answer int64 0 3 | choices listlengths 4 4 | question stringlengths 1 6.54k | subject stringclasses 1
value | __source_orig_idx__ int64 1 99.8k |
|---|---|---|---|---|
3 | [
"I only",
"II only",
"Both I and II",
"Neither I nor II"
] | On March 1, Green and Brown orally agreed that Brown would erect a boathouse on Green's lot and would dig a channel from the boathouse across Clark's lot to a lake. Clark had already orally agreed with Green to permit the digging of the channel across Clark's lot. Brown agreed to begin work on the boathouse on March 15, and to complete all the work before June 1. The total price of $10,000 was to be paid by Green in three installments: $2,500 on March 15, $2,500 when the boathouse was completed, and $5,000 when Brown finished the digging of the channel."Assume that Green tendered the $2,500 on March 15, and that Brown refused to accept it or to perform. In an action by Green against Brown for breach of contract, which of the following can Brown successfully use as a defense? I. The Clark-Green agreement permitting the digging of the channel across Clark's lot was not in writing. II. The Green-Brown agreement was not in writing. | 236 | |
1 | [
"he suffered severe bodily harm.",
"the spray mist was an offensive or harmful contact.",
"he suffered severe emotional distress.",
"his conduct was not a factual cause of the chemical's being sprayed on him"
] | Customer, aged 20, went into Store at approximately 6:45 p.m. to look at some suits that were on sale. The clerks were busy, and one of them told Customer that he should wait on himself. Customer selected three suits from a rack and went into the dressing room to try them on. Signs posted on the walls of Store stated that 58 closing time was 9:00 p.m.; however, because of a special awards banquet for employees, Store was closed at 7:00 p.m. on this day. The employees, in a hurry to get to the banquet, did not check the dressing rooms or turn off the lights before leaving. When Customer emerged from the dressing room a few minutes after 7:00 p.m., he was alone and locked in. Customer tried the front door, but it was secured on the outside by a bar and padlock, so he went to the rear door. Customer grabbed the doorknob and vigorously shook the door. It did not open, but the activity set off a mechanism that had been installed because of several recent thefts committed by persons who had hidden in the store until after closing time. The mechanism sprayed a chemical mist in Customer's face, causing him to become temporarily blind. The mechanism also activated an alarm carried by Store's employee, Watchman, who was just coming to work. Watchman unlocked the front door, ran into the store and grabbed Customer. Customer, who was still unable to see, struck out at this person and hit a metal rack, injuring his hand. Watchman then identified himself, and Customer did the same. After assuring himself that Customer was telling the truth, Watchman allowed him to leave. If Customer is to prevail on a claim against Store based on battery from the use of the chemical spray, Customer must establish that | 239 | |
0 | [
"a defense by itself.",
"a defense only if Dock was not actuated by malice.",
"a defense only if Dock reasonably believed it to be true.",
"no defense by itself"
] | Dock was the unsuccessful suitor of Mary, who recently announced her engagement to Paul. Angered by her engagement, Dock sent Mary the following letter: "I hope you know what you are doing. The man you think you love wears women's clothes when at home. A Friend." The receipt of this letter caused Mary great emotional distress. She hysterically telephoned Paul, read him the letter, and told him that she was breaking their engagement. The contents of the letter were not revealed to others Paul, who was a young attorney in the state attorney's office, suffered serious humiliation and emotional distress as a result of the broken engagement. If Paul asserts a claim against Dock based on defamation and it is proved that Dock's statement was true, such proof will be | 240 | |
2 | [
"admissible as an admission of a party.",
"admissible as res gestae.",
"inadmissible for public policy reasons.",
"inadmissible, because it would lead to the drawing of an inference on an inference"
] | Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton v Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way"Pemberton's counsel proffers evidence showing that shortly after the accident Mammoth put a speed governor on the truck involved in the accident. The judge should rule the proffered evidence | 241 | |
0 | [
"Pemberton first proves that Helper was an agent of Mammoth and that the statement concerned a matter within the scope of his agency.",
"Pemberton produces independent evidence that Edwards was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident.",
"Helper is shown to be beyond the process of the court an... | Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton v Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way"Pemberton's counsel seeks to introduce Helper's written statement that Edwards, Mammoth's driver, left his glasses (required by his operator's license) at the truck stop when they left it five minutes before the accident. The judge should rule the statement admissible only if | 242 | |
0 | [
"admissible as an admission of a party.",
"admissible, because it is a statement made to a police officer in the course of an official investigation. ",
"inadmissible, because it is a mixed conclusion of law and fact. ",
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception"
] | Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton v Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way"Mammoth's counsel seeks to have Sheriff testify that while he was investigating the accident he 59 was told by Pemberton, "This was probably our fault." The judge should rule the proffered evidence | 243 | |
1 | [
"No type of prior restraint may be imposed on speech in public places.",
"Laws regulating, by their terms, expressive conduct or speech may not be overbroad or unduly vague. ",
"The determination as to whether public gatherings may be lawfully held cannot be vested in the police.",
"The right of association i... | The city of Newtown adopted an ordinance providing that street demonstrations involving more than 15 persons may not be held in commercial areas during "rush" hours. "Exceptions" may be made to the prohibition "upon 24-hour advance application to an approval by the police department." The ordinance also imposes sanctions on any person "who shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence, opprobrious words or abusive language tending to cause a breach of the peace." The ordinance has not yet had either judicial or administrative interpretation. Which of the following is the strongest argument for the unconstitutionality of both parts of the ordinance on their face? | 244 | |
1 | [
"standing, because the items seized in the search were incriminating in nature. ",
"standing, because he still has a sufficient interest in the apartment even while in jail. ",
"no standing, because his landlord authorized the search. ",
"no standing, because he was out of the apartment when the search occurr... | While Defendant was in jail on a procuring charge, his landlord called the police because rent had not been paid and because he detected a disagreeable odor coming from Defendant's apartment into the hallways. The police officer who responded to the call knew that Defendant was in jail. He recognized the stench coming from Defendant's apartment as that of decomposing flesh and, without waiting to obtain a warrant and using the landlord's passkey, entered the apartment with the landlord's consent. The lease to these premises gave the landlord a right of entry, at any reasonable hour, for the purpose of making repairs. The police officer found a large trunk in the bedroom which seemed to be the source of the odor. Upon breaking it open, he found the remains of Rosette, Defendant's former mistress. "If Defendant undertakes to challenge the search of his apartment, he has | 246 | |
2 | [
"Death, an eventuality for which the parties could have provided, terminates the agreement if they did not so provide. ",
"Rose is entitled to the proceeds of the sale when it closes, because the doctrine of equitable conversion does not apply to these circumstances. ",
"Perry is entitled to the proceeds of the... | Seller and Buyer execute an agreement for the sale of real property on September 1, 1971. The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes the principle of equitable conversion and has no statute pertinent to this problem."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. 60 There being no breach of the agreement by either party, which of the following is correct? | 247 | |
0 | [
"Buyer's heir may specifically enforce the agreement.",
"Seller has the right to return the down payment and cancel the contract.",
"Death terminates the agreement.",
"Any title acquired would be unmarketable by reason of Buyer's death."
] | Seller and Buyer execute an agreement for the sale of real property on September 1, 1971. The jurisdiction in which the property is located recognizes the principle of equitable conversion and has no statute pertinent to this problem."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? | 248 | |
2 | [
"Junior and his bride, married on June 10, 1972, had to pay storage charges on their wedding gifts and new furniture until the house was completed. ",
"Junior's fiancée jilted Junior on June 10, 1972, and ran off with another man who had a new house. ",
"Farquart was put to additional expense in providing Juni... | Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancée a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "Assuming that Sawtooth committed a total breach on March 1, 1972, and assuming further that he was aware when the agreement was made of the purpose for which Farquart wanted the completed house, which of the following, if true, would best support Farquart's claim for consequential damages on account of delay beyond June 10, 1972, in getting the house finished? | 250 | |
1 | [
"Estoppel-type waiver as to both I and II.",
"Waiver of delay in payment as to I and revocable waiver as to II.",
"Mutual rescission of the contract by I combined with II.",
"Discharge of Farquart's duty to make the four payments as to I and estoppel-type waiver as to II"
] | Farquart had made a legally binding promise to furnish his son Junior and the latter's fiancée a house on their wedding day, planned for June 10, 1972. Pursuant to that promise, Farquart telephoned his old contractor-friend Sawtooth on May 1, 1971, and made the following oral agreement each making full and accurate written notes thereof: Sawtooth was to cut 30 trees into fireplace logs from a specified portion of a certain oneacre plot owned by Farquart, and Farquart was to pay therefor $20 per tree. Sawtooth agreed further to build a house on the plot conforming to the specifications of Plan OP5 published by Builders, Inc., for a construction price of $18,000. Farquart agreed to make payments of $2,000 on the first of every month for nine months beginning August 1, 1971, upon monthly presentation of a certificate by Builders, Inc., that the specifications of Plan OP5 were being met. Sawtooth delivered the cut logs to Farquart in July 1971, when he also began building the house. Farquart made three $2,000 payments for the work done in July, August, and September 1971, without requiring a certificate. Sawtooth worked through October, but no work was done from November 1, 1971, to the end of February 1972, because of bad weather, and Farquart made no payments during that period. Sawtooth did not object. On March 1, 1972, Sawtooth demanded payment of $2,000; but Farquart refused on the grounds that no construction work had been done for four months and Builders had issued no certificate. Sawtooth thereupon abandoned work and repudiated the agreement. "What was the probable legal effect of the following? I. Sawtooth's failure to object to Farquart's making no payments on November 1, December 1, January 1, and February 1. II. Farquart's making payments in August through October without requiring a certificate from Builders. | 251 | |
0 | [
"recover, because Construction Company left the open trench unprotected. ",
"recover, because construction companies are strictly liable for inherently dangerous conditions. ",
"not recover, because Tommy was a trespasser. ",
"not recover, because Tommy's death was a result of the collapse of the trench, an i... | Construction Company contracted to build a laundry for Wash Company on the latter's vacant lot in a residential area. As a part of its work, Construction Company dug a trench from the partially completed laundry to the edge of a public sidewalk; water pipes were to be installed in the trench. Because of the contour of the land, the trench was dug to a depth ranging from seven to nine feet. Construction Company did not place any barriers around the trench and permitted it to lie open for almost a week while Construction Company waited for delivery of the water pipes. This was known to Wash Company, but it raised no objection. During the time the trench was open, a series of heavy rains fell, causing five feet of surface water to gather in the bottom of the trench. While this condition existed, five-year-old Tommy, who was playing on the vacant lot with friends, stumbled and fell into the trench. Robert, an adult passerby, saw this and immediately lowered himself into the trench to rescue Tommy. However, his doing so caused the rainsoaked walls of the trench to collapse, killing both him and Tommy. In a claim for wrongful death by Tommy's administrator against Construction Company, the most likely result is that the administrator will | 252 | |
2 | [
"recover, because Doctor was negligent as a matter of law ",
"recover, because Doctor had no right to move the car. ",
"not recover, because his brakes were defective. ",
"not recover, because he was in a drunken stupor when injured"
] | Doctor, a licensed physician, resided in her own home. The street in front of the home had a gradual slope. Doctor's garage was on the street level, with a driveway entrance from the street. At two in the morning, Doctor received an emergency call. She dressed and went to the garage to get her car and found a car parked in front of her driveway. That car was occupied by Parker, who, while intoxicated, had driven to that place and now was in a drunken stupor in the front seat. Unable to rouse Parker, Doctor pushed him into the passenger's side of the front seat and got in on the driver's side. Doctor released the brake and coasted the car down the street, planning to pull into a parking space that was open. When Doctor attempted to stop the car, the brakes failed to work, and the car crashed into the wall of Owner's home, damaging Owner's home and Parker's car and injuring Doctor and Parker. Subsequent examination of the car disclosed that the brake linings were badly worn. A state statute prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle unless the brakes are capable of stopping the vehicle within specified distances at specified speeds. The brakes on Parker's car were incapable of stopping the vehicle within the limits required by the statute. Another state statute makes it a criminal offense to be intoxicated while driving a motor vehicle. If Parker asserts a claim against Doctor for his injuries, Parker will probably | 253 | |
3 | [
"grant the motion on the ground that the best evidence rule requires production of the newspaper itself.",
"grant the motion, because the reference to the newspaper story does not fit within any established exception to the hearsay rule. ",
"deny the motion on the ground that the court may take judicial notice ... | In a contract suit between Terrell and Ward, Ward testifies that he recalls having his first conversation with Terrell on January 3. When asked how he remembers the date, he answers, "In the conversation, Terrell referred to a story in that day's newspaper announcing my daughter's engagement." Terrell's counsel moves to strike the reference to the newspaper story. The judge should | 254 | |
2 | [
"not guilty, because his words did not create a \"clear and present danger\" not already existing. ",
"not guilty, because mere presence and oral encouragement, whether or not he had the requisite intent, do not make him guilty as an accomplice. ",
"guilty, because, with the intent to have Bill kill Vic, he sho... | Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom, who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, "Kill him." Tom, who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him.On a charge of murdering Vic, Sam is | 255 | |
0 | [
"not guilty, because mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent, is not sufficient. ",
"not guilty, because he did not tell Bill ahead of time that he hoped Bill would murder Vic. ",
"guilty, because he had a duty to stop the killing and made no attempt to do so. ",
"guilty, because he was present... | Bill and Chuck hated Vic and agreed to start a fight with Vic and, if the opportunity arose, to kill him. Bill and Chuck met Vic in the street outside a bar and began to push him around. Ray, Sam, and Tom, who also hated Vic, stopped to watch. Ray threw Bill a knife. Sam told Bill, "Kill him." Tom, who made no move and said nothing, hoped that Bill would kill Vic with the knife. Chuck held Vic while Bill stabbed and killed him.On a charge of murdering Vic, Tom is | 256 | |
1 | [
"sustained on the grounds that belief in or worship of Satan does not enjoy constitutional protection.",
"sustained on the grounds that sincere religious belief is not an adequate defense on these facts.",
"overturned on the grounds that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion and its expression was... | Leonard was the high priest of a small cult of Satan worshippers living in New Arcadia. As a part of the practice of their religious beliefs, a cat was required to be sacrificed to the glory of Satan after a live dissection of the animal in which it endured frightful pain. In the course of such a religious sacrifice, Leonard was arrested on the complaint of the local humane society and charged under a statute punishing cruelty to animals. On appeal, a conviction of Leonard probably will be | 257 | |
1 | [
"admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule.",
"admissible to impeach the dead declarant.",
"inadmissible, because it goes to the ultimate issue in the case. ",
"inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to any substantive issue in the case."
] | Drew is charged with the murder of Pitt. The prosecutor introduced testimony of a police officer that Pitt told a priest, administering the last rites, "I was stabbed by Drew. Since I am dying, tell him I forgive him." Thereafter, Drew's attorney offers the testimony of Wall that the day before, when Pitt believed he would live, he stated that he had been stabbed by Jack, an old enemy. The testimony of Wall is | 258 | |
1 | [
"passage of an appropriation over a veto makes the spending mandatory.",
"Congress's power to appropriate funds includes the power to require that the funds be spent as directed.",
"the President's independent constitutional powers do not specifically refer to spending.",
"the President's power to withhold su... | An appropriations act passed by Congress over the President's veto directs that one billion dollars "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 | 259 | |
0 | [
"Covenant.",
"Easement.",
"Mortgage.",
"Personal contractual obligation by each purchaser"
] | Ohner holds title in fee simple to a tract of 1,500 acres. He wishes to develop the entire tract as a golf course, country club, and residential subdivision. He contemplates forming a corporation to own and operate the golf course and country club; the stock in the corporation will be distributed to the owners of lots in the residential portions of the subdivision, but no obligation to issue the stock is to ripen until all the residential lots are sold. The price of the lots is intended to return enough money to compensate Ohner for the raw land, development costs (including the building of the golf course and the country club facilities), and developer's profit, if all of the lots are sold. Ohner's market analyses indicate that he must create a scheme of development that will offer prospective purchasers (and their lawyers) a very high order of assurance that several aspects will be clearly established: 1. Aside from the country club and golf course, there will be no land use other than for residential use and occupancy in the 1,500 acres. 2. The residents of the subdivision will have unambiguous rights of access to the club and golf course facilities. 3. Each lot owner must have an unambiguous right to transfer the lot to a purchaser with all original benefits. 4. Each lot owner must be obligated to pay annual dues to a pro rata share (based on the number of lots) of the club's annual operating deficit (whether or not such owner desires to make use of club and course facilities)."In the context of all aspects of the scheme, which of the following will offer the best chance of implementing the requirement that each lot owner pay annual dues to support the club and golf course? | 260 | |
3 | [
"any judicial recognition will be construed as state action which, under current doctrines, raises a substantial question as to whether such action would be in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment. ",
"the scheme, if effective, renders title unmarketable. ",
"one or more of the essential aspects outlined by O... | Ohner holds title in fee simple to a tract of 1,500 acres. He wishes to develop the entire tract as a golf course, country club, and residential subdivision. He contemplates forming a corporation to own and operate the golf course and country club; the stock in the corporation will be distributed to the owners of lots in the residential portions of the subdivision, but no obligation to issue the stock is to ripen until all the residential lots are sold. The price of the lots is intended to return enough money to compensate Ohner for the raw land, development costs (including the building of the golf course and the country club facilities), and developer's profit, if all of the lots are sold. Ohner's market analyses indicate that he must create a scheme of development that will offer prospective purchasers (and their lawyers) a very high order of assurance that several aspects will be clearly established: 1. Aside from the country club and golf course, there will be no land use other than for residential use and occupancy in the 1,500 acres. 2. The residents of the subdivision will have unambiguous rights of access to the club and golf course facilities. 3. Each lot owner must have an unambiguous right to transfer the lot to a purchaser with all original benefits. 4. Each lot owner must be obligated to pay annual dues to a pro rata share (based on the number of lots) of the club's annual operating deficit (whether or not such owner desires to make use of club and course facilities)."Of the following, the greatest difficulty that will be encountered in establishing the scheme is that | 261 | |
3 | [
"deeds without covenants are effective to convey realty.",
"the jurisdiction views the covenants as personal or running with the land.",
"Stone is a bona fide purchaser.",
"the power to \"sell and convey\" is construed to include the power to execute the usual form of deed used to convey realty"
] | Rogers gave Mitchell a power of attorney containing the following provision: My attorney, Mitchell, is specifically authorized to sell and convey any part or all of my real property. Mitchell conveyed part of Rogers's land to Stone by deed in the customary form containing covenants of title. Stone sues Rogers for breach of a covenant. The outcome of Stone's suit will be governed by whether | 262 | |
1 | [
"recover, because Auto Company is strictly liable under the circumstance. ",
"recover, because an employee of Auto Company was negligent. ",
"not recover, because Peter was a licensee. ",
"not recover, because Peter assumed the risk. "
] | Auto Company, a corporation, was a small dealer in big new cars and operated a service department. Peter wanted to ask Mike, the service manager, whether Auto Company would check the muffler on his small foreign car. Peter parked on the street near the service department with the intention of entering that part of the building by walking through one of the three large entrances designed for use by automobiles. There was no street entrance to the service department for individuals, and customers as well as company employees often used the automobile entrances. As Peter reached the building, he glanced behind him to be sure no vehicle was approaching that entrance. Seeing none, he walked through the entrance, but immediately he was struck on the back of the head and neck by the large overhead door which was descending. The blow knocked Peter unconscious and caused permanent damage. Peter did not know how the door was raised and lowered; however, the overhead door was operated by the use of either of two switches in the building. One switch was located in the office of the service manager and the other was located near the door in the service work area for the convenience of the mechanics. On this occasion, no one was in the service work area except three Auto Company mechanics. Mike, who had been in his office, and the three mechanics denied having touched a switch that would have lowered the door. Subsequent investigation showed, however, that the switches were working properly and that all of the mechanisms for moving the door were in good working order. If Peter asserts a claim based on negligence against Auto Company, Peter probably will | 263 | |
0 | [
"admissible, because the answering speaker's identification of himself, together with the usual accuracy of the telephone directory and transmission system, furnishes sufficient authentication. ",
"admissible, because judicial notice may be taken of the accuracy of telephone directories. ",
"inadmissible unless... | In a trial between Jones and Smith, an issue arose about Smith's ownership of a horse that had caused damage to Jones's crops.Jones offered to testify that he looked up Smith's telephone number in the directory, that he called that number, and that a voice answered, "This is Smith speaking." At this, Jones asked, "Was that your horse that tramped across my cornfield this afternoon?" The voice replied, "Yes." The judge should rule the testimony | 264 | |
0 | [
"admissible if Jones testifies that it fairly and accurately portrays the condition of the cornfield after the damage was done.",
"admissible if Jones testifies that the photograph was taken within a week after the alleged occurrence.",
"inadmissible if Jones fails to call the photographer to testify concerning... | In a trial between Jones and Smith, an issue arose about Smith's ownership of a horse that had caused damage to Jones's crops.Jones seeks to introduce into evidence a photograph of his cornfield in order to depict the nature and extent of the damage done. The judge should rule the photograph | 265 | |
2 | [
"Involuntary manslaughter",
"Voluntary manslaughter",
"Murder",
"None of the abov"
] | Defendant, an avid fan of his hometown football team, shot at the leg of a star player for a rival team, intending to injure his leg enough to hospitalize him for a few weeks, but not to kill him. The victim died of loss of blood. Select from the choices (A D) the most serious offense of which the defendant could be properly convicted. | 266 | |
2 | [
"admissible as res gestae.",
"admissible as a business record.",
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception. ",
"inadmissible, because Handy is available as a witnes"
] | Patty sued Mart Department Store for personal injuries, alleging that while shopping she was knocked to the floor by a merchandise cart being pushed by Handy, a stock clerk, and that as a consequence her back was injured. Handy testified that Patty fell near the cart but was not struck by it. Thirty minutes after Patty's fall, Handy, in accordance with regular practice at Mart, filled out a printed form, "Employee's Report of Accident Mart Department Store," in which he stated that Patty had been leaning over to spank her young child and in so doing had fallen near his cart. Counsel for Mart offers in evidence the report, which was given to him by Handy's supervisor. The judge should rule the report offered by Mart | 268 | |
0 | [
"recover, because the dishwasher was defectively made. ",
"recover, because Elex Company is vicariously liable for the improper installation. ",
"not recover, because he assumed the risk by inspecting the machine. ",
"not recover, because he was not the purchaser"
] | Householder hired Contractor to remodel Householder's kitchen. She had learned of Contractor through a classified advertisement he placed in the local newspaper. During the telephone conversation in which she hired him, Contractor stated that he was experienced and qualified to do all necessary work. Because of Contractor's low charge for his work, he and Householder agreed in writing that on acceptance of his job by Householder, Contractor would have no further liability to her or to anyone else for any defects in materials or workmanship, and that she would bear all such costs. Householder purchased a dishwasher manufactured by Elex Company from Dealer, who was in the retail electrical appliance business. The dishwasher was sold by Dealer with only the manufacturer's warranty and with no warranty by Dealer; Elex Company restricted its warranty to ninety days on parts and labor. Contractor installed the dishwasher Two months after Householder accepted the entire job, she was conversing in her home with Accountant, an acquaintance who had agreed to prepare her income tax return gratuitously. As they talked, they noticed that the dishwasher was operating strangely, repeatedly stopping and starting. At Householder's request, Accountant gave it a cursory examination and, while inspecting it, received a violent electrical shock which did him extensive harm. The dishwasher had an internal wiring defect which allowed electrical current to be carried into the framework and caused the machine to malfunction. The machine had not been adequately grounded by Contractor during installation; if it had been, the current would have been led harmlessly away. The machine carried instructions for correct grounding, which Contractor had not followed. If Accountant asserts a claim based on strict liability against Elex Company for damages, the probable result is that Accountant will | 269 | |
3 | [
"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.\" ",
"The requirement violates Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to \"make or alter\" state regulations provid... | 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 conflicts 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? | 270 | |
2 | [
"applies only to elections of individuals to statewide public office.",
"does not apply where property rights are involved.",
"does not apply, because the actions of such a district principally affect landowners. ",
"does not apply, because of rights reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment"
] | 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 conflicts 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 man, one vote" principle in this situation is that the principle | 271 | |
2 | [
"Alpha's tendering of good title to the apartment house is a condition precedent to Beta's duty to convey good title to the farm.",
"Beta's tendering of good title to the farm is a condition precedent to Alpha's duty to convey good title to the apartment house.",
"Beta's tendering of good title to the farm is a... | Alpha and Beta made a written contract pursuant to which Alpha promised to convey a specified apartment house to Beta in return for Beta's promise (1) to convey a 100-acre farm to Alpha and (2) to pay Alpha $1,000 in cash six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm. The contract contained the following provision: "It is understood and agreed that Beta's obligation to pay the $1,000 six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm shall be voided if Alpha has not, within three months after the aforesaid exchange, removed the existing shed in the parking area in the rear of the said apartment house.""Which of the following statements concerning the order of performances is LEAST accurate? | 273 | |
0 | [
"a condition subsequent in form but precedent in substance to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000. ",
"a condition precedent in form but subsequent in substance to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000. ",
"a condition subsequent to Beta's duty to pay the $1,000. 67 ",
"not a condition, either precedent or subsequent, to B... | Alpha and Beta made a written contract pursuant to which Alpha promised to convey a specified apartment house to Beta in return for Beta's promise (1) to convey a 100-acre farm to Alpha and (2) to pay Alpha $1,000 in cash six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm. The contract contained the following provision: "It is understood and agreed that Beta's obligation to pay the $1,000 six months after the exchange of the apartment house and the farm shall be voided if Alpha has not, within three months after the aforesaid exchange, removed the existing shed in the parking area in the rear of the said apartment house.""Alpha's removal of the shed from the parking area of the apartment house is | 274 | |
1 | [
"Larceny.",
"Embezzlement.",
"Larceny by trick.",
"Obtaining by false pretenses"
] | Johnson took a diamond ring to a pawnshop and borrowed $20 on it. It was agreed that the loan was to be repaid within 60 days and if it was not, the pawnshop owner, Defendant, could sell the ring. A week before expiration of the 60 days, Defendant had an opportunity to sell the ring to a customer for $125. He did so, thinking it unlikely that Johnson would repay the loan and that if he did, Defendant would be able to handle him somehow, even by paying him for the ring if necessary. Two days later, Johnson came in with the money to reclaim his ring. Defendant told him that it had been stolen when his shop was burglarized one night and that therefore he was not responsible for its loss. Larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses are separate crimes in the jurisdiction."It is most likely that Defendant has committed which of the following crimes? | 275 | |
3 | [
"the defendant negligently designed the stove.",
"stoves made by other manufacturers do not turn over with a 25-pound weight on the oven door. 68",
"the defendant failed to warn the Ritters that the stove would turn over easily.",
"the stove was defective and unreasonably dangerous to her"
] | Mrs. Ritter, a widow, recently purchased a new uncrated electric range for her kitchen from Local Retailer. The range has a wide oven with a large oven door. The crate in which Stove Company, the manufacturer, shipped the range to Local Retailer carried a label with a warning that the stove would tip over with a weight of 25 pounds or more on the oven door. Mrs. Ritter has one child Brenda, age three. Recently, at about 5:30 p.m., Brenda was playing on the floor of the kitchen while Mrs. Ritter was heating water in a pan on the stove. The telephone rang and Mrs. Ritter went into the living room to answer it. While she was gone, Brenda decided to find out what was cooking. She opened the oven door and climbed on it to see what was in the pan. Brenda's weight (25 pounds) on the door caused the stove to tip over forward. Brenda fell to the floor and the hot water spilled over her, burning her severely. Brenda screamed. Mrs. Ritter ran to the kitchen and immediately gave her first aid treatment for burns. Brenda thereafter received medical treatment. Brenda's burns were painful. They have now healed and do not bother her, but she has ugly scars on her legs and back. Brenda's claim is asserted on her behalf by the proper party."If Brenda asserts a claim based on strict liability against Stove Company, she must establish that | 278 | |
1 | [
"Local Retailer did not inform Mrs. Ritter of the warning on the crate.",
"the stove was substantially in the same condition at the time it tipped over as when it was purchased from Local Retailer.",
"Local Retailer made some change in the stove design or improperly assembled it so that it tipped over more easi... | Mrs. Ritter, a widow, recently purchased a new uncrated electric range for her kitchen from Local Retailer. The range has a wide oven with a large oven door. The crate in which Stove Company, the manufacturer, shipped the range to Local Retailer carried a label with a warning that the stove would tip over with a weight of 25 pounds or more on the oven door. Mrs. Ritter has one child Brenda, age three. Recently, at about 5:30 p.m., Brenda was playing on the floor of the kitchen while Mrs. Ritter was heating water in a pan on the stove. The telephone rang and Mrs. Ritter went into the living room to answer it. While she was gone, Brenda decided to find out what was cooking. She opened the oven door and climbed on it to see what was in the pan. Brenda's weight (25 pounds) on the door caused the stove to tip over forward. Brenda fell to the floor and the hot water spilled over her, burning her severely. Brenda screamed. Mrs. Ritter ran to the kitchen and immediately gave her first aid treatment for burns. Brenda thereafter received medical treatment. Brenda's burns were painful. They have now healed and do not bother her, but she has ugly scars on her legs and back. Brenda's claim is asserted on her behalf by the proper party."If Brenda asserts a claim based on strict liability against Local Retailer, she must establish that | 279 | |
1 | [
"The general unemployment rate in the nation.",
"The treaties and immigration laws of the United States.",
"The need of the state for this particular statute.",
"The number of aliens currently residing in Yuma"
] | 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? | 280 | |
0 | [
"The statute will help protect the workers of the State of Yuma from competition by foreign workers.",
"The statute will help assure that workers with jobs directly affecting the performance of public contracts are dedicated to their jobs",
"The statute will help assure a continuously available and stable workf... | 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? | 281 | |
2 | [
"a covenant against partition.",
"an indenture granting cross easements in the undivided half interest of each.",
"partition into two separate five-foot-wide strips and an indenture granting cross easements.",
"a trust to hold the strip in perpetuity"
] | Allen and Barker are equal tenants in common of a strip of land 10 feet wide and 100 feet deep which lies between the lots on which their respective homes are situated. Both Allen and Barker need the use of the 10-foot strip as a driveway, and each fears that a new neighbor might seek partition and leave him with an unusable five-foot strip. The best advice about how to solve their problem is | 283 | |
3 | [
"parents are vicariously liable for the intentional torts of their children.",
"she has a nondelegable duty to control the actions of her child.",
"respondeat superior applies.",
"she was negligent"
] | Mrs. Dennis's 12-year-old daughter, Gala, had some difficulty getting along with other children in the neighborhood, especially with the younger ones. Thinking the experience would be good for her, Mrs. Dennis recommended Gala to Mr. Parrent as a babysitter for his five-year-old boy, Robby, but did not mention Gala's difficulties or her lack of prior experience as a babysitter. The Dennises and the Parrents were longstanding social acquaintances. On the evening Gala was 69 to sit, the Parrents told Gala that she should treat Robby firmly, but that it would be preferable not to spank him since he did not take kindly to such treatment. They did not tell Gala that they had experienced trouble retaining babysitters because of Robby's temper tantrums. Later in the evening, when Robby became angry upon being told to go to his room for being naughty, Gala spanked him, but only moderately hard. Robby then threw a hardback book at Gala, hitting her in the eye. As Gala tried to catch Robby to take him to his room, Robby fled around the house and out the back door, knocking over and breaking an expensive lamp. The backyard was completely dark. Gala heard Robby screaming and banging at the back door, which had closed and locked automatically, but she did nothing. After twenty minutes had passed, she heard a banging and crying at the front door, but still she did nothing. Then the noise stopped. In a few minutes Gala went outside and found Robby lying on the steps unconscious and injured If a claim is asserted on behalf of Robby against Mrs. Dennis for damages based on Gala's conduct, Mrs. Dennis will probably be liable, because | 284 | |
0 | [
"\"When\" and \"Wouldn't that be nice\" implied a promise to type the manuscript. ",
"James relied on Mary Digit's statement by bringing the manuscript to X-L.",
"X-L had done good work for James in the past.",
"James had forgone the services of another secretarial service"
] | Professor James said to Mary Digit, president of the X-L Secretarial Service, "Since you folks have done good typing work for me in the past, I promise to bring you the manuscript for my new book." "When?" asked Mary Digit. "First chapter next Monday," replied James. "Wouldn't that be nice," said Mary Digit. The following Monday, James, forgoing the services of another secretarial service, brought the first chapter to the X-L office, but Mary Digit refused to take it, saying that they were all booked up for three weeks. Which of the following facts or inferences would be most helpful in an action by James against X-L? | 285 | |
1 | [
"Price cannot succeed, because the quitclaim through which he claims prevents him from being bona fide (in good faith). ",
"The outcome will turn on the view taken as to whether Crider paid value within the meaning of the statute requiring this element.",
"The outcome will turn on whether Price paid value (a fa... | In 1967 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 1971, 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 1971, 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 requires 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? | 286 | |
3 | [
"Fred consented to the obstruction by continuing to rent his apartment.",
"the violation of the ordinance was not unreasonable.",
"remedy of abatement by self-help was adequate.",
"there was no claim for special damage"
] | Hank owned a secondhand goods store. He often placed merchandise on the sidewalk, sometimes for short intervals, sometimes from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. Pedestrians from time to time stopped and gathered to look at the merchandise. Fred had moved into an apartment which was 70 situated immediately above Hank's store; a street-level stairway entrance was located about 20 feet to the east. On several occasions, Fred had complained to Hank about the situation because not only were his view and peace of mind affected, but his travel on the sidewalk was made more difficult. Fred owned and managed a restaurant two blocks to the west of his apartment and made frequent trips back and forth. There was a back entrance to his apartment through a parking lot; this entrance was about 200 feet farther in walking distance from his restaurant. Once Fred complained to the police, whereupon Hank was arrested under a local ordinance which prohibited the placing of goods or merchandise on public sidewalks and imposed, as its sole sanction, a fine for its violation. One day, the sidewalk in front of Hank's store was unusually cluttered because he was cleaning and mopping the floor of his shop. Fred and his 15-year-old son, Steve, saw a bus they wished to take, and they raced down the stairs and onto the cluttered sidewalk in front of Hank's store, Fred in the lead. While dodging merchandise and people, Fred fell. Steve tripped over him and suffered a broken arm. Fred also suffered broken bones and was unable to attend to his duties for six weeks. If, prior to the day of his personal injuries, Fred had asserted a claim based on public nuisance for injunctive relief against Hank for his obstruction of the sidewalk in violation of the ordinance, the defense on which Hank would have most likely prevailed is that | 287 | |
0 | [
"sufficient, because the discrepancy in area is not fatal. ",
"not sufficient, because it contained no metes and bounds. ",
"not sufficient, because the acreage given was not correct. ",
"not sufficient, because a deed purporting to convey more than a grantor owns is void ab initio."
] | By way of a gift, Pat executed a deed naming his daughter, Marian, as grantee. The deed contained descriptions as follows: (1) All of my land and dwelling known as 44 Main Street, Midtown, United States, being one acre (2) All that part of my farm, being a square with 200-foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor, Julia Brown. The deed contained covenants of general warranty, quiet enjoyment, and right to convey. Pat handed the deed to Marian, who immediately returned it to her father for safekeeping. Her father kept it in his safe deposit box. The deed was not recorded. The property at 44 Main Street covered 7/8 of an acre of land, had a dwelling and a garage situated thereon, and was subject to a right of way, described in prior deeds, in favor of Jack, a neighbor. Pat owned no other land on Main Street. Jack had not used the right of way for 10 years, and it was not visible on inspection of the property."The description of 44 Main Street was | 288 | |
3 | [
"is sufficient if consideration has been paid.",
"is sufficient because no ambiguity therein appears on the face of the deed.",
"could be enforced if the deed contained a covenant of seisin.",
"is insufficient because of vagueness"
] | By way of a gift, Pat executed a deed naming his daughter, Marian, as grantee. The deed contained descriptions as follows: (1) All of my land and dwelling known as 44 Main Street, Midtown, United States, being one acre (2) All that part of my farm, being a square with 200-foot sides, the southeast corner of which is in the north line of my neighbor, Julia Brown. The deed contained covenants of general warranty, quiet enjoyment, and right to convey. Pat handed the deed to Marian, who immediately returned it to her father for safekeeping. Her father kept it in his safe deposit box. The deed was not recorded. The property at 44 Main Street covered 7/8 of an acre of land, had a dwelling and a garage situated thereon, and was subject to a right of way, described in prior deeds, in favor of Jack, a neighbor. Pat owned no other land on Main Street. Jack had not used the right of way for 10 years, and it was not visible on inspection of the property."The description of part of Pat's farm | 289 | |
0 | [
"admissible, because it is relevant to show the improbability of Dann's having committed an unprovoked assault. ",
"admissible, because it is relevant to a determination of the extent of punishment if Dann is convicted. ",
"inadmissible, because whether Dann is normally a person of good character is irrelevant ... | Dann, who was charged with the crime of assaulting Smith, admitted striking Smith but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by Smith, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game."Dann offered the testimony of Employer, who would say that he had known and employed Dann for 12 years and knew Dann's reputation among the people with whom he lived and worked to be that of a peaceful, law-abiding, nonviolent person. The trial judge should rule this testimony | 290 | |
1 | [
"not objectionable, because evidence of Dann's previous fights and brawls may be used to prove his guilt. ",
"not objectionable, because it testsEmployer's knowledge of Dann's reputation. ",
"objectionable, because it seeks to put into evidence separate, unrelated offenses. ",
"objectionable, because no speci... | Dann, who was charged with the crime of assaulting Smith, admitted striking Smith but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by Smith, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.On cross-examination of Employer, the state's attorney asked Employer if he had heard that Dann often engaged in fights and brawls. The trial judge should rule the question | 291 | |
0 | [
"admissible to support Dann's theory of self-defense, touching on whether Dann or Smith was the aggressor. ",
"admissible if Frank testifies further as to specific acts of misconduct on Smith's part of which Frank has personal knowledge.",
"inadmissible on the question of Dann's guilt because Dann, not Smith, i... | Dann, who was charged with the crime of assaulting Smith, admitted striking Smith but claimed to have acted in self-defense when he was attacked by Smith, who was drunk and belligerent after a football game.Dann's friend Frank was called to testify that Smith had a reputation among the people with whom he lived and worked for law-breaking and frequently engaging in brawls. The trial judge should rule the testimony | 292 | |
1 | [
"sustained, because any congressional spending authorization can be challenged by any taxpayer. ",
"sustained, because the challenge to the exercise of congressional spending power is based on a claimed violation of specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power. ",
"denied, because there is ... | As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education 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 percent 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 plant 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 Allen challenges the provision that allows the distribution of free textbooks to students in a private school where religious instruction is included in the curriculum. On the question of the adequacy of Allen's standing to raise the constitutional question, the most likely result is that standing will be | 293 | |
3 | [
"sustained, because the statute provides that no supplements will be made to teachers who are engaged in any religious instruction. ",
"sustained, because to distinguish between private and public school teachers would violate the religious freedom clause of the First Amendment. ",
"held unconstitutional, becau... | As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education 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 percent 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 plant 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 challenges the salary supplements for teachers in private schools where religious instruction is included in the curriculum. On the substantive constitutional issue, the most likely result is that the salary supplements will be | 294 | |
0 | [
"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. ",
"sustained, because bricks and mortar do not aid religion in a way forbidden by the establishment clause of the Fir... | As part of a comprehensive federal aid-to-education 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 percent 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 plant 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 | 295 | |
1 | [
"preliminary invitation to deal, analogous to newspaper advertisements for the sale of goods by merchants. ",
"contractual offer, creating a power of acceptance. ",
"preliminary invitation, because no offeree was named therein. ",
"promise to make a conditional, future gift of mone"
] | On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."Assuming that the faculty's notice of November 1 was posted on a bulletin board or other conspicuous place commonly viewed by all persons in the law school, such notice constituted a | 296 | |
2 | [
"Yes, by the faculty's second notice. ",
"No, because it became irrevocable after a reasonable time had elapsed. ",
"No, because of Student's reliance, prior to April 1, on the offer. ",
"No, unless Student became aware of the April 1 posting and removal before submitting the paper"
] | On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."As to Student, was the offer effectively revoked? | 297 | |
0 | [
"unilateral contract only.",
"bilateral contract only.",
"unilateral contract or bilateral contract at the offeree's option.",
"unilateral contract which ripened into a bilateral contract, binding on both parties, as soon as Student intensified his effort in response to the offe"
] | On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."The offer proposed a | 298 | |
1 | [
"enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.",
"enforceable by Student's personal representative even if Student had been killed in an accident on April 16.",
"not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement 73 between a student and his teachers, analogous to intramural fam... | On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately operated law school: The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office before May 1. (The National Competition was conducted by an outside agency unconnected with any law school.) Student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on obscenity law, which he had started in October, a winner. Student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in Student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice was removed and the following substituted therefor: The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that Student had won the National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything."The promise of the faculty on November 1 was | 299 | |
2 | [
"there is no enforceable restriction because judicial recognition constitutes state action which is in conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.",
"there is no enforceable restriction because of Owner's conflict of interest in that he did not make the restriction applicable to the ... | Owner held 500 acres in fee simple absolute. In 1960 Owner platted and obtained all required governmental approvals of two subdivisions of 200 acres each. In 1960 and 1961 commercial buildings and parking facilities were constructed on one subdivision, Royal Center, in accordance with the plans disclosed by the plat for that subdivision. Royal Center continues to be used for commercial purposes. The plat of the other subdivision, Royal Oaks, showed 250 lots, streets, and utility and drainage easements. All of the lots in Royal Oaks were conveyed during 1960 and 1961. The deeds contained provisions, expressly stated to be binding upon the grantee and the grantee's heirs and assigns, requiring the lots to be used only for single-family, residential purposes until 1985. The deeds expressly stated that these provisions were enforceable by the owner of any lot in the Royal Oaks subdivision. At all times since 1949, the 200 acres of Royal Center have been zoned for shopping center use, and the 200 acres in Royal Oaks have been zoned for residential use in a classification which permits both singlefamily and multiple-family use."In an appropriate attack upon the limitation to residential use by single families, if the evidence disclosed no fact in addition to those listed above, the most probable judicial resolution would be that | 300 | |
3 | [
"He can restrict use only to the extent of that imposed by zoning (that is, to residential use by not more than four dwelling units per lot). ",
"He cannot restrict the 100 acres to residential use because of the conflicting use for retail commercial purposes in the 200 acres composing the shopping center.",
"H... | Owner held 500 acres in fee simple absolute. In 1960 Owner platted and obtained all required governmental approvals of two subdivisions of 200 acres each. In 1960 and 1961 commercial buildings and parking facilities were constructed on one subdivision, Royal Center, in accordance with the plans disclosed by the plat for that subdivision. Royal Center continues to be used for commercial purposes. The plat of the other subdivision, Royal Oaks, showed 250 lots, streets, and utility and drainage easements. All of the lots in Royal Oaks were conveyed during 1960 and 1961. The deeds contained provisions, expressly stated to be binding upon the grantee and the grantee's heirs and assigns, requiring the lots to be used only for single-family, residential purposes until 1985. The deeds expressly stated that these provisions were enforceable by the owner of any lot in the Royal Oaks subdivision. At all times since 1949, the 200 acres of Royal Center have been zoned for shopping center use, and the 200 acres in Royal Oaks have been zoned for residential use in a classification which permits both singlefamily and multiple-family use."For this question only, assume that Owner now desires to open his remaining 100 acres as a residential subdivision of 125 lots (with appropriate streets, etc.). He has, as an essential element of his scheme, the feature that the restrictions should be identical with those he planned for the original Royal Oaks residential subdivision and, further, that lot owners in Royal Oaks should be able to enforce (by lawsuits) restrictions on the lots in the 100 acres. The zoning for the 100 acres is identical with that for the 200 acres of Royal Oaks residential subdivision. Which of the following best states the chance of success for his scheme? | 301 | |
1 | [
"Because education is a public function, the Country Schoolhouse may not discriminate on racial grounds. ",
"The state is so involved in school regulation and support that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is applicable to the school.",
"The state is constitutionally obligated to eliminate... | A state accredits both public and private schools, licenses their teachers, and supplies textbooks on secular subjects to all such schools. Country Schoolhouse, a private school that offers elementary and secondary education in the state, denies admission to all non-Caucasians. In a suit to enjoin as unconstitutional the continued racially exclusionary admissions policy of the Country Schoolhouse, which of the following is the strongest argument AGAINST the school? | 302 | |
1 | [
"The cards, objectively viewed, were not satisfactory. ",
"The cards, subjectively viewed, were not satisfactory. ",
"The cards were not delivered on time.",
"Daniel's illness excused him from further obligation under the contract"
] | Paul and Daniel entered into a contract in writing on November 1, the essential part of which read as follows: "Paul to supply Daniel with 200 personalized Christmas cards bearing a photograph of Daniel and his family on or before December 15, 1970, and Daniel to pay $100 30 days thereafter. Photograph to be taken by Paul at Daniel's house. Cards guaranteed to be fully satisfactory and on time." Because Daniel suddenly became ill, Paul was unable to take the necessary photograph of Daniel and his family until the first week of December. The final week's delay was caused by Paul's not being notified promptly by Daniel of his recovery. Before taking the photograph of Daniel and his family, Paul advised Daniel that he was likely to be delayed a day or two beyond December 15 in making delivery because of the time required to process the photograph and cards. Daniel told Paul to take the photograph anyway. The cards were finally delivered by Paul to Daniel on December 17, Paul having diligently worked on them in the interim. Although the cards pleased the rest of the family, Daniel refused to accept them because, as he said, squinting at one of the cards at arm's length without bothering to put on his reading glasses, "The photograph makes me look too old. Besides, the cards weren't delivered on time.""In an action by Paul against Daniel, which of the following would be Daniel's best defense? | 303 | |
3 | [
"Payment by Daniel of the $100 was a condition precedent to Paul's duty of performance",
"The performances of Paul and Daniel under the contract were concurrently conditional.",
"Payment by Daniel of the $100 was a condition subsequent to Paul's duty of performance.",
"Performance by Paul under the contract w... | Paul and Daniel entered into a contract in writing on November 1, the essential part of which read as follows: "Paul to supply Daniel with 200 personalized Christmas cards bearing a photograph of Daniel and his family on or before December 15, 1970, and Daniel to pay $100 30 days thereafter. Photograph to be taken by Paul at Daniel's house. Cards guaranteed to be fully satisfactory and on time." Because Daniel suddenly became ill, Paul was unable to take the necessary photograph of Daniel and his family until the first week of December. The final week's delay was caused by Paul's not being notified promptly by Daniel of his recovery. Before taking the photograph of Daniel and his family, Paul advised Daniel that he was likely to be delayed a day or two beyond December 15 in making delivery because of the time required to process the photograph and cards. Daniel told Paul to take the photograph anyway. The cards were finally delivered by Paul to Daniel on December 17, Paul having diligently worked on them in the interim. Although the cards pleased the rest of the family, Daniel refused to accept them because, as he said, squinting at one of the cards at arm's length without bothering to put on his reading glasses, "The photograph makes me look too old. Besides, the cards weren't delivered on time.""Which of the following statements is most accurate? | 304 | |
2 | [
"Daniel's illness and the related development excused Paul from his obligations to deliver the cards on or before December 15.",
"Prompt notice by Daniel to Paul of Daniel's recovery from illness was an implied condition of Paul's duty under the circumstances.",
"Paul was under a duty of immediate performance o... | Paul and Daniel entered into a contract in writing on November 1, the essential part of which read as follows: "Paul to supply Daniel with 200 personalized Christmas cards bearing a photograph of Daniel and his family on or before December 15, 1970, and Daniel to pay $100 30 days thereafter. Photograph to be taken by Paul at Daniel's house. Cards guaranteed to be fully satisfactory and on time." Because Daniel suddenly became ill, Paul was unable to take the necessary photograph of Daniel and his family until the first week of December. The final week's delay was caused by Paul's not being notified promptly by Daniel of his recovery. Before taking the photograph of Daniel and his family, Paul advised Daniel that he was likely to be delayed a day or two beyond December 15 in making delivery because of the time required to process the photograph and cards. Daniel told Paul to take the photograph anyway. The cards were finally delivered by Paul to Daniel on December 17, Paul having diligently worked on them in the interim. Although the cards pleased the rest of the family, Daniel refused to accept them because, as he said, squinting at one of the cards at arm's length without bothering to put on his reading glasses, "The photograph makes me look too old. Besides, the cards weren't delivered on time.""Which of the following statements regarding the legal effect of Daniel's illness is LEAST accurate? | 305 | |
3 | [
"admissible as an admission of a party.",
"admissible as an admission to show Carr's liability, provided that the court gives a cautionary instruction that the statement should not be considered as bearing on the issue of damages. ",
"inadmissible, since it is not relevant to either the question of liability or... | Carr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people were available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen, who was in a duly marked crosswalk.Pedersen's counsel wishes to prove that after the accident Carr went to Pedersen and offered $1,000 to settle Pedersen's claim. The trial judge should rule this evidence | 306 | |
0 | [
"permissible under the doctrine of present recollection refreshed.",
"permissible under the doctrine of past recollection recorded.",
"objectionable, because the letter was not a spontaneous utterance. ",
"objectionable, because the letter is a selfserving declaration insofar as the witness, Walter, is concer... | Carr ran into and injured Pedersen, a pedestrian. With Carr in his car were Wanda and Walter Passenger. Passerby saw the accident and called the police department, which sent Sheriff to investigate. All of these people were available as potential witnesses in the case of Pedersen v. Carr. Pedersen alleges that Carr, while drunk, struck Pedersen, who was in a duly marked crosswalk.On the evening of the day of the accident, Walter Passenger wrote a letter to his sister in which he described the accident. When Walter is later testifying on direct examination and says he cannot remember some details of the accident, Pedersen's counsel seeks to show him the letter to assist him. The trial judge should rule this | 308 | |
3 | [
"another human being from a stranger's wrongful conduct.",
"his neighbor from a stranger's wrongful conduct.",
"his cousin from a stranger's wrongful conduct.",
"another human being from X's own nonnegligent conduct"
] | The most generally accepted basis on which a court will hold that X has a legal duty to aid another is the recognition by X that there is immediate danger of serious harm to | 309 | |
1 | [
"Commonwealth v. Mason. Two sisters see a wealthy neighbor's pedigreed dog on the street. They take the dog home, intending to conceal it until the owner offers a reward. Held, guilty of larceny. ",
"Saferite v. State. Two young men saw a motorcar on the street with the keys in the ignition. They drove the car to... | Jones, angry at a neighbor with whom he had quarreled, for revenge surreptitiously removed a piece of stone statuary from the neighbor's garden and concealed it in his garage. He intended to return it a day or two later, after giving the neighbor a chance to feel bad over its being stolen. Suspecting who was guilty, the neighbor had Jones arrested and charged with larceny. | 310 | |
1 | [
"The contract will be unenforceable. 76",
"Chase will be required to convey a marketable title.",
"Chase will be required to convey only what he owned on the date of the contract.",
"Chase will be required to convey only what he owned on the date of the contract plus whatever additional title rights he may ac... | Chase, as seller, and Scott, as buyer, enter into a written contract for the sale and purchase of land that is complete in all respects except that no reference is made to the quality of title to be conveyed. Which of the following will result? | 312 | |
2 | [
"Violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.",
"Violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.",
"Unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.",
"Difficulty of enforcement"
] | A state statute requires that all buses which operate as common carriers on the highways of the state shall be equipped with seat belts for passengers. Transport Lines, an interstate carrier, challenges the validity of the statute and the right of the state to make the requirement. What is the best basis for a constitutional challenge by Transport Lines? | 313 | |
2 | [
"private rights to discriminate and associate freely must defer to a public interest against discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex. ",
"the failure of the State Bar Association to pass a resolution forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or sex constitutes a denial of equal prote... | 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 Bar 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, petitioned 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 which discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex. After substantial public discussion, the Board of Bar Governors, by a close vote, failed to pass such a resolution. These events received extensive coverage in the local newspapers. Plaintiffs have brought an action in federal court seeking an injunction against such payments and the holding of meetings in such places as the Cosmopolitan Club."The strongest argument for Plaintiffs is | 315 | |
0 | [
"Hear the case on the merits, because a federal claim is presented. ",
"Hear the case on the merits, because the expenditure of state funds in support of segregation is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment. ",
"Abstain from jurisdiction, because the constitutional issue should be litigated first in a state court. "... | 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 Bar 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, petitioned 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 which discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or sex. After substantial public discussion, the Board of Bar Governors, by a close vote, failed to pass such a resolution. These events received extensive coverage in the local newspapers. Plaintiffs have brought 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? | 316 | |
2 | [
"ordered, because Alpha and Delia together own a fee simple absolute in Blackacre. ",
"ordered, because Alpha alone owns the entire fee simple in Blackacre. ",
"denied, because Bill has a valid interest in Blackacre. ",
"denied, because the American Red Cross has a valid interest in Blackacre."
] | In 1945, Owen, owner of both Blackacre and Whiteacre, executed and delivered two separate deeds by which he conveyed the two tracts of land as follows: Blackacre was conveyed "To Alpha and his heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is ever used for other than residential purposes, to the American Red Cross." Whiteacre was conveyed "To Beta and her heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is used for other than residential purposes prior to 1965, then to the Salvation Army." In 1950, Owen died leaving a valid will by which he devised all his real estate to his brother, Bill. The will had no residuary clause. Owen was survived by Bill and by Owen's daughter, Delia, who was Owen's sole heir. For the purpose of this set of questions, it may be assumed that the common law rule against perpetuities applies in the state where the land is located and that the state also has a statute providing that "all future estates and interests are alienable, descendible, and devisable in the same manner as possessory estates and interests.""In 1955, Alpha and Delia entered into a contract with John whereby Alpha and Delia contracted to sell Blackacre to John in fee simple. After examining the title, John refused to perform on the ground that Alpha and Delia could not give good title. Alpha and Delia joined in an action against John for specific performance. Specific performance will be | 317 | |
1 | [
"valid contingent remainder.",
"void executory interest.",
"valid executory interest.",
"void contingent remainder"
] | In 1945, Owen, owner of both Blackacre and Whiteacre, executed and delivered two separate deeds by which he conveyed the two tracts of land as follows: Blackacre was conveyed "To Alpha and his heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is ever used for other than residential purposes, to the American Red Cross." Whiteacre was conveyed "To Beta and her heirs as long as it is used exclusively for residential purposes, but if it is used for other than residential purposes prior to 1965, then to the Salvation Army." In 1950, Owen died leaving a valid will by which he devised all his real estate to his brother, Bill. The will had no residuary clause. Owen was survived by Bill and by Owen's daughter, Delia, who was Owen's sole heir. For the purpose of this set of questions, it may be assumed that the common law rule against perpetuities applies in the state where the land is located and that the state also has a statute providing that "all future estates and interests are alienable, descendible, and devisable in the same manner as possessory estates and interests."""In 1946, the interest of the American Red Cross in Blackacre could be best described as a | 318 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because Ace was thereby morally obligated to Brill. ",
"Yes, because Ace was thereby materially benefited. ",
"No, because Ace had not asked Brill to save her. ",
"No, because the value of Brill's act was too uncertain"
] | Brill saved the life of Ace's wife, Mary, who thereafter changed her will to leave Brill $1,000. However, upon Mary's death she had no property except an undivided interest in real estate held in tenancy by the entirety of Ace. The property had been purchased by Ace from an inheritance. After Mary died, Ace signed and delivered to Brill the following instrument: "In consideration of Brill's saving my wife's life and his agreement to bring no claims against my estate based on her will, I hereby promise to pay Brill $1,000." Upon Ace's death, Brill filed a claim for $1,000. Ace's executor contested the claim on the ground that the instrument was not supported by sufficient consideration."In most states, would Brill's saving of Mary's life be regarded as sufficient consideration for Ace's promise? | 319 | |
1 | [
"Brill's agreement was made in a writing he signed.",
"Brill reasonably believed he had a valid claim when the instrument was signed.",
"Mary had contributed to accumulation of the real property.",
"Brill paid Ace $1 when he received the instrument."
] | Brill saved the life of Ace's wife, Mary, who thereafter changed her will to leave Brill $1,000. However, upon Mary's death she had no property except an undivided interest in real estate held in tenancy by the entirety of Ace. The property had been purchased by Ace from an inheritance. After Mary died, Ace signed and delivered to Brill the following instrument: "In consideration of Brill's saving my wife's life and his agreement to bring no claims against my estate based on her will, I hereby promise to pay Brill $1,000." Upon Ace's death, Brill filed a claim for $1,000. Ace's executor contested the claim on the ground that the instrument was not supported by sufficient consideration."With respect to the recital that Brill had agreed not to file a claim against Ace's estate, what additional fact would most strengthen Brill's claim? | 320 | |
0 | [
"Ace and Brill have made a compromise.",
"Ace must give restitution for benefits it would be unjust to retain.",
"Ace is bound by promissory estoppel.",
"Ace executed a binding unilateral contract"
] | Brill saved the life of Ace's wife, Mary, who thereafter changed her will to leave Brill $1,000. However, upon Mary's death she had no property except an undivided interest in real estate held in tenancy by the entirety of Ace. The property had been purchased by Ace from an inheritance. After Mary died, Ace signed and delivered to Brill the following instrument: "In consideration of Brill's saving my wife's life and his agreement to bring no claims against my estate based on her will, I hereby promise to pay Brill $1,000." Upon Ace's death, Brill filed a claim for $1,000. Ace's executor contested the claim on the ground that the instrument was not supported by sufficient consideration."On which of the following theories would it be most likely that Brill could recover? | 321 | |
1 | [
"Brown did not know the nature of the act he was performing.",
"Brown did not know that his act was morally wrong",
"Brown did not know the quality of the act he was performing.",
"Brown's acts were the product of a mental disease."
] | Brown suffered from the delusion that he was a special agent of God. He frequently experienced hallucinations in the form of hearing divine commands. Brown believed God told him several times that the local Roman Catholic bishop was corrupting the diocese into heresy, and that the bishop should be "done away with." Brown, a devout Catholic, conceived of himself as a religious martyr. He knew that shooting bishops for heresy is against the criminal law. He nevertheless carefully planned how he might kill the bishop. One evening Brown shot the bishop, who was then taken to the hospital where he died two weeks later. Brown told the police he assumed the institutions of society would support the ecclesiastical hierarchy and he expected to be persecuted for his God-inspired actions. Psychiatrist Stevens examined Brown and found that Brown suffered from schizophrenic psychosis, that in the absence of this psychosis, he would not have shot the bishop, and that because of the psychosis, Brown found it extremely difficult to determine whether he should obey the specific command that he do away with the bishop or the general commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Brown was charged with murder. If Brown interposes an insanity defense and the jurisdiction in which he is tried has adopted only the M'Naghten test of insanity, then the strongest argument for the defense under that test is that | 322 | |
3 | [
"Driver violated the traffic light statute at a later point in time than Walker's violation.",
"pedestrians are entitled to assume that automobile drivers will obey the law.",
"Walker was hit while in the crosswalk. 79",
"the risks that the statute was designed to protect against probably did not include an e... | Walker, a pedestrian, started north across the street in a clearly marked north-south crosswalk with the green traffic light in her favor. Walker was in a hurry, and before reaching the north curb on the street, she cut to her left diagonally across the street to the east-west crosswalk and started across it. Just after she reached the east-west crosswalk, the traffic light turned green in her favor. She had proceeded about five steps farther across the street to the west in the crosswalk when she was struck by a car approaching from her right that she thought would stop but did not. The car was driven by Driver, 81 years of age, who failed to stop his car after seeing that the traffic light was red against him. Walker had a bone disease, resulting in very brittle bones, that is prevalent in only 0.02 percent of the population. As a result of the impact Walker suffered a broken leg and the destruction of her family heirloom, a Picasso original painting that she was taking to her bank for safekeeping. The painting had been purchased by Walker's grandmother for $750 but was valued at $500,000 at the time of the accident. Walker has filed suit against Driver. Driver's attorney has alleged that Walker violated a state statute requiring that pedestrians stay in crosswalks, and that if Walker had not violated the statute she would have had to walk 25 feet more to reach the impact point and therefore would not have been at a place where she could have been hit by Driver. Walker's attorney ascertains that there is a statute as alleged by Driver, that his measurements are correct, that there is a state statute requiring observance of traffic lights, and that Driver's license expired two years prior to the collision"The violation of the crosswalk statute by Walker should not defeat her cause of action against Driver because | 323 | |
1 | [
"It makes Driver liable to Walker because Driver is a trespasser on the highway.",
"It would not furnish a basis for liability.",
"It proves that Driver is an unfit driver in this instance.",
"It makes Driver absolutely liable for Walker's injury"
] | Walker, a pedestrian, started north across the street in a clearly marked north-south crosswalk with the green traffic light in her favor. Walker was in a hurry, and before reaching the north curb on the street, she cut to her left diagonally across the street to the east-west crosswalk and started across it. Just after she reached the east-west crosswalk, the traffic light turned green in her favor. She had proceeded about five steps farther across the street to the west in the crosswalk when she was struck by a car approaching from her right that she thought would stop but did not. The car was driven by Driver, 81 years of age, who failed to stop his car after seeing that the traffic light was red against him. Walker had a bone disease, resulting in very brittle bones, that is prevalent in only 0.02 percent of the population. As a result of the impact Walker suffered a broken leg and the destruction of her family heirloom, a Picasso original painting that she was taking to her bank for safekeeping. The painting had been purchased by Walker's grandmother for $750 but was valued at $500,000 at the time of the accident. Walker has filed suit against Driver. Driver's attorney has alleged that Walker violated a state statute requiring that pedestrians stay in crosswalks, and that if Walker had not violated the statute she would have had to walk 25 feet more to reach the impact point and therefore would not have been at a place where she could have been hit by Driver. Walker's attorney ascertains that there is a statute as alleged by Driver, that his measurements are correct, that there is a state statute requiring observance of traffic lights, and that Driver's license expired two years prior to the collision"The failure of Driver to have a valid driver's license has which of the following effects? | 324 | |
3 | [
"No, since only 0.02 percent of the population have bones as brittle as Walker's. ",
"No, unless a person of ordinary health would probably have suffered a broken leg from the impact. ",
"Yes, because Driver could foresee that there would be unforeseeable consequences of the impact. ",
"Yes, even though the e... | Walker, a pedestrian, started north across the street in a clearly marked north-south crosswalk with the green traffic light in her favor. Walker was in a hurry, and before reaching the north curb on the street, she cut to her left diagonally across the street to the east-west crosswalk and started across it. Just after she reached the east-west crosswalk, the traffic light turned green in her favor. She had proceeded about five steps farther across the street to the west in the crosswalk when she was struck by a car approaching from her right that she thought would stop but did not. The car was driven by Driver, 81 years of age, who failed to stop his car after seeing that the traffic light was red against him. Walker had a bone disease, resulting in very brittle bones, that is prevalent in only 0.02 percent of the population. As a result of the impact Walker suffered a broken leg and the destruction of her family heirloom, a Picasso original painting that she was taking to her bank for safekeeping. The painting had been purchased by Walker's grandmother for $750 but was valued at $500,000 at the time of the accident. Walker has filed suit against Driver. Driver's attorney has alleged that Walker violated a state statute requiring that pedestrians stay in crosswalks, and that if Walker had not violated the statute she would have had to walk 25 feet more to reach the impact point and therefore would not have been at a place where she could have been hit by Driver. Walker's attorney ascertains that there is a statute as alleged by Driver, that his measurements are correct, that there is a state statute requiring observance of traffic lights, and that Driver's license expired two years prior to the collision"If Walker establishes liability on the part of Driver for her physical injuries, should Walker's recovery include damages for a broken leg? | 325 | |
3 | [
"there is no dispute in the evidence about factual cause.",
"as a matter of law, the violation of the statute results in liability for all resulting harm. ",
"as a matter of law, Driver's conduct was an independent intervening cause. ",
"as a matter of law, the injury to Walker was not the result of a risk th... | Walker, a pedestrian, started north across the street in a clearly marked north-south crosswalk with the green traffic light in her favor. Walker was in a hurry, and before reaching the north curb on the street, she cut to her left diagonally across the street to the east-west crosswalk and started across it. Just after she reached the east-west crosswalk, the traffic light turned green in her favor. She had proceeded about five steps farther across the street to the west in the crosswalk when she was struck by a car approaching from her right that she thought would stop but did not. The car was driven by Driver, 81 years of age, who failed to stop his car after seeing that the traffic light was red against him. Walker had a bone disease, resulting in very brittle bones, that is prevalent in only 0.02 percent of the population. As a result of the impact Walker suffered a broken leg and the destruction of her family heirloom, a Picasso original painting that she was taking to her bank for safekeeping. The painting had been purchased by Walker's grandmother for $750 but was valued at $500,000 at the time of the accident. Walker has filed suit against Driver. Driver's attorney has alleged that Walker violated a state statute requiring that pedestrians stay in crosswalks, and that if Walker had not violated the statute she would have had to walk 25 feet more to reach the impact point and therefore would not have been at a place where she could have been hit by Driver. Walker's attorney ascertains that there is a statute as alleged by Driver, that his measurements are correct, that there is a state statute requiring observance of traffic lights, and that Driver's license expired two years prior to the collision"Walker's violation of the crosswalk statute should not be considered by the jury because | 326 | |
3 | [
"Pine and Ross are residents of the same state.",
"No substantial federal question is presented.",
"The suit presents a nonjustifiable political question.",
"The suit is unripe"
] | 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 statelicensed social worker. This counseling is designed to assure 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, contemplated 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 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? | 328 | |
3 | [
"Akers, because the termination of the necessity for the easement terminated the easement. ",
"Akers, because the continuation of the easement after the change of circumstances would adversely affect the marketability of both lots without adding any commensurate value to either. ",
"Bell, because an incorporeal... | Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for 30 years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot."In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Akers from interfering with Bell's continued use of the common driveway between the two lots, the decision should be for | 330 | |
3 | [
"Bell, because Ogden's proposed building would be an obstruction of Bell's natural right to an easement for light and air. ",
"Bell, because Bell was misled by Ogden's failure to complain when Bell was building his house. ",
"Ogden if, but only if, it can be shown that Ogden's intention to erect such a building... | Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3. The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for 30 years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3. If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot."In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Ogden from erecting the apartment building in such a way as to obstruct the view from Bell's living room window, the decision should be for | 331 | |
2 | [
"excluded, because the cause of death is a critical issue to be decided by the trier of fact. 81 ",
"excluded, because her opinion is based on facts not in evidence. ",
"admitted, because Wolfe followed accepted medical practice in arriving at her opinion ",
"admitted, because her opinion is based on matters ... | Dever was indicted for the murder of Vickers by poison. At trial, the prosecutor calls the county coroner, Dr. Wolfe, who is a boardcertified pathologist, to testify that, in accord with good practice in her specialty, she has studied microphotographic slides, made under her supervision by medical assistants, of tissue taken from Vickers' corpse and that it is Wolfe's opinion, based on that study, that Vickers died of poisoning. The slides have not been offered in evidence. Dr. Wolfe's opinion should be | 332 | |
2 | [
"The state sprinkler requirement denies the company property or liberty without due process.",
"The state sprinkler requirement denies the company equal protection of the laws",
"As applied, the state sprinkler requirement violates the supremacy clause. ",
"As applied, the state sprinkler requirement violates... | 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 a 10-story federal office building in Tuscarora. 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 decided to prosecute the private contractor. Which of the following is the company's strongest defense to that prosecution? | 334 | |
3 | [
"succeed, because Adams had assured her that the offer would remain open through March 14. ",
"succeed, because Adams had not in fact sold the automobile to Clark ",
"not succeed, because Dawes had not tendered the $3,000 to Adams on or before March 14. ",
"not succeed, because on March 12, Adams had told Daw... | 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'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. 82 In an action by Dawes against Adams for breach of contract, Dawes probably will | 336 | |
3 | [
"was defective.",
"was defective and had not been inspected by Seller.",
"was defective and had been inspected by Seller, and the defect was not discovered. ",
"was defective, and the defect would have been discovered if Seller had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the system"
] | Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Mobilco and had a ventilating system designed by Mobilco with both a heating unit and an air conditioner. Mobilco installed a furnace manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by Mobilco. Because of the manner in which Mobilco designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents' bedroom to keep the temperature at 68°F (20°C). The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was pumped into the bedroom of Child, the six-monthold child of Parents. The temperature in Child's room reached more than 170°F (77°C) before Child's mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury. Claims have been asserted by Child, through a duly appointed guardian, against Mobilco, Seller, Heatco, and Coolco."If Child's claim against Seller is based on negligence, the minimum proof necessary to establish Seller's liability is that the ventilating system | 337 | |
0 | [
"Mobilco only, because the ventilating system was defectively designed by Mobilco. ",
"Heatco only, because it was the excessive heat from the furnace that caused Child's injuries. ",
"Mobilco and Heatco only, because the combination of Mobilco's design and Heatco's furnace caused Child's injuries. ",
"Mobilc... | Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Mobilco and had a ventilating system designed by Mobilco with both a heating unit and an air conditioner. Mobilco installed a furnace manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by Mobilco. Because of the manner in which Mobilco designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents' bedroom to keep the temperature at 68°F (20°C). The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was pumped into the bedroom of Child, the six-monthold child of Parents. The temperature in Child's room reached more than 170°F (77°C) before Child's mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury. Claims have been asserted by Child, through a duly appointed guardian, against Mobilco, Seller, Heatco, and Coolco."If Child's claims against Mobilco, Heatco, and Coolco are based on strict liability in tort, Child will probably recover against | 338 | |
1 | [
"admitted as proof of Davidson's character.",
"admitted as proof of Davidson's intoxication.",
"excluded, because the conviction was not the result of a trial. ",
"excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception."
] | Cars driven by Pugh and Davidson collided, and Davidson was charged with driving while intoxicated in connection with the accident. She pleaded guilty and was merely fined, although under the statute the court could have sentenced her to two years in prison. Thereafter, Pugh, alleging that Davidson's intoxication had caused the collision, sued Davidson for damages. At trial, Pugh offers the properly authenticated record of Davidson's conviction. The record should be | 339 | |
2 | [
"inadmissible, because there is a policy to encourage safety precautions. ",
"inadmissible, because it is irrelevant to the condition of the tree at the time of the accident. ",
"admissible to show that the tree was on Dow's property. 83",
"admissible to show that the tree was in a rotted condition"
] | Pitt sued Dow for damages for injuries that Pitt incurred when a badly rotted limb fell from a curbside tree in front of Dow's home and hit Pitt. Dow claimed that the tree was on city property and thus was the responsibility of the city. At trial, Pitt offered testimony that a week after the accident, Dow had cut the tree down with a chain saw. The offered evidence is | 340 | |
2 | [
"a principal and an accessory cannot be tried together, since the principal must be convicted first. ",
"he cannot be an accessory, since he is the victim of the crime. ",
"the legislature did not intend to punish the person giving the thing of value.",
"he did not assist Professor Smith in violating the stat... | A state statute makes it a felony for any teacher at a state institution of higher education to accept anything of value from a student at the same institution. Monroe, a student at the state university, offered Professor Smith, his English teacher, $50 in exchange for a good grade in his English course. Smith agreed and took the money. Professor Smith and Monroe are tried jointly for violation of the state statute. Professor Smith is charged with violating the statute, and Monroe with aiding and abetting him. Monroe's best argument for a dismissal of the charge against him is that | 341 | |
1 | [
"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. ",
"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. Tw... | In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of the crime charged? | 342 | |
2 | [
"Yes, because Carver knew that the value of the stock was greater than the price she offered. ",
"Yes, if Carver did not inform Page of the true value of the inventory. ",
"No, unless Carver told Page that the stock was not worth more than $6 a share. ",
"No, if Chemco's financial statement was available to P... | 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 $1,000,000. There was no current public quotation of the price of Chemco stock. The book value of Chemco stock, according to the statement, was $5 a share; its actual value was $30 a share. Knowing these facts, Carver offered to purchase from Page at $6 a 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 a share. If Page asserts a claim based on misrepresentation against Carver, will Page prevail? | 343 | |
0 | [
"admissible as former testimony.",
"admissible as past recollection recorded.",
"inadmissible, because it would violate White's privilege against selfincrimination. ",
"inadmissible, because it is hearsay, not within any exception"
] | 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, though ordered to do so. The prosecution offers evidence of White's testimony at the preliminary examination. The evidence is | 344 | |
1 | [
"admissible as a report of regularly conducted business activity.",
"admissible as based on first-hand knowledge.",
"inadmissible, because it violates the best evidence rule. ",
"inadmissible, because a summary of writings cannot be made unless the originals are available for examination"
] | Potts, a building contractor, sued Dennis for failure to pay on a small cost-plus construction 84 contract. At trial, Potts, who personally supervised all of the work, seeks to testify to what he remembers about the amount of pipe used, the number of workers used on the job, and the number of hours spent grading. Dennis objects on the ground that Potts had routinely recorded these facts in notebooks which are in Potts' possession. Potts' testimony is | 345 | |
3 | [
"guilty, because his mistake was one of law. ",
"guilty, because reliance on the advice of an attorney is not a defense. ",
"not guilty if the jury also finds that his reliance on the attorney's advice was reasonable.",
"not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state"
] | While testifying as a witness in a civil trial, Walters was asked on cross-examination if he had been convicted in the circuit court of Jasper County of stealing $200 from his employer on August 16, 1977. Walters said, "No, I have never been convicted of any crime." In fact, Walters had pleaded guilty to such a charge and had been placed on probation. Walters was then charged with perjury on the ground that his statement denying the conviction was false. A statute in the jurisdiction defines perjury as knowingly making a false statement while under oath. At trial, the state proved Walters' statement and the prior conviction. Walters testified that the attorney who represented him in the theft case had told him that, because he had been placed on probation, he had not been convicted of a crime. Walters had served his probationary period satisfactorily and been discharged from probation. The alleged advice of the attorney was incorrect. If the jury believes Walters, it should find him | 346 | |
3 | [
"denies him a privilege or immunity of national citizenship.",
"deprives him of a property right without just compensation.",
"is not within the scope of any of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, §8. ",
"invidiously discriminates against him on the basis of age in violation of the Fifth Amendmen... | A federal statute requires United States civil service employees to retire at age 75. However, that statute also states that civil service employees of the armed forces must retire at age 65. Prentis, a 65-year-old service employee of the Department of the Army, seeks a declaratory judgment that would forbid his mandatory retirement until age 75. The strongest argument that Prentis can make to invalidate the requirement that he retire at age 65 is that the law | 348 | |
0 | [
"recover if Light Company could have taken reasonable steps to prevent the lines from falling when the insulators were destroyed.",
"recover, because a supplier of electricity is strictly liable in tort. ",
"not recover unless Light Company failed to exercise reasonable care to stop the destruction of the insul... | Light Company is the sole distributor of electrical power in City. The Company owns and maintains all of the electric poles and equipment in City. Light Company has complied with the National Electrical Safety Code, which establishes minimum requirements for the installation and maintenance of power poles. The Code has been approved by the federal and state governments. Light Company has had to replace insulators on its poles repeatedly because unknown persons repeatedly shoot at and destroy them. This causes the power lines to fall to the ground. On one of these occasions, Paul, Faber's fiveyear-old son, wandered out of Faber's yard, intentionally touched a downed wire, and was seriously burned. If a claim on Paul's behalf is asserted against Light Company, the probable result is that Paul will | 349 | |
2 | [
"Yes, if Smythe's acts caused Joplin severe emotional distress. ",
"Yes, if it is found that Smythe's behavior was extreme and outrageous with respect to Nelson. ",
"No, because Smythe did not know that Joplin was watching. ",
"No, because Joplin was not within the zone of physical danger"
] | The city of Metropolis has an ordinance that makes it an offense, punishable by fine, for the owner of a dog to permit the dog to run unleashed on a public way. Smythe, a police officer, observed a small dog running loose in the street. As Smythe picked the dog up, Nelson, who was seated in her car lawfully parked at the curb, called out, "Oh, thank you, Officer, for returning Fido." Smythe asked Nelson whether the dog was hers, and when she acknowledged ownership, he asked to see her driver's license. Nelson gave her name and address, but she refused to produce a driver's license. Smythe then told her to produce her driver's license if she did not want to go to jail. Nelson responded by saying, "Isn't this ridiculous?" Smythe took her by the arm and said, "Let's go. You are under arrest." Nelson cried out that Smythe was hurting her but he refused to release her arm, and she struck him with her free hand. Smythe then dragged Nelson from her car, forced her into his squad car, and took her to the police station. The incident took place on the street in front of the apartment where Nelson and her aged father, Joplin, lived. Smythe did not know that Joplin had observed what took place from a window in the apartment. If Nelson's father, Joplin, asserts a claim against Smythe for the intentional infliction of emotional distress, will Joplin prevail? | 350 | |
0 | [
"sustained, because the marijuana was discovered as a result of the unlawful stopping of Davison's automobile. ",
"sustained, because the use of the flashlight constituted a search of the interior of Davison's automobile without probable cause. ",
"denied, because the officer's conduct was consistent with the e... | 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 office 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 | 351 | |
0 | [
"Rowan must pay the principal payment, but Perez must pay the interest to First Bank. ",
"Rowan must pay both the principal and interest payments to First Bank.",
"Perez must pay both the principal and interest payments to First Bank.",
"Perez must pay the principal payment, but Rowan must pay the interest to... | Morgan conveyed Greenacre, her one-family residence, to "Perez for life, remainder to Rowan, her heirs and assigns, subject, however, to First Bank's mortgage thereon." There was an unpaid balance on the mortgage of $10,000, which is payable in $1,000 annual installments plus interest at six percent on the unpaid balance, with the next payment due on July 1. Perez is now occupying Greenacre. The reasonable rental value of the property exceeds the sum necessary to meet all current charges. There is no applicable statute. Under the rules governing contributions between life tenants and remaindermen, how should the burden for payment be allocated? | 352 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.