Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

97 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
X robs a bank. Is tracked by the bank to his house. They notify police. They go, knock, see him in hallway and arrest him. Protective sweep turns up pot, money and guns.

X moves to surpress:
Surpress as fruit of posionous tree because arrest unlawful. Need warrant to arrest at home unless in hot pursuit.
Telephone Co. let phone poll eaten by termites (negligently). Drunk drive car into poll. One week later falls down because of combination.

Hurt innocent sues both Co and Drunk:
Joint and severally liable.

Immediacy irrelevant.
Contractor's employee left level protruding out in Store. Store customer trips.

Suit against store
Duty to keep business premises safe is non-delegable
City has stricter Fair Opportunity Act than Federal Gov't. Company services Fed. Dept. of Agr. building located in City and City jail. City notifies Co. that it must be in compliance or lose contract.

1. Co. argues local rule invalid

2. If Co. not in compliance with Fed affirmative actions statute, what are best arguments for its validity
1. No express or implied preemption

2. Commerce power and Enabling Clause of 13th
L and T have tenancy for years with rent paid monthly. After end of term, T remains sends L check which L cashes while also informing T that it did not mean renewal of lease.

L wants to evict T
May begin proceedings as soon as additional month is over
X wants to kill wife. Tries to get poison from P. P gives him antibiotic instead. Wife is allergic, dies.

P is accomplice to:

At common law, X is guilty of
Murder and conspiracy?
Attempted murder?
Attempted murder and conspiracy?
P is accomplice to no degree of homicide

At common law, X is guilty of murder only.
Co. doing work for Fed at "cost plus fixed fee. State imposes tax on all such work.

Can State impose tax?
Yes, because tax is indirect and nondiscriminatory
Police investigation homicide have PC to believe D did it. Learn from informant D at Forger's house to obtain false driver's license. Enterred house w/out warrant and find D . Arrest and Mirandize. He confesses.

D wishes to surpress confession
Confession won't be surpressed

1) D cannot invoke F's 4th Amendment right.

2) Confession not fruit of 4th Amendment violation (invalid arrest in home does not abrograte proper confession because could have arrested the second he left)
B out of country gives Lawyer power of attorney and orders to buy W from S for up to $100,000. L buys and closes without hearing from B. B had died prior to K. N is his heir.

Owner of W is:
S because deed to nonexistant person is void and conveys no title

If had died after K, N could have demanded conveyance
P sues D after car accident.
P testifies that she had right of way.
P calls W to testify that she hard P say "I'm dying. Didn't she see I had right of way?"

Should W's testimony be admitted?
Yes, because excited utterance

Broad discretion whether cumulative or not
State statute requiring businesses with annual sales in State of over X dollars to purchase half of its goods or services in State.

Who has best standing to sue?
One with clear "injury in fact"

Plus, out-of-stater to show impact on interstate commerce
Husband, B, and wife, R, out walking. B jaywalks. Police demands license. B doesn't have. P attempts to arrest B. B slips away. P tries to strike B. B strikes P

B sues P for battery:

R sues P for IIED:
Battery: B wins because P did not have privilege of arrest (felony or breach of peace)

IIED: P not liable, unless knew R was watching
Co. sues Fed. Buerau for competing gin lease of land.

Which Constitutional provision allows for Fed program?
Federal Property Clause of Article IV, Section 3
FGF (merchant) has written agreement with GM (merchant) that provides "sell all output of FGF's X to GM" and GM agreed to "sell FGF X exlcusively"

What are relative obligations of parties?
FGF has to sell all of its output to GM. GM has to sell exclusively FGF X, but it does not have to buy any.
A sues Attorney C over billing. Subpoenas other clients billing info, but redacts subject matter.

Subpoena proper?
Upheld, info about hours billed not confidential
X works for A on call 24/7 but works 8-4pm. Drives company van home. On way home, X picks up groceries. While leaving market parking lot hits woman.

A liable?
Yes, only slight deviation.

Heading home not usually enough, but on call 24/7 is determinative.
Three states W-M-E lined up. M makes possession of X illegal. Legal in both W and E. A buys X from W to use in E. Drives through M. Seized and destroyed.

1. Common carriers allowed to transport, private citizens are not what is the EP analysis?

2. If fed. admin. product safety rule regulates design. What effect?
1. No EP violation because rational basis

2. No preemption because different purposes
A and B written contract for X to (1) convey 100 acre farm to A and (2) to pay A $1 in cash six moths after exchange of X and farm. K contained following provision "Agreed that B's obligation to pay voided if A has not, within 3 months, removed exsting shed in the parking area in the rear of said apartment.

Which is the least accurate order of performance:

A. A tender good title is condition precedent to B's dut y to convey farm.

B. B tendering title to farm is condition precedent to A's duty to convey X

C. B's tendering good title to farm is condition subsequent to A's duty to convey good title to the apartment house

D. A's tendering and B's tendering are concurrent conditions
C. Condition subsequent cuts off an already existing duty
Cars driven by P and D collided. D pleads guilty to driving while intoxicated, but is merely fined even though could have been sentenced to 2 years.

Record of conviction admissible in civil suit, P v. D?
Admitted as proof of intoxication

Felony convictions are those for which the POTENTIAL punishment is prison in excess of one year
Taxpayer challenges construction grants to church-operated private college and universities.

Most likely result?
Sustained, because does not necessarily free money to spend it other resources

"Bricks and mortar" incorrect because overbroad, may not be used to build a college chapel
In suit P v. D, D's lawyer is cross-examining W who recounts battery. D's lawyer asked how he knew if he didn't see. W says he read it in the paper.

If D motions for statement to be stricken?
Denied, the remark was invited by cross-examiner's question
Co. sold bike to Shop who sold it X. While riding brakes fail and X swerves into D to avoid traffic.

X sues Shop in strict liability?

P sues Co. in negligence?
Shop is strictly liable if break failed because of defect when bike left Co.

Yes, if defect could have been discovered through exercise of reasonable care.
A written K wa entered into between investor B and winery/grape grower V. K provided B would invest $1 million in V for capital expansion and V would produce and market 500,000 bottles for five years under the label PVB. K included a provision that profits and losses from the venture and that, if feasible, the wine would be distributed by V only through C. Neither B nor V had previously dealt with C. C learned of the K two days later from reading the trade newspaper. In reliance thereon, he immidiately hired an additional sales executive and contracted for enlargement of his wine storage and display facility.

1. If V refuses to distribute wine through C and C then sues V for breach of K, is it likely that C will prevail?

2. Assume, A lent B $200,00 and B executed written instrument that A "is entitled to collect the debt from my share of the profits, if any under the VB K. A gives notice to V. If V refuses to account for profits to A and A sues V for B's shares then realized, V' strongest argument in defense is?

3. Assume V, without B's knowledge, sold its vineyards, but not its winery to X. Under terms of the sale, X agreed to sell V all its grapes for 5 years. X has no experience. BV K silent on the matter.

If B sues V, is B likely to prevail?
1. C is not an intended beneficiary. Simple expression of preference. Could not foresee that C would act in reliance.

2. Only theory under which A can recover is as assignee. Ths V's strongest defense is to state that A is not an assignee.

3. Will prevail because a contractual duty may be delegated if peformance by the delegate will materially change the obligee's expectancy under the K.

P purchases auto, B, from D. Within a few days, P returns B to D for repairs on brakes. D's mechanic fixes and tells D "Fixed. If you have same problem, don't worry, will pull left but brakes will work"

Problem starts again, P is driving back to D for further repair. Master cylinder broke and P hit X.

If X sues P?

If X sues B manufacturer in strict liability?

If X sues D in negligence?
P will prevail because no reason to know brakes would fail

X will prevail if defective when left B's control

D will prevail unless defect should have been discovered when the mechanic inspected the car.
F had development of high rise apartemnts and single-family dwellings. Each deed had covenant, applied to heirs and grantees, that they would buy power from F's power plant.

After constructing half, F conveyed rest to G who continued development and whose deeds included covenant.

D bought dwelling from O who had purchased it from F. D starts getting power from X.
G sues.

If D prevails it will be because
Covenant does not touch and concern the land
P is state college instructor discharged for not swearing oath (1) uphold and defend state and federal constitution (2) oppose the overthrow of the government. Held constitutional by state supreme court. D seeks redress in federal court.

State's strongest argument is:
The oath as a whole is only a commitment to abide by constitutional process
P has written K to buy X from D at 160 on 29th. P gives 10 as earnest money.

On 17th P's title search shows that C has 1/10 undivided interest in X. P pays C 100 for quitclaim deed. P tells D . D does not show up at closing.

P sues for specific performance
P can get. Even if not marketable, purchaser can proceed.

Abatement applied to purchase price which means 160-10(earnest)-10(abatement) = 140

Co-tenancy doesn't matter because K made before co-tenancy
C sends E to prison. E wants to get even, hears on inside that C once did coke. E has no reason to believe story. E sold story to paper for $1,000.

Allegation false, C suits E in defamation
E prevails if he honestly believed the assertion
D owned a small warehouse that he leased to T. D wanted to put T out of business (flowers) so he could lease it at higher rent. One night, turned off cooling system. Also deployed kerosene space heaters. Spill, ignition, fire. D panicked and ran. Heavy damage.

D guilty of arson?
Guilty because failure to put out fire establishes malice.

Tenant has "possession" for purposes of arson
D and A worked as pickpockets. D approaches V with camera to distract while A sliced open pants to remove wallet.

V was drunk, thought D had gun. Reaches for wallet. Cut by A's knife. Wallet drops to ground. A picks it up and A and D run.

D is charged with robbery. Guilty?
Guily because of use of force. Intent as to force irrelevant. Intent goes to permanent deprivation of personal property.
P gives guided tours at public places. X does not sign up or pay him, but hangs out at fringes to listen.

What does X owe P?
Contract price under an implied in fact K.

Silently taking benefit with reasonable opportunity to reject and reason to know they were offered with expectation of compensation, inaction may constitute acceptance
G's will "I hereby give X to my surviving widow for life, remainder to such of my children as shall live to attain 30, but if as any child dies under 30 survived by child or children, such child or children shall take and recieve their share."

At date of writing, G married to S, two kids, A and B. S dies. G marries W. G dies survived by W and A, B, and C.

Gifts are valid under the rule

1. Will speaks at death.

2. Grandchildren do not have to survive to any particular age
P about to sit in chair in front of large crowd when D moves it away. P falls on his ass.

P sues for damages based on embarassment
Recovers in battery
O owns Blackacre. Delivers quitclaim to P. Not recorded. O delivers general warranty to C for full release of debt. C records. P records.

P v. C
Turns on whether release from debt considered "value"
On May 1, O telegraphs B "Will sell you any or all of the lots in G at $5 each. Details follow in letter." The letter contained all necessary detals and provided that "offer remains open til June 1"

On May 2, after telegram but before letter, B telephoned O "Accept your offer with respect to lot 101."

1. Assume that May 3, O called to modify to $6, B agreed. On May 6, B telegraphed "Accept your offer with respect to rest of the lots" B will have to pay:

2. Assume on May 5, O teles B that he has sold all other lots on May 4. B then telegraphs O "Will take rest of lots." B files breach of K

3. Assume on May 6, B telegraphed O "Will take rest of lots" and that on May 8, O discovers that he did not have good title to remaining lots. What is best legal support that O is not liable for breach of K as to remaining lots?
1. $5 for 101, $6 for the rest. No consideration for modification of existing K, but phone call acted as revocation and new offer.

2. B will not succeed. Notice that offeror has made K with 3rd party is effective revocation.

3. B's telegram could reasonably be interpreted as a rejection of A's offer as to all other lots
Officer sees light on in machine shop. Stands on things to peer in window. See owner's son doing blow. Knocked on door. Son lets him in. Arrested son and friend. Found coke in backroom.

Son seeks to surpress coke, mirror and razor?
Granted, reasonable expectation of privacy because of blocked off windows
R gives M power of attorney with provision authorizing him to convey any part or all of his real property. M conveyed part of R's land to S by warranty deed.

S sues R for breach of a covenant
Depends on whether "sell and convey" includes power to include covenants
M low bidder on Fed Gov K denied because of guidelines on minority representation. K rebid and wiiner got a waiver.

M files suit
Dismiss because cannot show injury in fact will be remedied by injunction.
B contracts to buy W from O. Visually inspected, but did not see that conduit under land through which water diverted. B may not be able to build high rise. B refuses properly tendered deed.

O sues for specific performance
No duty to disclose; ample opportunity to inspect. SP granted
O conveys G to "A, his heirs and assigns, but if A dies is not survived by children by his present wife J, then B and his heirs and assigns"

A opens mining operation on G without notice to B. B files suit
A has right to take minerals. Defeasible fee same rights as absolute fee. Only unconscionable conduct could be enjoined.
Approved plan for 10 lot subdivision includes an undesignated parcel. Is title to that parcel marketable?
No, unclear whether subject to restrictions in development plan
Status of contractual obligations between X and Y when Y becomes ill to the point where can't perfrom.
Not impossibility because impossibility is objective. Can't be performed by anyone. Failure to deliver not excused
States seizes assets for forfeiture. Bank had a recorded mortgage but did not know of forfeiture and sale until completed. Notice was printed in newspapers. Banks contends that deprived DPC.

If succesful, wil be because
Notice not adequate under circumstances
D stopped for traffic violation. Officer recognizes him from fraud scheme. Arrests, Mirandizes. Asks for permission to search trunk. D nods and unlocks trunk. Officer discovers coke.

D wants to exclude coke.
Court should not grant motion if it finds consent was voluntary under circumstances.
Resident alien not seeking citizenship denied tuition assistance by state, which limits it to citizens or residents aliens seeking citizenship

Valid restriction
Invalid, alienage classifications subject to strict scrutiny
Congress enacts a law providing that all disagreements between the US and a state over federal grant-in-aid funds shall be settled by filing of suit in federal district court in the affected state.

"The judgment of that court shall be transmitted to the head of the federal agency dispensing such funds, who, if satisfied that the judgment is fair and lawful, shall execute the judgment according to its terms."

Unconstitutional, because it vests authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion
Civil suit P v. D, D calls W, a chemist, as an expert witness. Over objection, court allows W to testify to a hypotehtical.

On cross, P aksed W if had failed two chemistry courses while doing grad work.

Answer should be:
Admitted, relevant to weight given to testimony.

Credibility of an expert witness may be attacked
D subject to random stop. Officer saw what looked like shotgun barrel. Orders D from car. Searches him and discovers gun and weed.

Motion to surpress the weed
Sustained as result of unlawful stopping.

Can't use checkpoints to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing unrelated to highway safety
O owns 1. V executes warranty deed to P, duly recorded. O conveyed to V. V records. V conveys to R. Recorded

P v. V
Either. Split authoirty as to whether a recorded deed obtained from a grantor who had no title at the time, but who afterwards obtains title, is contructive notice to subsequent purchaser from the same grantor.
P order merchandise from B. P rejects and returns for credit. B still bills him and turns it over to collector K. K goes to P's house and when P opens door yells through bullhorn that P is "deadbeat".
Neighbors nearby.

P slams door. Bullhorn smacks K's teeth.

Can P sue K for defamation?
No, unless K knew that P owed no money to B
O owned Blackacre and by will devided it "To my daughter E, her heirs and assigns, but if E dies surived by a husband, child or children then to to E's husband during his lifetime with remainder to E's children, their heirs and assigns. Specifically provided, however, that if E dies survived by a husband and no child, B is specifically devised to my nephew L"

Will in probate, L quitclaims all of his interest to E's husband J. Three years later E dies without kids, leaving B to J.

L sues J to establish title to B
J should win because L had effectively conveyed his interest to J
K receives order from C for X. Delivery by July 1.

June 1, K delivers Y. C rejects shipment but does not return Y. K telegraphs "Will properly deliver by July 1"

Delivers X on June 30. C refuses to accept

1. Did C properly reject Y?

2. Did C properly reject X?
1. Properly rejected. Only need hold them until seller removes them.

2. Improper rejection. Proper cure.
D on trial for murder of M. Claims self-defense. Put on W who claims he heard S tell D that M "is a mean, vicious killer".

Testimony is:
Admissible nonhearsay. Shows effect on hearer.

State of mind exception to hearsay only shows state of mind of speaker.
O had title to B.
Without O's knowledge, H enters B to construct an earthen damn.
12 years later H gives title to A. Document was sufficient to transfer personal, but not real property.

A leases B from O for five years. Stays on for an additional three years.

O conveys B by quitclaim to P.

Adverse Possession is 10 yrs.

Who has title to B?
Hull; acquired title through adverse possession
A statute authorizes a speficic federal agency to issue rules governing the distribution of federal grant funds for scientific research. The statute provides that, in issuing those rules, the agency must follow procedures and substantive standards contained in the statute. In a severable provision, the statute also provides that otherwise valid rules issued by the agency under authority delegated to it by this statute may be set aside by a majority vote of a designated standing joint committee of Congress.

Provision relating to the power of the standing joint committe is:
Unconstitutional, considered a legislative veto.
In 1980, O conveyed S to "Church for the life of my son, Carl, to all of my grandchildren; provided that Church shall use premises for church purposes only."

Church grants D right to remove sand and gravel from tiny portion.

Four living grandchildren seek injunction and damages:
Injunction and damages bot ordered. Life estate can't consume or exploit natural resources.

"Provided that..." creates a condition subsequent which gives rise to a right of reentry. Was not exercised.
According to a statute of the state of Kiowa, a candidate for state office may have his name placed on ballot only if meets signature requirement.

R failed to meet signature requirement, strongest argument for injunction:
Best argument is that less restrive alternative available.

Issue of speech and political assocation.

If severe restriction, must be narrowly tailored

If reasonable and nondiscriminatory, generally upheld under regulatory interest.
Narcos attached to the State Police learn from an informant that the semi-opaque panes of glass on D's greenhouse are being replaced during the night. They fly over in a helicopter and use special infrared goggles to determine weed is being grown.

Illegal search and seizure?
Yes. Can't use more than the naked eye
Without a warrant, narcos cross D's fenced in field and look through a windown into D's horse barn. The barn is located about 150 ft. outside of the fence surrounding his house. The federal agents observe a large quantity of recently harvested pot. The agents go to a magistrate to swear out a warrant and arrest D.

Illegal search and seizure?
No. “Open fields” doctrine, areas outside the curtilage (dwelling house and outbuildings) are subject to police entry and search.
Police went to D' house and placed him under arrest for operating an auto theft ring. Before leaving told his wife to call lawyer. Mirandized. Lawyer called and desk sergeant assured her that D would be held several hours without questioning until DA arrived. Police placed him in a room and asked him about a bank robbery. Did not tell him about lawyer calling, but he agreed to talk as long as he did not have to put anything in writing or sign anything without her okay. D made incriminating statements about the robbery, and he was eventually indicted for that crime as well.

Move to suppress P's testimony about statements:
Denied because interrogation did not violate 5th Amendment right to counsel. Request must be unambiguous and specific. That it was a different offense is irrelevant because 5th Amendment right to counsel not offense specific.
E suffered from a physical condition that caused him to periodically lapse into unconsciousness without prior warning. Visited Dr. who put him on pills that stopped seizures, but had bad side effects. Cut dosage in half without incident. Took off medication with requirement of check-ups every two months. Driving one day had seizure, crossed double yellow line, accident.

If sues Dr:

If sues E:
Dr. liable if it was reasonably foreseeable that removing Eddie from medication could cause harm to 3rd parties

E not liable unless he had reason to believe that he might lapse into unconsciousness
W, the food and beverage manager of the exclusive Polo Country Club (“PCC”), received a letter from B, the sale director of Vodka. The letter, dated January 3, stated in relevant part “Vodka would like meet your requirements in the current year. Beginning Jan 15, we will supply your requirement on the 15th of each month at $120 per case throughout the calendar year” W wrote back “Re your letter of Jan. 3, we agree to have you meet our requirements for vodka at PCC during the coming years, on the terms stated.” W placed a modest order for Vodka, which was duly delivered at the stated price on Jan. 15. The vodka proved exceedingly popular with PCC members and Weinmann placed increased orders for Feb and March, which were duly delivered.

However, on March 17, W received a letter from B, stating in relevant part “Due to extraordinary conditions in country of origin, it will be necessary to increase the price of Vodka to $200 per case.” Weinmann realized immediately that the newly quoted price would increase the per-drink cost to even more than PCC's affluent members would be willing to pay. He telephoned B and told him “Our members aren't going to be happy if we change brands. We have a K.” B replied “No, we don't and, in any case, there's no way we can supply Vodka to you now at $120 per case.” W ordered vodka from one of Vodka's competitors. The best brice W could get is $135 per case. K proved to be far less popular and vodka consumption/profits declined at PCC. PCC sues

Original agreement can be described as:

Assume that court decides that a single bilateral K existed between Vodka and PCC. The court considers the following damages to which PCC might be entitled:
(I)Nominal damages
(II)$15 times the number of cases of competitor vodka purchased from April through Dec.
(III)The decline in profits that was caused by reduced sales of vodka drinks

Vodka's best defense is:
Dr. liable if it was reasonably foreseeable that removing Eddie from medication could cause harm to 3rd parties

E not liable unless he had reason to believe that he might lapse into unconsciousness
The original agreement between Vodka and PCC is a single bilateral K. The fact that deliveries are made once a month does not make it a series K. Not an option because no consideration given for keeping it open.

PCC is entitled to recover the difference between the price of the substitute vodka and the K price, as well as damages for lost profits resulting from reduced sales of vodka drinks ie consequential damages. No nominal damages (when no loss provable)

Impracticability would be the best defense. This K under UCC
Character Evidence

Prosecutor cannot introduce any evidence of D's bad character if the purpose is to show conformity with bad character and committed the crime charged

Defendant is allowed to introduce evidence of relevant good character to establish that he acted in conformity in good character (limited to reputation and opinion evidence)

If the D presents good evidence of good character, the Prosecutor is allowed to introduce evidence of bad character

Prosecutor is also allowed to ask D's character witness if they have heard of bad acts (cannot introduce evidence of prior crimes)

Evidence of prior crimes or prior bad acts are never admissible, but may be admissible to prove MIMIC

If D testifies, he automatically places his truthfulness in issue


Can't introduce character train of party to show propensity

Suitable for other purposes (negligent entrustment, defamation)

If a party testifies, automatically place their truthfulness in issue
Among his properties, T owns G, a 300 acre operating farm. Farm profitable, but T has other sources of income. T's will “to my wife, W, for life, then to my three daughters, Debi, Doreen, and Donna, in fee simple absolute.

W occupies G and operates farm. After expenses of operation, W earned $25 per year from G. Neither D, D or D did anything with farm chores or expenses. W has consistently failed to be $2 in county tax assessment and continues to refuse to pay.

With the taxes three years in arrears, the tax authorities made good on their threats. Using proper procedure authorized by state law, the county has ordered a tax sales of G.

Donna consults you regarding her rights and obligations:
W, as life tenant, is obligated to pay all taxes on the land. A tax sale, however, will cut off the rights of the remainderman DDD; so they definitely have an interest in paying the taxes
D was a defenseman for a pro hockey team. D is a dirty player. P skates toward him at a high rate of speed with his hockey stick raised in a threatening manner. D smashed his stick into P's face.

If D is charged with battery:
If found not guilty, it will be because he acted reasonably in self-defense. Hockey players do not consent to the type of action described.
Shortly before noon, C and D entered Bank and robbed it. D shot and wounded a security guard in making their getaway. The police gave chase. C captured. Mirandized. Told them what D was wearing and where he dropped him off.

D had entered Public School, taken Principal and Secretary hostage. Police surrounded school; ordered D to come out with his hands up. At night, D switched clothes with P and pushed him out door first. Sharpshooter killed him.

D charged with P's murder:
Murder. State of mind enough for malice aforethought. Created unjustifiably high risk. Whether or not police were justified is irrelevant as to D.
U was a wealthy farmer. Nephew inherited a nearby farm. Farm heavily mortgaged and needed new equipment. Bank would not extend credit without guarantee. U told N he would guarantee loan if he could use new tractor for 10 days w/out rent. U then told bank officer, L, of guarantee. U learned that N had a bad reputation. U telephoned L telling him to forget it. L did not stop check from being issued. N drove tractor, but U refused to use it. N defaulted on loan.

Bank sues U
U will lose if main point of promise was to benefit himself. If just a surety, would have come under Statute of Frauds.
H and W joint tenants in B. Convey 10% to D. 6 months later convey 10% to D's husband, X.

In jurisdiction with tenancy by the entirety, ownership of B is
80% joint tenancy in H and W tenants in common with both D and X. Conveyance only severs joint tenancy as to that 20%.
K had 1957 Chevy. Thinking about selling it. G wanted to buy. K and G made a writing “I will sell Chevy to G if he comes up with $12 in 10 days.” Later K meets old college friend L. L tells K “For 10% of the gross, I will find you a buyer for no less than $15. K says nothing in reply. Next morning L telephones K and tells him that J was willing to pay $16 for the Chevy. K asks L for J's phone number. Made sale. Phoned G to tell him that he was revoking offer.

Agreement between K and G was:

If L is not paid and brings suit:
K and G made a unilateral contract. No option because no consideration. Had G begun performance becomes irrevocable offer

K and L had a contract. Asking for phone # constitutes acceptance.
Central has a record-notice statute. In Jan, S, owner of M, executed and delivered mortgage on the property to Senior to secure a $50,000 loan. Not recorded. Feb 15, S contracted to sell M to J. Feb 16 S takes out a $30, 000 mortgage on M with Junior. Recorded. J closes on M on April 1. April 3, Senior records. April 6, J records.

J hold M subject:
Subject to both mortgages, and the Senior Bank mortgage is subordinate to the Junior Bank Mortgage.
State enacted legislation expanding health insurance benefits to include comprehensive drug benefits for all of its citizens. Excluded was the “abortion pill”. Pregnant woman challenged. What standard?
Rational basis review. Government not required to spend money so no undue burden test.
Prior Inconsistent Statements (during cross or through extrinsic evidence; comment required unless admission)

Bias (during cross or through extrinsic evidence)

Prior Criminal Convictions (during cross or through extrinsic, any dishonesty crime can be used, other felonies unless prejudicial)

Prior Bad Acts (during cross, but no extrinsic evidence unless also establishes bias)

Reputation for Untruthfulness (always through extrinsic)
D sends virus to H believing it would temporarily disable H's email. Virus infected hard drive, which needed to be replaced at cost of $200. Statute makes it a criminal offense to knowingly cause $200 of damage. Guilty?
Not guilty. Knowingly requires knowledge that penalized result is necessarily or likely to occur.
O owned P, an unimproved parcel of wooded land in fee simple. He orally agreed to sell P to B under an installment land K whereby B agreed to pay $5,000 down and $100 a month for the next 10 years, and O would retain the deed until B finished paying the installments. Because O and B were friends, they shook hands and did not put it in writing. After making the down payment, B moved onto the property and began improvements. 10 months later, B died. His estate included $200,000 in cash and his interest in P. Will conveyed real estate to R and remainder to X. Estate failed to make payments. O notified estate that he was rescinding deal, asserting ownership of P and offered to return money.

B's estate initiated quiet title action. Estate willing to pay accelerated full balance, which it can do under the redemption statute. If court finds R will receive title in fee simple free of any obligation on the installment K, which of the following doctrines will the court use to reach this determination?

I)Doctrine of Equitable Conversion

II)Doctrine of Part Performance

III)Equitable Mortgage Doctrine
Court will use equitable conversion and part performance. Not Equitable Mortgage doctrine, under which a landowner may “sell” land and then make payments. Court will find this to be a mortgage rather than sale if land really just a security. Inapplicable here.
M was driving his beat-up old car along a narrow coast road overlooking the coastal bluffs when he was passed by X in her new Mercedes. X's daughter S was asleep in back seat and could not be seen. M rammed the car and went over cliff. M prosecuted for attempted murder. M claims his only intent was to scratch and dent the car. If trier of fact believes him, M will be convicted of:
Nothing. Attempt is specific intent. If X died, could have been convicted of murder.
At trial of M for breach of K, M calls her accountant W. Attorney asks W about some figures, but W replies that he cannot remember. Attorney then hand W a copy of federal tax return he prepared. W reads it. Attorney asks W “Now that you have read the tax return, can you remember what the gross income of M's shop was?” Opposing counsel objects:
Admissible. Not past recollection recorded because not read into the record.
Dying Declarations in Criminal Cases
According to the FRE, can only be used in homicide cases
What is the way to open 15 acres to public use and picnicing, etc. while retaining the greatest freedom of action if a football franchise is awarded in the next two years?
Grant an easement for two years because can limit scope.

Lease gives too much power. Covenants not used to grant rights for access to property
B enters into a K with C to buy T for $70. Only able to obtain $40 from Bank. Secure $30 from C on land with oral promise to pay from expected inheritance.

C negotiates note to D for $25 without informing B. C receives check for $30. C leaves with all $95.

Notice statute jurisdiction and allows deficiency judgment against the mortgagor if the proceeds of a foreclosure sale are insufficient to satisfy the mortgage debt.

If a foreclosure is instituted by D, what are his rights against B?

Assume that D has an enforcable mortgage interest in T. What is that interest in relation to Bank?
D has enforcable mortgage because note properly transferred. Must pay/obtain note, not person.

D's interest is superior to Bank's because subsequent bona fide purcahser. Statute applies to purchase money.
P suing D for injuries P suffered when his car was struck by D's truck, allegedly because D had fallen aslepp at the wheel after driving.

At trial, G testified that she had been with G and had taken over driving duties for several hours while D napped. P calls W to testify that G told him that she had been unable to get out of bed the weekend the accident occurred because of severe back pain.

Admissible for impeachment only (prior inconsistent statements)

Can be proved on cross or through extrinsic evidence

Can be given opportunity to explain or deny afterwards

Not admissible as substantive evidence because hearsay not under any exception (past bodily condition not to medical personnel for purpose of treatment)
State passes statute requiring anyone under 25 to obtain certificate of responsibility for having kids or abortion/adoption.

22 yr. old challenges. He plans to marry and father kids before 25.
Not ripe because no immediate threat of harm
Old man keeps reaching for keys he doesn't have. Store thinks he is shoplifitng. Detained for hour in manager's office. Let go.

Action for assault on security guard attempt to handcuff?

False imprisonment action to recover for humiliation?
Will recover for assualt only if guard was unreasonable in suspecting him

Can recover for humiliation. Hour beyond reasonable time so no shopkeeper's privilege.
10 yr. prescription period

U owns X through which Creek runs. Creek also runs through D. D used Creek for 18 yrs for farming purposes. U began drawing off water for domestic use.

Water level drops, only sufficient to meet either all of D's needs and none of U's or all of U's needs and half of D's needs.

Who prevails?
U will prevail because D's use is not natural. Can only take for for artificial use if other riparian owners' natural uses are satisfied.
Common law definition of larceny.

MPC insanity rule.

D borrowed V's Corvette. D testifies intended to return. Psychiatrists testify to D's inferiority complex, delusions of grandeur and lying about ownership.

Jury instructions:

I. If you find by the preponderance of the evidence that the D intended to return the car, you should find D not guilty

II. If you find by the preponderance of the evidence that dues to mental disease or defect, the defendant was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, you should find the defendant not guilty

Only II was constitutional. State can require D to prove mental illness by clear and convincing evidence or preponderance.

I unconstitutional because permanent deprivation is element of the crime, which State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
State program by which public schools could request instruction as to specific religions and religious beliefs, and thus participate in public school programs in which leaders of the religions involved gave religious instruction and performed religious practices on school grounds. Provided instruction on any religion requested by a student.

Which of the following, if true, would be relevant in assessing the constitutionaliy of the state religious instruction program.

I. Substantial effect is to promote the religions studied

II. Primary purpose of the statute is to foster belief in the religions studied

III. The state does not have a compelling interest in instructing students about specific religions

IV. The legislation requires that religious leaders and schools interact constantly
All, but III, which is only relevant if discriminating against a religious sect
Statute revoking DL for anyone conviced of three speeding violations in a year. Administrative hearing only as to whether you were in fact the person for all three.

D convicted of three. License taken. Did not have hearing. Sues as unconstitutional:
Prior judicial determinations that D violated law satisfies Due Process under 14th Amendment.
P and D are adjacent landowners. Particles from D's business interfere with P's stawberry picking business. D believes that he owns P's land.

Can P recover for harm to business?
P can recover from trespass. Particles are tangible. D knew with a substantial certainty. Mistaken belief about land irrelevant.
Smoke from D's BBQ restaurant drifted in P's backyard and made his extremely sensitive eyes water.

No, if smoke would not disturb normal person
D came across P who had been bitten by rattlesnake. Drove P to hospital on 4x4, but exceeded speed limit and crashed. Ambulance came. Dr. committed malpractice.

P sues D:
Undertook resuce, must do so reasonably.

Exceeding speed limit not necessarily negligent per se because of circumstances.
State enacted gross receipts tax, proportional to revenue derived by business in state. W had headquarters and most of manufacturing plants in State.

W challenges constitutionality, strongest argument is:

A) 80% of W's revenue comes from Fed

B) Tax applies to revenue derived from all W's manufacturing plants, including those not located in State

C) State also imposes a use tax on component parts puchased outside the state by W that is equivalent to State's sales tax

D) Sales taxes are imposed by other states
B) Creates an unfair burden

Not D because not related to gross receipts tax. May be invalid on its own.
In a criminal action for aggravated batter in which a witness for D has testified that D is a peaceful and law-abidinng citizen, is a certified copy of D's two year old felony conviction for armed robbery admissible?
No, may not establish specific instances of misconduct by extrinsic evidence
In a civil fraud action for making false and misleading statements in a stock offering, is evidence that D has made intentional misrepresentations on other stock offerings admissible?
Yes, admissible to show intent
B urges C to embarass A. C puts snake in A's desk. A is injured when jumping back.

Statute "reckless bodily injury is battery in 3rd degree"

B charged with battery in 3rd degree
Not guilty. No requisite intent.

Courts split on whether reckless for accomplice liability requires actual intent or just recklessness.
Congress passes Return to Decency Act allowing states to regulate video games.

Az. regulates zoning, timing, etc. as well as requiring a specific LCD screen to help the eyes.

CA co. sues regarding special screens:
State will prevail because of Congressional action.

No indication that it goes beyond scope of authorization.
L lied on job application about prior convictions. Hired as security guard.

At bar after work, drew work pistol and killed guy.

Sue Security Agency
Liable if knew or should have known.
N injured by bus lurching abruptly. Sue bus company under respondeat superior and negligent hiring.

Bus Co. call personnel director W and asks if Driver had been screened for vehicular crimes. W does not remember.

Counsel then asks W about deposition 18 months before trial where he said he had requested statement to that effect.

Prior inconsistent statement admissible both for impeachment and substantive purposes.
J hired as security guard. Given gun. Required to leave bullets when left. Road rage. Shot D.

D brings action for negligent entrustment. Offers testimony of W, who worked with J at previous job, that J had a reputation as a hothead, kept weapon loaded and threatened people with gun.

Admissible character evidence because negligent entrustment so character in issue.