Asdf

Front 1

Latent Ambiguity

Back 1

If one party is aware of the latent ambiguity but the other party is not, a K will be enforced in favor of the unaware party.

Front 2

Though not stated w/in a K, what will the court give effect to?

Back 2

The reasonable expectation (apart from just intent) of the K – even though they did not expressly provide.

Front 3

Does parole evidence bar admission to contractual obligations?

Back 3

Not always – evidence allowed to show that what appears to be a contractual obligation is, in fact, no obligation at all. Allowed to prove fraud, not the terms of the K.

Front 4

Lay Opinion testimony

Back 4

Allowed – and often essential to identify telephone voices and handwriting – any lay W who is familiar w/ the signature of a person may testify as to his opinion as to his opinion as to its genuineness. Need foundation first.

Front 5

Is the declarant need to be available to assert a statement against interest?

Back 5

YES. Especially when testified by the declarant’s agent/servant.

Front 6

Conspiracy

Back 6

1) An agreement between two or more persons;
2) The intent to enter into an agreement;
3) The intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.
4) ***modern: need overt act, however, in most jxns mere preparation is enough
• Need a criminal objective – i.e. going in to get back another’s property is not criminal, no intent.

Front 7

Dead Force – in defense of others

Back 7

Allowed, if the other is being threatened w/ serious bodily harm

Front 8

Under the Modern statute, how are the parties to a crime divided?

Back 8

Principals/ Accomplice/ Accessory after the fact

Front 9

Principals are….

Back 9

Those who, w/ the requisite mental state, actually engage in the act or omission that causes the criminal result

Front 10

Accomplice…

Back 10

Is one who, w/ the intent that the crime be committed, aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the offense. Generally treated as principals in modern statutes.

Front 11

Accessory after the fact…

Back 11

One who receives, relieves, comforts, or assists another knowing that the has committed a felony, in order to help the felon escape arrest, trial or conviction. ***separate crime committed, w/ punishment unrelated to the felony

Front 12

Robbery – what are the elements:

Back 12

1. taking of the personal property of another
2. from the other’s person or presence by
3. force or intimidation
4. w/ the intent to permanently deprive him of the property

Front 13

Attempt – MBE trick – what is it

Back 13

*focus on whether there is any specific intent to commit the crime
*beyond mere preparation (not completion of crime)

Front 14

When are fixed checkpoints allowed by the police?

Back 14

1. Without individualized suspicion to stop
2. stop cars on the basis of some neutral, articulable standard, and
3. are motivated by a particular problem related to automobiles and their mobility

Front 15

Freedom of Speech and Assembly problems

Back 15

The gov’t may reasonably regulate speech-related conduct in public forums through content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation – to be valid, the gov’t regulations on speech and assembly in public forums MUST be content neutral and narrowly tailored to serve a significant gov’t interest, and must leave open alternative channels of communication.

Front 16

State Action

Back 16

Exists, when the encouraged/ facilitated the act e.g. discriminatory

Front 17

13th Amend

Back 17

Provides that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist w/in the US and gives Congress the power to adopt appropriate legislation to enforce the proscription. Not limited to state actions – may adopt to regulate Private Parties as well.

Front 18

Contracts Clause

Back 18

Limitation on states rights to modify Ks retroactively

Front 19

Does the Constitution protect true threats?

Back 19

No – does not protect speech meant to communicate an intent to place a person in fear of bodily harm.

Front 20

Does the Constitution protect fight word? And what are they?

Back 20

No. Personally abusive epithets inherently likely to incite an immediate response.

Front 21

Can the legislatures restrict court’s authority?

Back 21

Fuck ya. Congress is explicitly authorized to restrict the jxn of the federal courts under Art. III.

Front 22

Can Congress define conduct that will violate the 14th?

Back 22

NO – not the EPC; it may only enact laws to prevent or remedy violations of rights already recognized by the courts.

Front 23

Can Congress interfere w/ court’s remedy for past discrimination?

Back 23

No – Congress cannot usurp the court’s authority to define the scope of the EPC. If the EPC requires a remedy for past discrimination, then Congress could not constitutionally interfere w/ the fashioning of a judicial remedy to achieve constitutionally required conduct.

Front 24

Vicarious Liability when seeking Indemnification

Back 24

Where one is vicariously liable for the torts of another, the former has a right of indemnity against the latter.

Front 25

Privilege to use force when protecting chattel – when:

Back 25

An actor is privileged to use reasonable force that is not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm in order to prevent or terminate another's intrusion upon the actor's land or chattels if (1) the intrusion is not privileged or the other person intentionally or negligently causes the actor to believe that it is not privileged, and (2) the actor reasonably believes that the intrusion can be prevented or terminated only by the force used.

Front 26

Joint and several liability when:

Back 26

If a plaintiff's injury is a result of the conduct of more than one defendant, and the conduct of each defendant taken alone would not have been sufficient to cause the injury, every defendant's conduct is regarded as a "but for" cause of the injury

Front 27

Are consent by mistake still valid?

Back 27

Yes. In cases of intentional torts, express consent remains valid even when granted by mistake, unless the defendant knows of or takes advantage of that mistake.

Front 28

Explain the Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Back 28

the "last clear chance" doctrine provides a basis for recovery even where plaintiff has been contributorily negligent. If the injury to plaintiff could still have been avoided through a subsequent exercise of due care by defendant, then defendant is said to have had the last clear chance to avoid harm, and plaintiff's contributory fault does not bar recovery.

Front 29

Abandonment of Easements

Back 29

Are presumed to be perpetual in duration, and mere non-use is not enough to constitute termination by abandonment.

Front 30

What is the Scope of liability for employers for employee’s actions?

Back 30

The "scope of employment" includes acts so closely connected and reasonably incidental to what the servant was employed to do that they may be regarded as methods, however improper, to carry out the employer's objectives

Front 31

How are easements abandoned?

Back 31

Holder must demonstrate by physical action an intention to permanently abandon the easement

Front 32

Does condemnation of property vitiate a lease agreement?

Back 32

No. the L-T relationship continues, as does the tenant’s obligation to pay the entire rent for the remaining period of the lease. T is entitled to share in the condemnation award to the extent that the condemnation affected the T’s rights under the lease.

Front 33

Is the type of land use relevant to determine reasonableness in a private nuisance action?

Back 33

Yes. It is relevant, but not conclusive

Front 34

Between a life tenant, remainderman and reversioners, what are they responsible for?

Back 34

Life Ts are responsible for taxes and interest payments; remainder and reversioners are responsible for the principal balance – according to the doctrine of waste.