Md Bar Review Assorted

Front 1

Third Party Beneficiary, Intended

Back 1

[EPC- Expect Promised Cake]
An intended third-party beneficiary is
(i) expressly designated in the contract,
(ii) some performance is to be made directly to her, and
(iii) she stands in a close relationship to the promisee, suggesting that the promisee intended for her to benefit.
She can enforce the contract after her rights have vested. Her rights vest when she has materially changed position in justifiable reliance on the promise.

Front 2

When does TPB's rights vest?

Back 2

When the TPB
(i) manifests assent to the promise in a manner invited or requested by the parties, OR
(ii) materially changes position in justifiable reliance on the promise.

Front 3

What is MD's 3-part test for determining admissibility of expert testimony?

Back 3

[QAS - Question All Suckers]
(1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
(2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and
(3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.

Front 4

What can form the factual basis of expert testimony?

Back 4

Expert opinion must be based on "reasonable degree of probability" or "reasonable certainty" and based on
[PMT-Pay Money for Testimony]
(1) personal knowledge,
(2) facts made known to the expert at or before the hearing, or
(3) facts of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject. Such facts need not be admissible in evidence.
[If determined to be trustworthy, necessary to illuminate testimony, and unprivileged, facts or data reasonably relied upon by an expert may, in the discretion of the court, be disclosed to the jury even if those facts and data are not admissible in evidence. Upon request, the court shall instruct the jury to use those facts and data only for the purpose of evaluating the validity and probative value of the expert's opinion or inference. Rule 5-703]

Front 5

How do you determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause?

Back 5

The Lemon test is applied to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause: (i) the regulation must serve a secular purpose, (ii) the regulation’s primary effect is neither to advance or inhibit religion; and (iii) the regulation must not foster excessive govt entanglement w/ religion

Front 6

When is a law "overbroad"?

Back 6

the Overbreadth Doctrine deems facially invalid laws that inhibit the exerc of First Am rights by prohibiting substantially more expression than is necessary (“if there are substl impermissible applications of the law relative to the law’s plainly legitimate sweep”).

Front 7

When is a law vague?

Back 7

A law is vague if a person of common intelligence could not tell what behavior is prohibited.

Front 8

How does a court determine what procedural requirements are nec for a hearing? (3 factors)

Back 8

[IVG-I Value Govt]
To determ actual proced req’d, cts balance 3 factors
1. import of the indiv int involved
2. Val of the specif proced safeguards to that int , Whether the procedures designed are likely to lead to a mistake
3. Gov interest in fiscal & admin efficicney

Front 9

When does an Art 2A lease of goods have to comply w/SOF? How does it comply?

Back 9

[SQGTL-So Quit Going To Lawschool]
A lease of goods totaling $1000 or more must be:
1. in a signed writing
2. specify the qty of leased
3. describe the leased goods
goods (like Art 2)
4. describe the lease term
5. indicate that a lease contract has been made betw the pties

Front 10

What is the Riparian Doctrine? List 4 rights or characteristics.

Back 10

Under the Riparian Doctrine, water belongs to the property owners of land bordering on the waterway.
1. All these landowners have riparian rights to use the water and none can use the water so as to deprive the others of these rights.
2. Normally in a contest betw an upper riparian landowner and a lower riparian landowner, the test of reasonableness of the upper landowner’s use is whether his use results in denying an equally beneficial use to the lower landowner.
3. Riparian Doctrine permits use of water only in connection w/ activities carried out on the riparian parcel.
4. Riparian rts cannot be conveyed for the use of nonriparian land nor can they be lost by nonuse.

Front 11

What are the 4 elements of Promissory Estoppel (detrimental reliance) that you must discuss?

Back 11

[CPID-Cars Promise Instant Death]
1. Clear & definite promise
2. by the promisor having a reasonable expectation of inducing reliance by the promisee
3. induces actual & reasonable reliance by the promisee
4. Causing a detriment that can only be avoided by enforcemt of the promise

Front 12

What are the 4 exceptions permitting retrial of a defendent even after double jeopardy has attached?

Back 12

1. Hung jury
2. Mistrial for manifest necessity or when termination was at behest of defendant on any grounds not constituting an aquittal on the merits
3. Retrial after successful appeal (unless the ground for reversal was insufficient evid to support the guilty verdict; Retrial cannot be for a more serious offense)
4. Breach of Plea Bargain Agmt

Front 13

What are No Fault grounds for Limited Divorce?

Back 13

MARE
1) express or implied mutual agreement between the parties to end the marriage,
2) they are living apart separately, and
3) there is no reasonable expectation of reconciliation

Front 14

What are factors used in deciding to award use of the family home & other family use personal property?

Back 14

1. BIC
2. Interest of ea pty in continuing to use such prop, and
3. Hardship that denial of use would impose on a pty w/ an interest in the property

Front 15

Negligent entrustment

Back 15

[IKR-I Know Recklessness]
1. Imposes liability on a person who negligently supplies car or obj that injures a TP.
2. D must have had knowledge of entrustee's propensities posing a foreseeable harm, and
3. Rt to control the car or obj at the time harm occurs (but need not be the owner of the obj).

Front 16

Partnership

Back 16

An association of 2 or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit

Front 17

What is required for restrictive covt to be enforceable?

Back 17

RAN
To be legal, must be
1) reasonable &
2) ancillary to K for tranf of goodwill or ot prop or ancillary to an existing emplymt K.
3) Req reas need, reas time or reas place (geogr) limits

Front 18

What is required for a covt not to compete to be upheld in an employmt K?

Back 18

[NUP=NachosUnderPizzas]
1) No wider in area & duration than reas nec to protect ER
2) Does not impose undue hardship on EE
3) public interest

Front 19

IIED

Back 19

1. D’s intentl or reckless conduct
2. was extreme & outrageous
3. causing severe emotl or psych distress of P (physical injury NOT req) = actual dmgs

Front 20

Tortious Interference w/ K Relations or Bus Expectancy
[Inducing Breach of K]

Back 20

Video-Killed-I-D
1. Valid contractual relatshp b/w P & TP or valid bus expectancy
2. D’s knowl of K relatshp or expectancy
3. Intentl interfer by D inducing breach or terminatn of the relatshp or expectancy
4. Dmg to P

Front 21

Abnormally Dangerous Activities

Back 21

[Forgone Revelry at UVA]
(1) Activity creates foreseeably high risk of harm to persons or prop;
(2) inability to eliminate risk by exerc reas care
(3) Not common usage in the cmty
(4) MD: value of activity to cmty &
(5) MD: appropriateness of the activity to the locatn are addtl factors taken in acct

Front 22

Indiv Stdg

Back 22

ACTR
1. P must suffer actual, Injury in fact
2. causation traceable to gov
3. redressability -

Front 23

Stdg to Raise the Rights of TPs

Back 23

ASH
1. Pty has suffered act injury
2. Spec relatshp betw the pty and TP whose rights he's trying to raise (usually both are pties to exchg or txn), &
3. there is hindrance to TP raising own rts

Front 24

Assn Stdg IM-ROP-N

Back 24

1. Injury in fact to mbrs so that mbrs would have stdg in their own rt
2. Injury to mbrs related to org’s purp
3. Neither the nat of the claim nor relief requested requires particip of the indiv mbrs in the lawsuit.
TYPIC requires req injunctive relief, b/c dmgs would vary among mbrs

Front 25

When is an absentee party nec?

Back 25

III
1. Ct may not be able to accord complete relief among the existing parties; OR
2. Dispositn of the action may impair absentee’s ability to prot an interest (prop int, prob not just some $ amt at stake) involved in the action, OR
3. Dispositn of the action may leave existing pties subj to risk of incurring multiple or inconsistent obligns.

Front 26

2nd step of class action certification requires the case be 1 of 3 types

Back 26

[NIC-Newborns Ingest Chalk]
1. Class mbrs are “nec” pties: class tx is nec to avoid harm to the class mbrs or the pty opposing the class
2. Injunctive or decl relief sought
3. Common Qs of Law or Fact Predominate

Front 27

Boulevard Rule

Back 27

For traffic accidents, under this rule a driver at intersectn who’s req by statute to stop before entering the intersectn must yield rt of way to driver not required.
Where the unfavored driver fails to follow the rule, he’s L to favored driver for accid, UNLESS favored driver engaged in unlawful conduct & that conduct was a prox cause of the accid;
MD: Violation of this rule = neglig per se where collision direct result of this violation