religious ministers have not been charged under this statute.
B. Denied him procedural due process because it placed upon Jones the burden of rebutting evidence, submitted by the state, of his bad faith in raising this money.
C. Denied him rights conferred by the Obligation of Contracts Clause by preventing him from taking money from persons who wished to contract with him to spread the word of St. Rockport.
D. Denied him the free exercise of religion in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it required the state to determine the truth or falsity of the content of his religious beliefs. | D |
Ann leased commercial property to Brenda for a period of 10 years. The lease contained the following provision: "No subleasing or assignment will be permitted unless with the written consent of the lessor." One year later, Brenda assigned all interest in the lease to Carolyn, who assumed and agreed to perform the lessee's obligations under the terms of the lease. Ann learned of the assignment and wrote to Brenda that she had no objection to the assignment to Carolyn and agreed to accept rent from Carolyn instead of Brenda. Thereafter, Carolyn paid rent to Ann for a period of five years. Carolyn then defaulted and went into bankruptcy. In an appropriate action, Ann sued Brenda for rent due. If Ann loses, it will be because there was:
Options:
A. Laches.
B. An accord and satisfaction.
C. A novation.
D. An attornment. | C |
Ellis, an electrical engineer, designed an electronic game known as Zappo. Ellis entered into a licensing agreement with Toyco under which Toyco agreed to manufacture Zappo according to Ellis's specifications and to market it and pay a royalty to Ellis. Carla, whose parents had purchased a Zappo game for her, was injured while playing with the game. Carla recovered a judgment against Toyco on the basis of a finding that the Zappo game was defective because of Ellis's improper design. In a claim for indemnity against Ellis, will Toyco prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because as between Ellis and Toyco, Ellis was responsible for the design of Zappo.
B. Yes, because Toyco and Ellis were joint tortfeasors.
C. No, because Toyco, as the manufacturer, was strictly liable to Carla.
D. No, if Toyco, by a reasonable inspection, could have discovered the defect in the design of Zappo. | A |
Responding to an open bid solicitation from the procurement office of the Defense Department, Midwest Technologies submitted a bid for the development of a new flame-resistant fabric. Upon review of the bids, Midwest was notified that it was the low bidder; however, its bid for the contract was denied because of its failure to meet guidelines on minority representation that the procurement office imposed on firms contracting with the Defense Department. Several months later, the project was rebid. Although Midwest did not participate, company officials later learned that the contract had been awarded to another regional company, Great Plains Technologies, after the procurement office waived its minority representation guidelines for that project. Midwest filed an action in federal district court seeking only to enjoin performance of the contract. The court should:
Options:
A. Dismiss the action, because Midwest cannot show a relationship between the procurement office's award of the contract and any injury that it may be claiming.
B. Dismiss the action, because the federal government may enter into contracts under whatever conditions it chooses.
C. Decide the case on the merits, because the procurement office must show that its waiver of the minority representation guidelines was necessary to further a compelling government interest.
D. Decide the case on the merits, because Midwest can claim that the unequal treatment of the two bidders violated its rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. | A |
On March 15, Venus Viniferous entered into a written agreement with Tipple Winery that provided that Venus would sell 1,600 tons of tokay grapes to Tipple for $ 750$ per ton, delivery to be no later than November 1 of the same year. By November 1, Venus had delivered only 700 tons of grapes, and had informed Tipple by telegram that she had used the remainder of her crop in the production of her own boutique winery's latest release, Tokay With Me wine cooler. Tipple purchased an additional 900 tons of tokay grapes from other growers at the thenprevailing market price of $ 800$ per ton. Venus has submitted an invoice to the marketing department of Tipple for $ 525,000$. The head of marketing has come to you, Tipple's legal officer, for advice on how to respond to this billing. Ignoring incidental costs of cover, you should advise her to:
Options:
A. Pay the $ 525,000$, since by accepting delivery of the 700 tons of grapes Tipple waived an objection to Venus's breach.
B. Pay Venus the market value of her 700 tons of grapes as of November 1, less the cost of cover for the remaining 900 tons.
C. Pay Venus $ 480,000$, representing the contract price for the grapes she delivered less the cost of cover for the remaining 900 tons.
D. Pay Venus nothing, since she will be unable to enforce any claim for payment in court. | C |
When the latest generation of interactive video games reached the video arcades in State Russet, community groups and civic leaders were alarmed to discover that the most popular games among young teenagers had graphic displays of violence and sexual themes. The state legislature quickly responded to the public outcry. With the stated aim of protecting minors from the perceived evils of offensive but not necessarily obscene materials, the legislature enacted a statute banning the commercial licensing of video arcade games with a specifically defined degree of graphic violent or sexual content. Delmar, the owner of a chain of video arcades in State Russet shopping malls, was denied licenses for a number of video games that he wanted to install at his arcades. He challenges the state's action in federal district court. The court will probably find the State Russet statute:
Options:
A. Constitutional, because for materials accessible to minors, the state may adopt a different standard for determining whether the material is offensive or obscene than the standard it applies for adults.
B. Constitutional, because the statute precisely defines the type of content that is prohibited in the video games.
C. Unconstitutional, because narrower means are available to deny minors access to the objectionable material without affecting rights of adults.
D. Unconstitutional, because some of the banned video games may have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, as determined by contemporary community standards, and thus do not fall within the definition of obscenity. | C |
Davison was driving through an apartment building area plagued with an unusually high incidence of burglaries and assaults. Acting pursuant to a police department plan to combat crime by the random stopping of automobiles in the area between midnight and 6 a.m., a police officer stopped Davison and asked him for identification. As Davison handed the officer his license, the officer directed a flashlight into the automobile and saw what appeared to be the barrel of a shotgun protruding from under the front seat on the passenger side of the car. The officer ordered Davison from the car, searched him, and discovered marijuana cigarettes and a shotgun. At Davison's trial for unlawful possession of narcotics, his motion to suppress the use of the marijuana as evidence should be:
Options:
A. Sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of Davison's automobile.
B. Sustained, because the use of the flashlight constituted a search of the interior of Davison's automobile without probable cause.
C. Denied, because the officer's conduct was consistent with the established police plan.
D. Denied, because the discovery of the gun in plain view created the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the arrest and search of Davison. | A |
Dean, charged with murder, was present with her attorney at a preliminary examination when White, who was the defendant in a separate prosecution for concealing the body of the murder victim, testified for the prosecution against Dean. When called to testify at Dean's trial, White refused to testify, although ordered to do so. The prosecution offers evidence of White's testimony at the preliminary examination. The evidence is:
Options:
A. Admissible as former testimony.
B. Admissible as past recollection recorded.
C. Inadmissible, because it would violate White's privilege against self-incrimination.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception. | A |
Santos agreed to sell and Perrine agreed to buy a described lot on which a single-family residence had been built. Under the contract, Santos agreed to convey marketable title subject only to conditions, covenants, and restrictions of record and all applicable zoning laws and ordinances. The lot was subject to a 10 -foot side line setback originally set forth in the developer's duly recorded subdivision plot. The applicable zoning ordinance zones the property for single-family units and requires an 8.5-foot side line setback. Prior to closing, a survey of the property was made. It revealed that a portion of Santos's house was $8.4$ feet from the side line. Perrine refused to consummate the transaction on the ground that Santos's title is not marketable. In an appropriate action, Santos seeks specific performance. Who will prevail in such an action?
Options:
A. Santos, because any suit against Perrine concerning the setback would be frivolous.
B. Santos, because the setback violation falls within the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex.
C. Perrine, because any variation, however small, amounts to a breach of contract.
D. Perrine, because the fact that Perrine may be exposed to litigation is sufficient to make the title unmarketable. | D |
Alford was a suspect in a homicide committed during a robbery of a liquor store. Barber was a friend of Alford. Police telephoned Barber and asked if he would help locate Alford. Barber agreed and met the police officers at headquarters later that night. After a discussion during which police asked questions about Alford and the homicide, Barber said that he wanted to get something "off his chest" and advised the officers that he was in on the robbery but that Alford had shot the owner of the store without his permission or prior knowledge. The officers then for the first time gave Barber his Miranda warnings. Barber was indicted for felony murder. He moved to prevent the introduction of his statement into evidence. His motion should be:
Options:
A. Granted, because Barber was effectively in custody and entitled to receive Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion.
B. Granted, because Barber's right to counsel and due process were violated by the interrogation at police headquarters.
C. Denied, because his statement was freely and voluntarily given and he was not entitled to Miranda warnings.
D. Denied, because by visiting headquarters voluntarily, Barber waived his right to have Miranda warnings at the beginning of the discussion. | C |
In a trial between Jones and Smith, an issue arose about Smith's ownership of a horse, which had caused damage to Jones's crops. Jones seeks to introduce in evidence a photograph of his cornfield to depict the nature and extent of the damage done. The judge should rule the photograph:
Options:
A. Admissible if Jones testifies that it fairly and accurately portrays the condition of the cornfield after the damage was done.
B. Admissible if Jones testifies that the photograph was taken within a week after the alleged occurrence.
C. Inadmissible if Jones fails to call the photographer to testify concerning the circumstances under which the photograph was taken.
D. Inadmissible if it is possible to describe the damage to the cornfield through direct oral testimony. | A |
The state of Yuma provides by statute, "No person may be awarded any state construction contract without agreeing to employ only citizens of the state and of the United States in performance of the contract." In evaluating the constitutionality of this state statute under the Supremacy Clause, which of the following would be most directly relevant?
Options:
A. The general unemployment rate in the nation.
B. The treaties and immigration laws of the United States.
C. The need of the state for this particular statute.
D. The number of aliens currently residing in Yuma. | B |
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $ 1,200$ upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10 . Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $ 1,050$ a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $ 1,050$. Would you consider selling me yours for $ 950$ ?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until $12: 15 \mathrm{p}$.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's. In a lawsuit by Slicker against Duffer for breach of contract, what would the court probably decide regarding Slicker's letter of October 9?
Options:
A. The letter bound both parties to a unilateral contract as soon as Slicker mailed it.
B. Mailing of the letter by Slicker did not, of itself, prevent a subsequent effective revocation by Duffer of his offer.
C. The letter bound both parties to a bilateral contract, but only when received by Duffer on November 10.
D. Regardless of whether Duffer's offer had proposed a unilateral or a bilateral contract, the letter was an effective acceptance upon receipt, if not upon dispatch. | B |
Taylor and Scott, an unmarried couple, purchased a condominium as tenants in common and lived in the condominium for three years. Subsequently, they made an oral agreement that, on the death of either of them, the survivor would own the entire condominium, and, as a result, they decided they did not need wills. Two years later, Taylor and Scott were involved in the same automobile accident. Taylor was killed immediately. Scott died one week later. Both died intestate. Taylor's sole heir is his brother, Mark. Scott's sole heir is her mother, Martha. Mark claimed one-half of the condominium, and Martha claimed all of it. The jurisdiction has no applicable statute except for the Statute of Frauds; nor does it recognize common law marriages. In an appropriate action by Martha claiming the entire ownership of the condominium, the court will find that:
Options:
A. Martha owns the entire interest because Taylor and Scott did not make wills in reliance upon their oral agreement.
B. Martha owns the entire interest because she is entitled to reformation of the deed to reflect the oral agreement.
C. Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because Taylor and Scott each died as the result of the same accident.
D. Mark and Martha each own an undivided one-half interest because the Statute of Frauds applies. | D |
A statute in the state of Peridot permits the state to seize and dispose of real property that was used to commit or facilitate the commission of a felony drug offense. After Keith's arrest for selling cocaine out of his home, a felony, the state instituted an action of forfeiture against Keith's house and property. After notice to Keith and a hearing, a judge granted the order and the state seized the property. Six months later, after the time for any appeals had expired, the property was sold at a public auction to a third party. It was only when the third party brought an action to quiet title that Northwest Bank, the holder of a properly recorded mortgage on Keith's property, learned of the forfeiture. Because the bank's mortgage payments were automatically deducted from an account Keith had under a different name, no one at the bank was aware that the property had been seized. The only notice provided to parties other than Keith was a public notice published for three weeks in a general circulation newspaper. The bank defends the quiet title action on the ground that it did not receive the notice required under the United States Constitution to protect its interest in the property. If the court rules that Northwest Bank's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were violated by the state's seizure of the property, it will be because:
Options:
A. In any judicial proceeding affecting rights to real property, a claimant is required to provide notice and an evidentiary hearing to all parties with a legal interest in the property before taking actions affecting their rights.
B. The government itself was the party that seized the property, rather than a private party using governmental processes.
C. The notice was not adequate under the circumstances to apprise a party with a properly recorded legal interest in the property.
D. The jurisdiction treats the mortgagee as having title to the property rather than merely a lien. | C |
In 1956, Silo Cement Company constructed a plant for manufacturing ready-mix concrete in Lakeville. At that time Silo was using bagged cement, which caused little or no dust. In 1970, Petrone bought a home approximately 1,800 feet from the Silo plant. One year ago, Silo stopped using bagged cement and began to receive cement in bulk shipments. Since then at least five truckloads of cement have passed Petrone's house daily. Cement blows off the trucks and into Petrone's house. When the cement arrives at the Silo plant, it is blown by forced air from the trucks into the storage bin. As a consequence, cement dust fills the air surrounding the plant to a distance of 2,000 feet. Petrone's house is the only residence within 2,000 feet of the plant. If Petrone asserts a claim against Silo based on nuisance, will Petrone prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, unless using bagged cement would substantially increase Silo's costs.
B. Yes, if the cement dust interfered unreasonably with the use and enjoyment of Petrone's property.
C. No, because Silo is not required to change its industrial methods to accommodate the needs of one individual.
D. No, if Silo's methods are in conformity with those in general use in the industry. | B |
Deanna was moving to Russia to work in a foreign policy institute, and was in the process of moving out of the apartment that she had shared with Vanessa, who was not in at the time. Just before leaving, Deanna collected numerous items of hers from Vanessa's room that Vanessa had borrowed, usually without permission. As she was leaving the apartment, she grabbed what she believed to be her laptop computer, which Vanessa had often borrowed to do reports for work. Because it was an older, slower machine, she planned to trade it in for a different model at a computer resale store during a stopover in London. When she arrived at the computer store she discovered that she had taken a brand new, state-of-the-art laptop that Vanessa had apparently just purchased. Is Deanna guilty of larceny of the computer?
Options:
A. No, because she mistakenly believed that the computer she had picked up was hers.
B. No, if her mistake as to whose computer she had picked up was reasonable.
C. Yes, because she intended to permanently deprive Vanessa of the computer when she took it.
D. Yes, if she decides to keep the computer or trade it in for a different one. | A |
Congress enacts a law providing that all disagreements between the United States and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by the filing of suit in the federal district court in the affected state. "The judgment of that federal court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds, who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms." This law is:
Options:
A. Constitutional, because disagreements over federal grant-in-aid funds necessarily involve federal questions within the judicial power of the United States.
B. Constitutional, because the spending of federal monies necessarily includes the authority to provide for the effective settlement of disputes involving them.
C. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in the federal court to determine a matter prohibited to it by the Eleventh Amendment.
D. Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion. | D |
Torgeson, a prosperous widower, owned Fruitacre, a large tract of land located near Sunbelt City. Fruitacre was primarily used for extensive citrus orchards, but Torgeson was sure that rapidly growing Sunbelt City would expand toward Fruitacre, and that Fruitacre would be a prime tract for a residential subdivision within 20 years. Torgeson wanted to see his three grandchildren, Hubert (age 22), Dubert (age 17), and Luberta (age 15), benefit from the large price that he was sure Fruitacre would bring, but he was also concerned that the grandchildren be of sufficient maturity. Torgeson suggested to his only child, Diana, that he give her a life interest in Fruitacre, and that Diana's children take Fruitacre upon her death. Diana told Torgeson that she did not need the income from Fruitacre and would prefer that Torgeson give the land directly to Hubert, Dubert, and Luberta. Torgeson arrived at what he felt was a reasonable compromise, using his good friend, Fran (age 55), as the person to whom he conveyed the land. Torgeson's conveyance read, in pertinent part, as follows: "I convey Fruitacre to Fran for life, remainder to all of my grandchildren who ever attain the age of 25 , and if none of them attains such age, to the Sisters of Charity." 44. The grandchildren's interest can best be described as: (A) A contingent remainder. (B) A vested remainder. (C) An executory interest. (D) Nothing. The Sisters of Charity's interest can best be described as:
Options:
A. A contingent remainder.
B. A vested remainder subject to total divestment.
C. An executory interest.
D. Nothing. | D |
Poe ordered some merchandise from Store. When the merchandise was delivered, Poe decided that it was not what he had ordered, and he returned it for credit. Store refused to credit Poe's account, continued to bill him, and, after 90 days, turned the account over to Kane, a bill collector, for collection. Kane called at Poe's house at 7 p.m. on a summer evening while many of Poe's neighbors were seated on their porches. When Poe opened the door, Kane, who was standing just outside the door, raised an electrically amplified bullhorn to his mouth. In a voice that could be heard a block away, Kane called Poe a "deadbeat" and asked him when he intended to pay his bill to Store. Poe, greatly angered, slammed the door shut. The door struck the bullhorn and jammed it forcibly against Kane's face. As a consequence, Kane lost some of his front teeth. If Kane asserts a claim based on battery against Poe, will Kane prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because Poe had not first asked Kane to leave the property.
B. Yes, if Poe knew that the door was substantially certain to strike the bullhorn.
C. No, if Kane's conduct triggered Poe's response.
D. No, because Kane was an intruder on Poe's property. | B |
A recently enacted state law forbids nonresident aliens from owning more than 100 acres of land within the state and directs the state attorney general to bring an action of ejectment whenever a nonresident alien owns such land. Zane, a nonresident alien, has obtained title to 200 acres of land in the state, and he brings an action in federal court to enjoin the state attorney general from enforcing the statute. The defendant moves to dismiss the complaint. The best argument for Zane is that:
Options:
A. States are forbidden by the Commerce Clause from interfering with the rights of nonresidents to own land.
B. The state's power to restrict alien rights is limited by the federal power to control foreign relations.
C. The state statute adversely affects Zane's right to travel.
D. The 100-acre restriction means that aliens cannot engage in farming operations requiring larger amounts of land. | B |
Carver is a chemical engineer. She has no interest in or connection with Chemco. Carver noticed that Chemco's most recent publicly issued financial statement listed, as part of Chemco's assets, a large inventory of a certain special chemical compound. This asset was listed at a cost of $ 100,000$, but Carver knew that the ingredients of the compound were in short supply and that the current market value of the inventory was in excess of $ 1$ million. There was no current public quotation of the price of Chemco stock. The book value of Chemco stock, according to the statement, was $ 5$ per share; its actual value was $ 30$ per share. Knowing these facts, Carver offered to purchase from Page at $ 6$ per share the 1,000 shares of Chemco stock owned by Page. Page and Carver had not previously met. Page sold the stock to Carver for $ 6$ per share. If Page asserts a claim based on misrepresentation against Carver, will Page prevail?
Options:
A. Yes, because Carver knew that the value of the stock was greater than the price she offered.
B. Yes, if Carver did not inform Page of the true value of the inventory.
C. No, unless Carver told Page that the stock was not worth more than $ 6$ per share.
D. No, if Chemco's financial statement was available to Page. | C |
Duffer and Slicker, who lived in different suburbs 20 miles apart, were golfing acquaintances at the Interurban Country Club. Both were traveling salesmen-Duffer for a pharmaceutical house and Slicker for a widget manufacturer. Duffer wrote Slicker by United States mail on Friday, October 8: I need a motorcycle for transportation to the country club, and will buy your Sujocki for $ 1,200$ upon your bringing it to my home address above [stated in the letterhead] on or before noon, November 12 next. This offer is not subject to countermand. Sincerely, [signed] Duffer Slicker replied by mail the following day: I accept your offer and promise to deliver the bike as you specified. Sincerely, [signed] Slicker This letter, although properly addressed, was misdirected by the postal service and not received by Duffer until November 10 . Duffer had bought another Sujocki bike from Koolcat for $ 1,050$ a few hours before. Koolcat saw Slicker at the Interurban Country Club on November 11 and said: "I sold my Sujocki to Duffer yesterday for $ 1,050$. Would you consider selling me yours for $ 950$ ?" Slicker replied, "I'll let you know in a few days." On November 12, Slicker took his Sujocki to Duffer's residence; he arrived at 11:55 a.m. Duffer was asleep and did not answer Slicker's doorbell rings until $12: 15 \mathrm{p}$.m. Duffer then rejected Slicker's bike on the ground that he had already bought Koolcat's. In Duffer's letter of October 8, what was the legal effect of the language: "This offer is not subject to countermand"?
Options:
A. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the offer was irrevocable until noon, November 12.
B. Such language prevented an effective acceptance by Slicker prior to noon, November 12.
C. At common law, such language created a binding option in Slicker's favor.
D. Such language did not affect the offeror's power of revocation of the offer. | D |
Mater, a wealthy widow, wishing to make a substantial and potentially enduring gift to her beloved adult stepson, Prodigal, established with the Vault Savings and Loan Association a passbook savings account by an initial deposit of $ 10,000$. For this question only, assume the following facts. The passbook was issued by Vault to Mater solely in her own name. That same day, disinterested witnesses being present, she handed the passbook to Prodigal and said, "As a token of my love and affection for you, I give you this $ 10,000$ savings account." Shortly thereafter, she changed her mind and wrote Prodigal, "I hereby revoke my gift to you of the $ 10,000$ savings account with Vault Savings and Loan Association. Please return my passbook immediately. Signed: Mater." Prodigal received this letter but ignored it, and Mater died unexpectedly a few days later. In litigation between Prodigal and Mater's estate, which of the following is a correct statement of the parties' rights with respect to the money on deposit with Vault?
Options:
A. The estate prevails, because Mater's gift to Prodigal was revocable and was terminated by her death.
B. The estate prevails, because Mater's gift to Prodigal was revocable and was terminated by her express revocation.
C. Prodigal prevails, because he took Mater's claim to the savings account by a gratuitous but effective and irrevocable assignment from Mater.
D. Prodigal prevails, because his failure to reject the gift, even if the assignment was revocable, created an estoppel against Mater and her estate. | C |
Tortfeasor tortiously injured Victim in an auto accident. While Victim was recovering in Hospital, Tortfeasor's liability insurer, Insurer, settled with Victim for $ 5,000$. Victim gave Insurer a signed release and received a signed memorandum wherein Insurer promised to pay Victim $ 5,000$ by check within 30 days. When Victim left Hospital two days later, Hospital demanded payment of its $ 4,000$ stated bill. Victim thereupon gave Hospital his own negotiable promissory note for $ 4,000$, payable to Hospital's order in 30 days, and also, as security, assigned to Hospital the Insurer settlement memorandum. Hospital promptly assigned for value the settlement memorandum and negotiated the note to Holder, who took the note as a holder in due course. Subsequently, Victim misrepresented to Insurer that he had lost the settlement memorandum and needed another. Insurer issued another memorandum identical to the first, and Victim assigned it to $\mathrm{ABC}$ Furniture to secure a $ 5,000$ credit sale contract. $\mathrm{ABC}$ immediately notified Insurer of this assignment. Later it was discovered that Hospital had mistakenly overbilled Victim by the amount of $ 1,000$ and that Tortfeasor was an irresponsible minor. If Victim starts an action against Insurer 40 days after the insurance settlement agreement, can Victim recover?
Options:
A. Yes, because his attempted assignments of his claim against Insurer were ineffective, inasmuch as Insurer's promise to pay "by check" created a right in Victim that was too personal to assign.
B. No, because he no longer has possession of Insurer's written memorandum.
C. No, because Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility vitiated the settlement agreement between Victim and Insurer.
D. No, because he has made at least one effective assignment of his claim against Insurer, and Insurer has notice thereof. | D |
When Esther, Gray's 21-year-old daughter, finished college, Gray handed her a signed memorandum stating that if she would go to law school for three academic years, he would pay her tuition, room, and board, and would "give her a $ 1,000$ bonus" for each "A" she got in law school. Esther's uncle, Miller, who was present on this occasion, read the memorandum and thereupon said to Esther, "and if he doesn't pay your expenses, I will." Gray paid her tuition, room, and board for her first year but died just before the end of that year. Subsequently, Esther learned that she had received two "As" in the second semester. The executor of Gray's estate has refused to pay her anything for the two "As" and has told her that the estate will no longer pay her tuition, room, and board in law school. In an action against Gray's estate for $ 2,000$ on account of the two "As," if the only defense raised is lack of consideration, Esther probably will:
Options:
A. Succeed under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
B. Succeed on a theory of bargained-for exchange for her father's promise.
C. Not succeed, because the $ 1,000$ for each "A" was promised only as a bonus.
D. Not succeed, because Esther was already legally obligated to use her best efforts in law school. | B |
Jack and Paul planned to hold up a bank. They drove to the bank in Jack's car. Jack entered while Paul remained as lookout in the car. After a few moments, Paul panicked and drove off. Jack looked over the various tellers, approached one and whispered nervously, "Just hand over the cash. Don't look around, don't make a false move-or it's your life." The teller looked at the fidgeting Jack, laughed, flipped him a dollar bill, and said, "Go on, beat it." Flustered, Jack grabbed the dollar and left. Paul's best defense to a charge of robbery would be that:
Options:
A. Jack alone entered the bank.
B. Paul withdrew, before commission of the crime, when he fled the scene.
C. Paul had no knowledge of what Jack whispered to the teller.
D. The teller was not placed in fear by Jack. | D |
Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he thought the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify. If the jury believes Bennett, it should find him:
Options:
A. Guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act.
B. Guilty, because he is not a police officer and thus cannot claim any privilege of apprehending criminals.
C. Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
D. Not guilty, because he prevented the theft from occurring. | C |