APEX MCQ's

In response to a state study concluding that the state had a substantial interest in combating the obesity epidemic and improving the general health of its citizens, the legislature passed legislation to advance those goals. One statute regulated the time, duration, frequency, and content of all television advertisements for food, food retailers, and restaurants. An association of food retailers brings an action in federal court challenging the statute's constitutionality. Should the court find the statute constitutional? (A) Yes, if it does not prohibit the dissemination of truthful information about price and the availability of products, and is narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in combating obesity. (B) Yes, because it serves a substantial government interest and restricts only commercial speech. (C) No, because it infringes on the freedom of speech rights of food sellers in violation of the First Amendment. (D) No, if it interferes with existing contracts between food sellers and television broadcasters.

(A) Yes, if it does not prohibit the dissemination of truthful information about price and the availability of products, and is narrowly tailored to serve the state's interest in combating obesity.

What MUST be included in a defendant's answer? (Select all that apply.) A) Admissions or denials B) Affirmative defenses C) Compulsory counterclaims D) Short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction

A) Admissions or denials B) Affirmative defenses C) Compulsory counterclaims

A court may only issue a preliminary injunction after an adversarial hearing has been held. A) True B) False

A) True

A city council passed an ordinance providing: "No person may contribute more than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of supporting or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or regularly engaging in such activities." If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on the constitutionality of this ordinance? A. Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association. B. Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing mechanism has been provided for. C. Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling such contributions. D. Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a nonjusticiable matter.

A. Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.

Damages to private necessity

Actual damages only

When can a person use deadly force? A) When she is defending her property B) When she has a reasonable belief that someone is about to use deadly force on her C) When she is outnumbered D) Never

B) When she has a reasonable belief that someone is about to use deadly force on her

What is the test for whether a law is void for vagueness? A) The law punishes a substantial amount of protected speech compared to the legitimate areas it regulates B) The government lacks a compelling interest that is narrowly tailored to advance that interest, so the law is too vague C) The law fails to give a person reasonable notice of what is prohibited D) The law bans depictions of animal cruelty, which is not allowed

C) The law fails to give a person reasonable notice of what is prohibited

Damages to trespass to chattels

Usage or harm

A state prohibited speechmaking, noisy picketing, or other public gatherings within 100 feet of the state legislative building when the legislature was in session to vote or debate on any legislation. The statute did permit silent picketing or silent vigils at any time, as long as the pickets did not interfere with pedestrians or traffic. The nearest place to the building where speeches could be made during a session was a large public park directly opposite the building.During a controversial debate on a proposed bill to reinstate the state's death penalty, supporters of the bill gathered for a rally and speeches. One of the leaders of the group was giving a speech when he was informed that the legislature had decided to send the bill back to committee and that there would be no vote on the bill until the next legislative session. He told the crowd that they should all go across the street and let the legislators hear the voices of the people. When he led the chanting crowd to the front of the building, the state police dispersed them and arrested the leader, charging him with violating the statute. This statute likely would be held (A) Constitutional on its face, and as applied to the leader. (B) Constitutional on its face, but not as applied to the leader. (C) Unconstitutional on its face, because a state's citizens have a right to take their complaints to their state legislature. (D) Unconstitutional on its face, because it permits silent picketing while prohibiting other picketing.

(A) Constitutional on its face, and as applied to the leader.

A 16-year-old teenager was playing baseball in a sandlot when the ball was hit over his head and onto a landowner's adjacent property. Ignoring "beware of dog" signs, the teenager climbed over the fence into the landowner's yard to retrieve the ball and was attacked by a vicious guard dog belonging to the landowner. The dog bit the teenager, causing him to suffer severe lacerations that required numerous stitches. If the teenager brings an action against the landowner to recover damages for his injuries, he will (A) Prevail, because the landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property. (B) Prevail, because the landowner is strictly liable for injuries caused by the vicious dog. (C) Not prevail, because the teenager was trespassing on the landowner's property. (D) Not prevail, because the landowner had posted signs warning about the dog.

(A) Prevail, because the landowner may not use a vicious dog to protect only his property.

An impatient driver who was fed up with jaywalking pedestrians drove straight at one of them, leaning on the horn and intending to make her jump. The pedestrian did not hear the horn or change her pace, however, because her music player was turned to full volume. A bystander on the curb rushed out to pull her to safety. She tripped as she was being pulled to the curb, fracturing her kneecap. If the pedestrian sues the driver for assault, the likely result will be (A) The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver. (B) The driver wins, because he did not intend for the pedestrian to be injured by his conduct. (C) The pedestrian wins, because the driver intended to create in her an apprehension of immediate harmful contact. (D) The pedestrian wins, because the driver's conduct was a substantial factor in causing her injury.

(A) The driver wins, because the pedestrian did not know at the time that she was in danger from the driver.

Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing."Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife. If Wife asserts a claim based on battery against Grower, will Wife prevail? (A) Yes, because Grower intended that the dog frighten Wife. (B) Yes, because the breaking of the leash establishes liability under res ipsa loquitur. (C) No, because Wife made an unauthorized entry on Grower's land. (D) No, because Grower did not intend to cause any harmful contact with Wife.

(A) Yes, because Grower intended that the dog frighten Wife.

A woman playing tennis with a man became highly irritated because every time she prepared to serve, the man started talking loudly. Despite the woman's repeated requests to stop, the man persisted in the behavior. The woman ran towards the man, swinging her racket to scare him and to get him to stop. However, as she swung the racket, she slipped and it flew out of her hand as she lost her balance. It flew through the air and struck the man in the head. The woman slipped because the owner of the tennis court had not cleaned the court properly after some maintenance work. Does the man have grounds for a battery action against the woman (A) Yes, because the woman intended to create a reasonable apprehension in the man. (B) Yes, because of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. (C) No, because the woman did not intend the racket to strike the man (D) No, because the owner of the tennis court had not maintained the court properly and this caused the woman to slip.

(A) Yes, because the woman intended to create a reasonable apprehension in the man.

A state's civil procedure rules allow for "nail and mail" service (posting the summons at the defendant's dwelling and thereafter mailing him a copy by certified mail) when "regular" service (service by physical delivery or by leaving a copy of the complaint with someone of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's usual place of abode) cannot be accomplished with due diligence. A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant in the federal district court for that state. After the plaintiff's special process server made many attempts at serving the defendant, the plaintiff's attorney directed the process server to nail the complaint and summons to the defendant's front door, and the attorney mailed (by certified mail) a copy to the defendant in accordance with the state rule. Has the defendant been successfully served? (A) Yes, if "nail and mail" service is reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice of the action. (B) Yes, because under the Erie Doctrine the federal court must apply the state's service of process rules. (C) No, if the defendant only rented the dwelling at which service was posted. (D) No, because "nail and mail" service is not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(A) Yes, if "nail and mail" service is reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice of the action.

A pregnant woman wished to obtain an abortion, but she was poor and could not afford one. Her home state did not provide financial assistance for abortions, but a neighboring state did for women who had been living within the state for at least three months prior to the procedure. The woman went to see a doctor in the neighboring state. He told her of the residency requirement. He also told the woman that he thought the residency requirement was unconstitutional and suggested that the woman bring an action in federal court challenging the residency requirement. She complied, bringing an action in forma pauperis, naming the doctor as the only defendant. The doctor responded that he believed that the requirement was unconstitutional and would like to be able to perform the abortion for the woman. The court should: (A) Dismiss the action because the woman lacks standing. (B) Dismiss the action because there is no case or controversy. (C) Abstain from hearing the action because deciding whether to fund abortions is a highly political issue. (D) Issue a declaratory injunction upholding the residency requirement because the state has a compelling interest in preventing nonresidents from draining local welfare funds.

(B) Dismiss the action because there is no case or controversy.

Government filed a civil action in federal court against Manufacturer for violating the federal anti-racketeering laws. In its complaint, Government accused Manufacturer of committing at least 100 separate acts of wire fraud and mail fraud. In discovery, Manufacturer served an interrogatory on Government requesting that Government identify any additional acts of alleged racketeering that it intended to try to prove against Manufacturer at trial. Government answered this interrogatory by identifying 30 new acts. Manufacturer served no further discovery requests on Government, and Government served no further discovery responses on Manufacturer. Two years later, as trial approached, Government announced to the court its intention to rely, at trial, on 650 additional, new acts of racketeering that it had discovered eight months earlier. How should the court rule if Manufacturer files a motion to bar Government from relying on the 650 additional acts of racketeering at trial? (A) Grant the motion because Government must always disclose all relevant information to a defendant. (B) Grant the motion because Government's failure to disclose the additional acts violated its obligations under the discovery rules. (C) Deny the motion because Government's response to Manufacturer's interrogatory was actually accurate and complete at the time it was served. (D) Deny the motion because Manufacturer failed to request Government to supplement its earlier interrogatory answers.

(B) Grant the motion because Government's failure to disclose the additional acts violated its obligations under the discovery rules.

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? (A) No type of prior restraint may be imposed on speech in public places. (B) Laws regulating, by their terms, expressive conduct or speech may not be overbroad or unduly vague (C) The determination as to whether public gatherings may be lawfully held cannot be vested in the police. (D) The right of association in public places without interference is assured by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

(B) Laws regulating, by their terms, expressive conduct or speech may not be overbroad or unduly vague

A city council ordinance provided that city officials should automatically issue a parade permit to any group filing the proper papers with city authorities, except in situations where a prior group had already received permission to parade on the same street at the same time on the same day. Another city ordinance prescribed fines for persons conducting a parade in the city without a permit.A religious leader filed appropriate papers with city officials to parade down the main street of the city at 1 p.m. on July 15. City officials noted that they had already issued a parade permit for another parade at the same place, date and time. The officials told the leader that he could not have a parade permit for the time and place requested and suggested that he select another day and/or location. The leader refused and insisted that he would conduct his parade when scheduled, even without a permit. On July 15 at 1 p.m., both organizations assembled on the main street and began to organize into parades. City officials asked the religious leader and his followers to desist, but they refused and were thereafter arrested, convicted, and fined under the city ordinance. If the convicted members seek to have their convictions overturned by the federal courts, they will (A) Lose, because the religious leader should have gone to federal court to secure his organization's rights before violating the ordinance. (B) Lose, because the city ordinances are a reasonable restriction on time, place, and manner of speech and were not applied in a discriminatory manner (C) Lose, because the city ordinances represented the will of the people as expressed through the city council. (D) Win, because the city ordinances, on their face, violate the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment.

(B) Lose, because the city ordinances are a reasonable restriction on time, place, and manner of speech and were not applied in a discriminatory manner

A state law prohibits any barbershop licensed by the state from displaying posters in support of any current candidate for public office or displaying or distributing any campaign literature in support of such a candidate. No other kinds of posters or literature are subject to this prohibition, nor are any other types of commercial establishments in the state subject to similar prohibitions. Is this law constitutional? (A) No, because it treats barbershops differently from other commercial establishments. (B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest. (C) Yes, because it leaves political candidates free to communicate their campaign messages to voters by other means. (D) Yes, because the operation of a licensed barbershop is a privilege and therefore is subject to any reasonable restriction imposed by the state.

(B) No, because it imposes a restriction on the content or subject matter of speech in the absence of any evidence that such a restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

A married couple was leaving a nightclub at closing. The wife forgot her jacket and went back in to the club to retrieve it while her husband looked for a cab outside. Her husband saw a cab sitting across the street and ran for it, cutting off one of the club's bouncers who was also looking for a ride home. The bouncer became angry at the husband for "stealing his cab." The cab departed while they were arguing. Seeing no one else around, the bouncer began to punch and kick the husband, causing him severe injury. The wife watched the entire episode from across the street and became greatly distressed. The husband sued the bouncer for his injuries. If the wife also sues the bouncer, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, will she recover? (A) No, because the bouncer did not intend to inflict emotional distress on the wife. (B) No, because the bouncer did not know that the wife was watching from across the street (C) Yes, because the bouncer's conduct was extreme and outrageous. (D) Yes, because the bouncer's conduct caused the wife to be severely emotionally disturbed.

(B) No, because the bouncer did not know that the wife was watching from across the street

A 50-year-old nurse who had been fired from his job at a hospital told his attorney, "I was fired because of my age, and I want to sue the hospital."Based on this information, the attorney filed an age discrimination complaint against the hospital in federal court. As it turned out, the hospital had hired a 52-year-old man as the nurse's replacement, a fact that rendered an age discrimination claim unavailable. The hospital responded to the complaint by filing a motion for sanctions against the nurse's attorney. Is the court likely to grant the hospital's motion? (A) No, because sanctions are not proper against the attorney of a represented party. (B) No, because the hospital failed to give the attorney the chance to withdraw the complaint in advance of filing the motion with the court (C) Yes, because the nurse's attorney failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry. (D) Yes, because the nurse's complaint contained legal contentions that were not warranted by existing law based on the facts in this case.

(B) No, because the hospital failed to give the attorney the chance to withdraw the complaint in advance of filing the motion with the court

A woman was sitting in her wheelchair in the park when a disheveled man approached her and grabbed her tightly by her hands and began to pray. The man claimed that he was a faith healer and that he could heal the woman so that she could walk again. In actuality, the man was an outpatient at a local hospital's psychiatric center. The woman brought a suit against the man for battery. At trial, the trier of fact determined that the man knew she had not consented to his grasping her hands, but that he truly believed that he had the ability to heal her. If the man asserts as a defense that he was mentally incompetent, this defense is: (A) Not valid, because he was only an outpatient. (B) Not valid, because he had the requisite state of mind for battery (C) Valid, because mentally disabled patients cannot be held responsible for their actions (D) Valid, because the man really believed he was a healer.

(B) Not valid, because he had the requisite state of mind for battery

A shopper was buying groceries and attempted to pay with a personal check. The grocery clerk thought that she recognized the shopper's name from a store memo listing known habitual bad check writers in the area. The clerk immediately called for the store's security guard over the store's loudspeaker. The guard quickly approached the shopper and requested that she step into his office. The shopper protested her innocence but accompanied the guard. He told her not to leave or he would call the police. She was then kept waiting in the guard's office for an hour until the guard finally returned with a copy of the memo showing that the shopper's name was not on the list. The shopper was terribly embarrassed by the entire incident because a number of her neighbors had seen the guard take her away. If the shopper sues the grocery store for damages for her humiliation, she will: (A) Prevail, because the grocery store was negligent in identifying her. (B) Prevail, because she was falsely imprisoned. (C) Not prevail, because humiliation is not actionable (D) Not prevail, because of the doctrine of shopkeeper's privilege.

(B) Prevail, because she was falsely imprisoned.

One of the employees of a department store informed the chief of security that he suspected a customer of shoplifting. The employee pointed out the suspected shoplifter, but the security chief thought that the employee was pointing at a different woman. He waited until the woman had left the store and then followed her outside. He went up to the woman, pointed a gun at her, and told her she needed to return with him to the department store's security office. The woman did so, even though she insisted that she had not done anything wrong. The woman was kept waiting in the office for a few minutes until the employee informed the security chief that he had arrested the wrong woman. If the woman sues the department store on the theory of false imprisonment, she will: (A) Prevail, unless the security chief's belief that she was the shoplifter is judged to be reasonable. (B) Prevail, because she was intentionally detained. (C) Not prevail, because the period for which the woman was detained was the minimal period necessary to establish her identity (D) Not prevail, because the woman suffered no harm.

(B) Prevail, because she was intentionally detained.

A pet owner left his dog in his yard while he went to work. The dog's constant barking greatly annoyed his neighbor. When the pet owner came home that evening he found the dead body of his beloved dog in the yard, with blood around its nose and mouth. He was very upset because the dog had been his pet for many years. A subsequent investigation revealed that his neighbor had given the dog a treat with rat poison in it during the day because she could not stand the barking. If the pet owner brings an action against the neighbor to recover for his emotional distress, he likely will: (A) Prevail, if he suffered physical injury from his distress. (B) Prevail, if the neighbor was aware that it was very likely that the pet owner would suffer severe emotional distress. (C) Not prevail, unless the neighbor intended to cause the pet owner severe emotional distress. (D) Not prevail, because the neighbor did not kill the dog in the presence of its owner.

(B) Prevail, if the neighbor was aware that it was very likely that the pet owner would suffer severe emotional distress.

Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing."Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife. If Husband asserts a claim based on assault against Grower, will Husband prevail? (A) Yes, because the landowner did not have a privilege to use excessive force. (B) Yes, if Husband reasonably believed that the dog might bite him. (C) No, if the dog did not come in contact with him. (D) No, if Grower was trying to protect his property.

(B) Yes, if Husband reasonably believed that the dog might bite him.

A state's legislature passed a statute that required every used car sold in the state to be tested prior to sale to determine whether it was in compliance with a set of strict exhaust emission standards that were also included in the legislation. Used cars would have to be brought up to standard and pass the emissions test prior to sale. Certain persons in the state object to the legislation because one of its results will be to raise the average price of used cars in the state. Only cars to be sold for junk are exempt from the statute. Among the following, who would be most likely to have standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the legislation? (A) A state resident who was thinking about selling used cars in the state. (B) A state resident who was thinking about buying a used car in the state. (C) An out-of-state dealer of used cars who had a contract to sell cars to a large dealer in the state (D) An out-of-state manufacturer who might be required to indemnify its dealers in the state for costs arising from the statute.

(C) An out-of-state dealer of used cars who had a contract to sell cars to a large dealer in the state

The plaintiff is suing the defendant in federal court for personal injuries arising out of an assault and battery. The defendant has confided in his therapist certain matters that the plaintiff believes would be helpful to her case. The information is privileged, so the therapist cannot be called at trial, but it is relevant and would lead to admissible evidence. If the defendant objects, will the federal court order discovery of what he told his therapist? (A) Yes, because the information from the therapist will lead to other discoverable evidence. (B) Yes, if the judge orders that the records from the therapist be sealed. (C) No, because the communication with the therapist is privileged. (D) No, if the therapist waives the privilege.

(C) No, because the communication with the therapist is privileged.

A citizen filed a complaint against a police officer in federal court asserting a State law claim contending that the police officer had negligently harmed the citizen. The police officer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that the police officer was immune from negligence claims under an applicable State statute. Upon reading this motion, the citizen decided to file an amended complaint asserting reckless conduct by the police officer, which would fall outside the scope of the State immunity statute. Does the citizen need the court's permission to amend the complaint? (A) Yes, unless the police officer stipulates in writing to the amendment. (B) Yes, unless the citizen files the amendment within 30 days of service of the police officer's motion to dismiss. (C) No, if the citizen has not previously amended the complaint and files the amended complaint timely. (D) No, as long as the claims in the amended complaint arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original complaint.

(C) No, if the citizen has not previously amended the complaint and files the amended complaint timely.

A patient sought treatment from a psychiatrist. During the treatment, the psychiatrist, unbeknownst to the patient, videotaped her. No sound recording was made of the sessions, but the psychiatrist was conducting a study on "body language" and planned to use the videotapes in those experiments. The patient learned that the psychiatrist had been videotaping their analysis sessions and brought an action against him for battery. If the patient does not prevail as to this theory, it will probably be because: (A) She did not suffer any injury as a result of the psychiatrist's actions. (B) The psychiatrist had implied consent to take the actions he did as part of the patient-physician privilege. (C) She did not suffer an offensive touching. (D) The psychiatrist intended that his actions would foster medical research.

(C) She did not suffer an offensive touching.

A collection agent for a wholesale distributor of greeting cards was assigned to collect money owed on a consignment account by the elderly sole proprietor of a card shop. The agent strode into the shop while the proprietor was waiting on some customers and demanded to know why she had not paid her account. She was distressed by his intrusion, and assured him that her account was fully paid and asked him to wait until her customers had left to continue the discussion. The agent became louder and pounded his fist on the counter, threatening to repossess her entire inventory and prosecute her for fraud. By the time he left, the proprietor was in tears. If the proprietor prevails against the collection agent in a suit to recover damages for her emotional distress, it will be because: (A) The agent intended for the proprietor to suffer severe distress (B) The proprietor felt subjected to a threat of physical injury. (C) The agent's conduct was extreme and outrageous. (D) The proprietor did not owe the money that the agent demanded.

(C) The agent's conduct was extreme and outrageous.

A cyclist was riding on a sidewalk when someone in a parked car suddenly opened the door of the car into her path. She swerved to avoid the car door and rode onto a landowner's property, damaging some plastic lawn ornaments of waterfowl placed in his front yard. In a suit by the landowner against the cyclist for the damage to his lawn ornaments: (A) The cyclist is liable because she had no privilege to enter onto the landowner's property. (B) Whether the cyclist is liable depends on whether she was exercising due care. (C) The cyclist is liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments (D) The cyclist is not liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments because her entry was privileged.

(C) The cyclist is liable for the damage to the lawn ornaments

An investor from State A filed an action against his State B stockbroker in federal court in State A. The summons and complaint were served at the stockbroker's office in State B, where the process server handed the documents to the stockbroker's administrative assistant.The stockbroker has answered the complaint, asserting the defense of improper service of process. Assume that both states' requirements for service of process are identical to the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Is the court likely to dismiss the action for improper service of process? (A) No, because service was made on a person of suitable age found at the stockbroker's place of employment. (B) No, because the stockbroker waived her claim for improper service of process by asserting it in her answer. (C) Yes, because an individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant's place of employment. (D) Yes, because the process of State A courts is not effective in State B.

(C) Yes, because an individual defendant may not be served by delivering process to a third party found at the defendant's place of employment.

A man intensely disliked his neighbors, who were of a different race. One night, intending to frighten his neighbors, the man spray-painted their house with racial epithets and threats that they would be lynched. The man was arrested and prosecuted under a state law providing that "any person who threatens violence against another person with the intent to cause that person to fear for his or her life or safety may be imprisoned for five years." In defense, the man claimed that he did not intend to lynch his neighbors, but only to scare them so that they would move away. Can the man constitutionally be convicted under this law? (A) No, because he was only communicating his views and had not commenced any overt action against the neighbors. (B) Yes, because he was trespassing when he painted the words on his neighbors' house. (C) Yes, because his communication was a threat by which he intended to intimidate his neighbors. (D) Yes, because his communication was racially motivated and thus violated the protections of the Thirteenth Amendment.

(C) Yes, because his communication was a threat by which he intended to intimidate his neighbors.

The owner of a nursery sued a manufacturer in federal court for damage to his growing trees after one of the manufacturer's factories negligently emitted toxic gas. In interrogatories answered on May 1, the nursery owner truthfully stated that the leaves on his red maple trees are normally out by April 15, but this year the red maples do not have any leaves. A week later, on May 8, all of the nursery owner's red maples have normal leaves on them. Is the nursery owner under a duty to supplement the responses he gave in the interrogatory? (A) No, unless the manufacturer asks for an update during the discovery period. (B) No, because the information provided in the interrogatory was true. (C) Yes, because the nursery owner knows the information provided in the interrogatory is no longer true. (D) Yes, unless the manufacturer could find the information on its own.

(C) Yes, because the nursery owner knows the information provided in the interrogatory is no longer true.

A state statute makes it a felony for anyone in the corridors or on the grounds of any building in which a court may be in session to make a speech or carry a sign intended to influence judicial proceedings. When the head of a street gang was on trial for murder, a gang member was arrested for carrying a sign on the steps of the courthouse warning that if the gang leader was not freed, "the judge will die." In the criminal proceeding against the gang member, he: (A) Cannot be convicted, because the statute could apply to others whose speech is constitutionally protected. (B) Cannot be convicted, unless he personally intended to harm the judge. (C) Can be convicted, if there was a clear and present danger that the judge would be influenced by the sign. (D) Can be convicted, because the statute does not violate the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.

(D) Can be convicted, because the statute does not violate the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment.

A homeowner heard a strange noise one night. She took a handgun from her nightstand and began to inspect her home. The homeowner's neighbor had also heard the strange noise. He walked out of his house and onto the homeowner's front lawn, thinking that the sound came from the homeowner's home. He stood silently on her lawn, listening. When the homeowner was near the front door, her cat playfully charged into her, causing her to drop the gun. The gun hit the floor and discharged. The bullet went through the homeowner's front window and struck the neighbor in the shoulder. If the neighbor sues the homeowner for battery, he will: (A) Prevail, because handguns are highly dangerous instrumentalities (B) Prevail, because the cat's actions are imputed to the homeowner. (C) Lose, because the neighbor was a trespasser. (D) Lose, because the firing of the gun was a nonvolitional act.

(D) Lose, because the firing of the gun was a nonvolitional act.

A shopper sued a grocery store in federal court for a back injury after a fall in the store. The shopper provided the store with a medical report from his own doctor. However, the store located a physician specializing in back injuries who agreed to examine the shopper independently. The store sent a discovery notice to the shopper instructing him to call the physician to set up an appointment. The shopper declined, asserting that he would not do so without a court order. The store responded that if the shopper insisted on a court order, it will also ask the court to impose sanctions on the shopper for failing to cooperate in discovery. Is the store's position as to sanctions justifiable? (A) Yes, because the shopper must cooperate with the store during the discovery period. (B) Yes, if the physician is deemed to be a neutral physician. (C) No, if the shopper's original doctor was also a back specialist (D) No, because the shopper need not submit to an examination by a physician without a court order.

(D) No, because the shopper need not submit to an examination by a physician without a court order.

Al and Bill are identical twins. Al, angry at David, said, "You'd better stay out of my way. The next time I find you around here, I'll beat you up." Two days later, while in the neighborhood, David saw Bill coming toward him. As Bill came up to David, Bill raised his hand. Thinking Bill was Al and fearing bodily harm, David struck Bill. If Bill asserts a claim against David and David relies on the privilege of self-defense, David will: (A) Not prevail, because Bill was not an aggressor. (B) Not prevail unless Bill intended his gesture as a threat. (C) Prevail if David honestly believed that Bill would attack him (D) Prevail only if a reasonable person under the circumstances would have believed that Bill would attack him.

(D) Prevail only if a reasonable person under the circumstances would have believed that Bill would attack him.

A State A citizen filed an antitrust action against a State B corporation in federal district court. Fourteen days after filing the complaint and before the State B corporation filed any response, the State A citizen sought to file an amended complaint, adding a breach of contract claim against the same State B corporation. The breach of contract claim was completely unrelated to the antitrust claim, and the facts underlying the two claims were completely different and distinct. May the State A plaintiff amend his complaint? (A) No, because the amendment involves a claim that does not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as the original pleading. (B) No, because a plaintiff may not join unrelated claims in the same action. (C) Yes, but only with leave of the court or written consent of the defendant. (D) Yes, even without leave of the court or written consent of the defendant.

(D) Yes, even without leave of the court or written consent of the defendant.

Independent and adequate state law grounds

A case was decided by a state's highest court, on a separate, valid state law basis, so the court will not take review of the case

Taxpayer standing

A person is seeking to bring a claim alleging is, for example, inefficient and wasting the person's money

To which torts does transferred intent apply? (Select all that apply.) A) Assault B) Trespass to chattels C) Conversion D) Battery E) Intentional infliction of emotional distress F) False imprisonment G) Trespass to land

A) Assault B) Trespass to chattels D) Battery F) False imprisonment G) Trespass to land

Shelton and Dominic were involved in a car accident. Both cars were totaled, and both individuals were injured. Shelton wants to sue Dominic in federal district court. His complaint must: (Select all that apply) A) Contain enough facts to show that the claim is plausible B) Include enough evidence for the court to conclude that Shelton will win C) Be pled with particularity D) State the grounds for the court's jurisdiction

A) Contain enough facts to show that the claim is plausible D) State the grounds for the court's jurisdiction

Emily has filed a successful claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendant Desmond for an incident that occurred at an exclusive invitation-only party he hosted. Emily's mom, best friend, cousin, and sister were all present at the party and witnessed the incident. Who has a claim for bystander liability against Desmond? (Select all that apply.) A) Emily's mom who is now taking anti-anxiety medicine as a result of witnessing the incident. B) Emily's best friend who now avoids going to parties. C) Emily's cousin who has developed a stomach ulcer from the stress resulting from the incident. D) Emily's sister who has had nightmares every night since the party.

A) Emily's mom who is now taking anti-anxiety medicine as a result of witnessing the incident. C) Emily's cousin who has developed a stomach ulcer from the stress resulting from the incident. D) Emily's sister who has had nightmares every night since the party.

Which of the following constitutes a prima facie case of assault? A) Marcelin points an unloaded gun at Raquel, causing Raquel to run in fear. B) Rakesh and Dion are playing football in a park. Steffi is sitting on a picnic blanket nearby with her back to the football players. Rakesh has bad aim, and the ball heads directly for Steffi's head. The ball lands beside Steffi on the blanket. C) Harrison calls Aurora on the phone from across town, and says that if she doesn't stop posting untrue things about him on Facebook, he will make her regret it. D) Tejal sees Diana and Vivi standing together, with their backs toward him. He throws a rock at Vivi, and it narrowly misses both Diana and Vivi.

A) Marcelin points an unloaded gun at Raquel, causing Raquel to run in fear.

Which of the following situations constitutes a prima facie case of trespass to land? (Select all that apply.) A) Nine-year-old Daquan just received a radio-controlled car for his birthday. He races it up and down his neighbor's driveway while standing in his own yard. B) Heather likes to walk on the public nature trail near her home, and is careful to remain on the trail. Some of the land adjacent to the trail is marked with signs declaring it to be "private property." C) Jason and Nixon are visiting their grandma. They are throwing a Frisbee in her side yard, and accidentally throw it over the fence into a public playground. D) Ben and Carol are in the market for a new home. They attend an open house and walk the perimeter of the grounds of the large backyard. Unbeknownst to them, they enter the neighbor's property on their walk.

A) Nine-year-old Daquan just received a radio-controlled car for his birthday. He races it up and down his neighbor's driveway while standing in his own yard. D) Ben and Carol are in the market for a new home. They attend an open house and walk the perimeter of the grounds of the large backyard. Unbeknownst to them, they enter the neighbor's property on their walk.

Generally, a law regulating speech via expressive conduct will be upheld if: (select all that apply) A) The burden on speech is no greater than necessary B) It is unrelated to the suppression of ideas C) It is narrowly tailored D) It furthers an important government interest E) It is within the government's power to enact it

A) The burden on speech is no greater than necessary B) It is unrelated to the suppression of ideas D) It furthers an important government interest E) It is within the government's power to enact it

The legislature wrote a statute that was intended to prevent people recording school fights on their phone. The statute bans "all recorded depictions of violence between two or more individuals." A man is prosecuted for selling unlicensed copies of World War II footage. What is the man's best defense under the First Amendment? A) The statute is too vague to be interpreted B) The statute violates the free exercise clause rights of individuals who are in religious groups requiring ritual combat C) The government has no rational interest in preventing depictions of school fights D) The government does not have a compelling interest in regulating recordings on individual's cell phones.

A) The statute is too vague to be interpreted

A party may be asked to bring certain documents to his/her deposition. A) True B) False

A) True

An initial aggressor may claim self-defense if the other party responded to nondeadly force with deadly force. A) True B) False

A) True

Congress cannot modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. A) True B) False

A) True

Depositions must be recorded. A) True B) False

A) True

Interrogatories can contain up to 25 questions per party. A) True B) False

A) True

Which defenses must be raised at the first opportunity or they are deemed waived? (Select all that apply.) A) Venue B) Assumption of risk C) Statute of limitations D) Lack of subject matter jurisdiction E) Insufficient service of process F) Lack of personal jurisdiction G) Contributory negligence H) Fraud

A) Venue E) Insufficient service of process F) Lack of personal jurisdiction

Based on recommendations of a state commission studying the effect of pornographic films on violent criminal activity, a state adopted legislation banning films intended for commercial distribution that appealed as a whole to the prurient interest in sex of the average person in the community, portrayed sex in a patently offensive way to citizens of the state, and which a reasonable person in the United States would find had no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. In ruling on a constitutional challenge to the legislation from a film distributor in the state who was convicted of distributing films in violation of the legislation, will the federal court likely find the legislation to be constitutional? A. Yes, because it uses a national "reasonable person" standard for determining the social value of the work. B. Yes, because it uses a statewide standard rather than a community standard for determining whether the material is patently offensive. C. No, because it uses a statewide standard rather than a national standard for determining whether the material is patently offensive. D. No, unless the court finds that the legislation is necessary to advance the state's compelling interest in reducing violent criminal activity.

A. Yes, because it uses a national "reasonable person" standard for determining the social value of the work.

A man owned a house where he lived with his family. The man was convicted of selling large quantities of an illegal drug from his house. Acting under a state law authorizing the destruction of buildings that are used for illegal activity, the city destroyed the man's house. The man's family then rented an apartment and demanded that the city pay the rent. The family relied on a state law providing that any person who was dispossessed of their residence because of the actions of city officials was entitled to replacement housing at the city's expense until permanent substitute housing could be found. When the city refused to pay the rent for the apartment, the man's family sued the city in a state trial court claiming a right to such payment under both the state law and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The highest state court ruled for the family. Although the court decided that the family had no right to payment under the state law, it held that the Fourteenth Amendment entitled the family to payment of the rent for the temporary apartment. In its opinion, the court indicated that in several of its decisions it had found cities liable for compensation in similar situations on the basis of the due process clause of the state constitution. But the highest state court declined to base its holding on the state constitution because that issue had not been properly raised in the case. The city then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the merits of this case? A. Yes, because the highest state court based its decision wholly on federal law grounds. B. Yes, because the federal and state law issues in this case are so intertwined that a resolution of the federal law issues is necessary to facilitate a proper determination of the state law issues. C. No, because the decision of the highest state court renders the case moot. D. No, because independent state law grounds could have been used to justify the result in this case.

A. Yes, because the highest state court based its decision wholly on federal law grounds.

Jim is walking down the street and sees his friend Kevin's car parked along the curb near his house. Jim notices that the car is unlocked. Intending a practical joke, Jim puts the car in neutral and pushes it around the corner, parking it there. Kevin walks out of his house and cannot find his car. Thinking it is stolen, he calls the police and takes an hour giving the police a report. Then, taking a walk, Kevin notices his car parked around the corner. He is relieved to find his car and he calls the police embarrassed, believing he simply forgot where he parked his car. Jim later tells him about the joke. Kevin is not amused. Can Kevin prove the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for trespass to chattels? A. Yes, if the court believes that by Jim's actions Kevin was deprived of possession for a substantial period of time B. Yes, because any intentional intermeddling with another's chattels is actionable as trespass to chattels C. No, because Jim intended his conduct as a practical joke D. No, unless the car was damaged by the move

A. Yes, if the court believes that by Jim's actions Kevin was deprived of possession for a substantial period of time

Hans visited Tacos R' Us after work one day. An employee named Ferdinand took his order. Later that evening, Hans suffered from severe food poisoning requiring hospitalization. He sued Tacos R' Us in federal district court in Florida, alleging negligence. Which of the following types of information does Tacos R' Us need to provide to Hans even without a formal discovery request? (Select all that apply.) A) Names and contact information of other customers who have suffered food poisoning within the past year. B) A copy of the contract between Tacos R' Us and its insurer, Fast Food Life, Inc. C) Names and contact information of potential witnesses who will testify about the rigorous hiring and training procedures of Tacos R' Us. D) Ferdinand's unsatisfactory employee evaluation from last year, wherein he was faulted for not maintaining proper food safety procedures.

B) A copy of the contract between Tacos R' Us and its insurer, Fast Food Life, Inc. C) Names and contact information of potential witnesses who will testify about the rigorous hiring and training procedures of Tacos R' Us.

Becca is visiting a farm that has a corn maze that patrons pay a fee to enter and try to navigate through the winding tall stalks of corn to the middle, where there is a photo booth set up. Becca walks and walks, but gets turned around and is unable to figure out the maze. She wanders the maze for several hours, and eventually becomes anxious and panicked, calling for help. Farm employees immediately enter the maze and lead her out to the open area. What is the likely outcome if Becca sues for false imprisonment? A) Becca will win because the exit was not clearly marked. B) Becca will lose because there was a reasonable means of escape. C) Becca will win because although she entered the maze voluntarily, she did not consent to be wandering in it for hours. D) Becca will lose because she did not suffer any physical injury.

B) Becca will lose because there was a reasonable means of escape.

A court is required to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) when the plaintiff has demonstrated that he/she will suffer irreparable harm if the TRO is not granted. A) True B) False

B) False

A deposition cannot last longer than 6 hours. A) True B) False

B) False

A plaintiff must be aware of a battery at the time it occurs in order to recover. A) True B) False

B) False

A preliminary injunction may be issued without notice. A) True B) False

B) False

A temporary restraining order is an emergency order that lasts until trial. A) True B) False

B) False

Paramedics are not required to obtain consent to treat a conscious individual. A) True B) False

B) False

Silence can never be considered valid consent. A) True B) False

B) False

The Overbrook City Council recently passed an ordinance banning nonpolitical billboards from being erected within city limits. Political billboards were declared exempt for fear of running afoul of the First Amendment. Lacy Advertising, which owns a number of billboards in the city and sells advertising space to for-profit and nonprofit entities, sues in federal court, claiming that the new ordinance violates the First Amendment. The trial judge should: A. Uphold the ordinance because there is no regulation of "speech" B. Apply strict scrutiny because the ordinance is content-based C. Invalidate the ordinance if the challenger proves that the interest pursued is not substantial, that it is not narrowly tailored, or both D. Uphold the ordinance as a valid time, place, and manner regulation

B. Apply strict scrutiny because the ordinance is content-based

A 10-year-old boy and two other children were caught by the police while breaking the windows of and causing other damage to a woman's automobile one night. The damages totaled $2,000. By statute, the jurisdiction makes parents liable for up to $5,000 for the willful and intentional torts of their minor children. In a suit by the car owner against the boy for the damages to her automobile, will the car owner likely prevail? A. Yes, because the boy, at the age of 10, should have been aware of the consequences of his action. B. Yes, because the boy deliberately damaged her car. C. No, because the boy is presumed to be under the care of his parents and, therefore, is not legally responsible for his tortious conduct. D. No, because the jurisdiction makes parents liable for the intentional torts of their minor children.

B. Yes, because the boy deliberately damaged her car.

Walter doesn't like Xavier very much. To annoy Xavier while he snoozes on a park bench, Walter puts a feather up to the tip of Xavier's nose and moves it around. The feather causes Xavier to wake up and sneeze a powerful sneeze, knocking Xavier off the bench and onto the cement on the ground. Xavier breaks his kneecap. Can Xavier prove the elements of the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for battery? A. Yes, because Walter had a bad motive and Xavier was injured B. Yes, because the contact resulted in indirect harmful contact C. No, because Walter intended an offensive contact, not a harmful contact D. No, because Walter did not directly cause Xavier's contact with the ground

B. Yes, because the contact resulted in indirect harmful contact

At the request of local police, security officials for an intercity passenger train made random searches of passenger luggage for contraband as it was being sent to the baggage claim area, although they did not have legal authority to search bags without a warrant. The searches were conducted so that there was no delay in the luggage being released to those claiming their bags. A traveler went to the baggage claim area but his luggage, which contained a number of valuables but no contraband, did not appear. It had been selected for a search but the security officers were having difficulty getting it unlocked to search it. When the traveler inquired about the luggage, he was told that it was being inspected and that he would have to remain in the area if he wanted to claim it when it was released, and that its return could not be guaranteed if he was not around when it was released. About 30 minutes later, the luggage was returned to the traveler with an apology for the delay. The delay caused the traveler to miss his commuter train to the suburbs, so he had to pay for cab fare. Assuming there are no issues of governmental immunity, can the traveler bring an action against the security officials for false imprisonment? A. Yes, because the traveler suffered harm as a result of the delay in releasing his luggage. B. Yes, because the traveler reasonably believed that he would not get his luggage back if he left the baggage area. C. No, because the traveler was not restrained from leaving the baggage claim area. D. No, because the delay in releasing the luggage was not done for the purpose of restraining the traveler.

B. Yes, because the traveler reasonably believed that he would not get his luggage back if he left the baggage area.

A government regulation of speech on a public sidewalk must be: A) Content-neutral and rationally related to a legitimate government interest B) Viewpoint-neutral, narrowly tailored to an important government interest, and must leave open alternative channels of communication C) Content-neutral, narrowly tailored to an important government interest, and must leave open alternative channels of communication D) Viewpoint-neutral and rationally related to a legitimate government interest

C) Content-neutral, narrowly tailored to an important government interest, and must leave open alternative channels of communication

Which of the following are examples of unprotected speech? (Select all that apply.) A) Commercial speech B) Fairy tales C) Incitement of violence/crime D) Defamation E) Fighting words F) True threats G) Derogatory statements H) Obscenity I) Insulting and offensive speech

C) Incitement of violence/crime D) Defamation E) Fighting words F) True threats H) Obscenity

What level of scrutiny does commercial speech receive, provided that the speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading or fraudulent? A) Rational basis review B) Strict scrutiny C) Intermediate scrutiny

C) Intermediate scrutiny

Sharizma is the goalie on her high school soccer team. Ashanti, one of the players on the opposing team, runs into her as she is drop-kicking the ball after a save. The referee calls a foul on Ashanti for roughing the goalie, and awards a free kick to Sharizma's team. Sharizma, however, is injured, and has to leave the game. Which of the following most accurately states the likely outcome if Sharizma sues Ashanti for battery? A) Sharizma's action will fail because she consented to physical contact, even rough physical contact, by agreeing to play soccer. B) Sharizma's action will succeed because Ashanti's contact with her was forbidden by the rules of the game. C) Sharizma's action will fail because although Ashanti's contact with Sharizma was outside the rules of the game, Sharizma must be taken to have consented to it because it was within the range of ordinary contact to be expected in a game. D) Sharizma's action will succeed because she did not consent to contact that was not permitted by the rules of the game.

C) Sharizma's action will fail because although Ashanti's contact with Sharizma was outside the rules of the game, Sharizma must be taken to have consented to it because it was within the range of ordinary contact to be expected in a game.

Which of the following must the plaintiff prove as an element of the tort of battery? A) That the defendant intended to injure the plaintiff. B) That the defendant intended to offend the plaintiff C) That the defendant intended the action that caused harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff D) That the defendant intended to harm or offend the plaintiff

C) That the defendant intended the action that caused harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff

What is the test for whether a statute is too broad under the overbreadth doctrine? A) The law is overbroad and invalid if there are any examples of protected speech that is restricted B) The law is invalid if the government lacks a compelling governmental interest that is narrowly tailored to that interest C) The law punishes a substantial amount of protected speech compared to the legitimate areas it regulates D) The law fails to give a person reasonable notice of what is prohibited

C) The law punishes a substantial amount of protected speech compared to the legitimate areas it regulates

A statute bans all picketing that addresses labor issues. What type of regulation is this, and what is the test for whether it is constitutional A) This is not content regulation, and the government must show a compelling interest and that the law is necessary to advance that interest B) This is content regulation, and the government must show that the law is the least restrictive way to advance a legitimate state interest C) This is content regulation, and the government must show that the law is necessary to a achieve a compelling interest and narrowly tailored to that purpose D) This is not content regulation, and the government must show the law is rationally related to any governmental interest

C) This is content regulation, and the government must show that the law is necessary to a achieve a compelling interest and narrowly tailored to that purpose

Jahlil owns homes in New York, California, and Florida, spending time in each place at different times of the year. David has filed a lawsuit against Jahlil. He has his 18-year-old nephew serve Jahlil's wife at the Florida home while Jahlil is staying at the California home. She forgets to give the summons and complaint to Jahlil. Is this service proper? A) No, because Jahlil was in California. B) No, because Jahlil did not receive the documents. C) Yes, because the Florida home is Jahlil's dwelling house or usual place of abode. D) Yes, because the recipient is his wife.

C) Yes, because the Florida home is Jahlil's dwelling house or usual place of abode.

Overbrook Park is a popular spot in Overbrook City. Among other features, it has a small amphitheater in which concerts are held in the spring and summer months. But Overbrook Park is located next to a tiny new subdivision, and the neighbors have recently complained about the noise from that venue, particularly late at night. In response, the Overbrook City Council passed an ordinance banning aplified sound in Overbrook Park before 8am and after 8pm. "Sticky Fingers," a Rolling Stones tribute band booked months ago to play a gig in Overbrook Park, objects to the new restrictions and sues in federal court, claiming that the noise ordinance violates the First Amendment. The band will likely: A. Succeed, because there are no alternative avenues to get their message across B. Succeed, because the ordinance seeks to suppress speech C. Fail, because the ordinance is a valid time, place, and manner regulation D. Fail, because a concert performance is not protected by the First Amendment

C. Fail, because the ordinance is a valid time, place, and manner regulation

A golfer and her instructor were playing golf in a foursome when the golfer became very annoyed with critical comments made by the instructor. To show the other golfers in the group how annoyed she was with her instructor, the golfer stood a few yards behind him while the instructor was teeing off and swung a club at him. The instructor, who was focusing on his shot, was not within range of the club but unfortunately the club slipped out of the golfer's hands and struck the instructor in the head, injuring him. If the instructor brings a battery action against the golfer, will he recover? A. Yes, because the golfer acted intentionally and caused harmful contact to her instructor. B. Yes, because the golfer intended to cause the instructor reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful contact. C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact. D. No, unless the golfer acted unreasonably in swinging the club at her instructor.

C. No, because the golfer did not intend to cause harmful or offensive contact.

To raise revenue, a city erected billboards on the sides of all government buildings and planned to sell the space for commercial advertising. A city ordinance provided that any advertiser could rent the space, provided the activity or product advertised was legal and had "nothing to do with politics" because the city sought to "avoid controversy." The owner of a bookstore that specialized in political books sought to lease a billboard on a city building to place an ad. In addition to selling books, the owner conducted daily reading and study groups in the store on various political philosophies. The proposed ad implored onlookers to come to the bookstore to study communism at the store at 6 p.m. nightly. The ad was rejected by city officials. If the owner files an appropriate suit against the city in federal district court asserting violation of her First Amendment rights, is she likely to prevail? A. Yes, because the city has made the sides of civic buildings public forums. B. Yes, because restrictions on commercial speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest directly advanced by the restriction. C. No, because the restriction is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose. D. No, because the restriction is content neutral and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest.

C. No, because the restriction is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government purpose.

The Union of Solid Americans (USA) is a nativist organization dedicated to the eradication of illegal immigration. At a recent rally Gerry Swanson, the self-described "commander-in-chief" of the USA, said, "If I had my way, the fence we built along the border would be electric!" He made references to "fajitas" and "refried beaners" and closed his speech saying that "although I am a law-abiding citizen, the time may come when law-abiding citizens might have to take back our country from the illegals by any means necessary, including deadly force!" Swanson was arrested and charged with violating a state law making it a crime to "advocate the duty, necessity, or propriety of violence as a means for accomplishing political reform." Swanson claimed that his prosecution violated the First Amendment. A reviewing judge should rule for: A. Swanson, because his speech was political B. The state, because his speech posed a clear and present danger of lawless action C. Swanson, because his speech did not include a call for imminent illegal acts D. The state, because advocacy of violence is not protected by the First Amendment

C. Swanson, because his speech did not include a call for imminent illegal acts

A missile company was engaged in research and development of an interplanetary space shuttle, under contract with the United States government. Over a period of years, it developed the prototype of a huge, solid-fuel rocket engine for use in this program. To evaluate the performance of this engine, it conducted a static test of the engine at a remote desert test site. The rocket engine was mounted on a concrete test stand, with the thrust of the engine directed downward into the ground. When the engine was fired up, huge clouds of flame and smoke filled the air, and particles of debris from the rocket fell onto an adjoining farm. If the farmer files an action against the company for trespass, which of the following facts, if proved, would be most helpful to the company in avoiding liability? A. The farmer bought and operated his farm knowing that the company used the adjoining property for testing its rocket engines. B. Neither the company nor anyone in its employ set foot upon the farmer's land. C. The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any of the results that occurred. D. The rocket testing program is essential to national security, so that the company's conduct was completely privileged as a public necessity.

C. The company had no reason to anticipate that the tests would cause any of the results that occurred.

A hockey player who was playing in the final game of the season before a hostile crowd in the opponent's packed stadium had an opportunity to get his team into the playoffs, but he missed a shot into an open net as the horn sounded, ending the game. As the crowd cheered and jeered, the puck bounced back to him and he shot it in anger toward the stands. A fan who had been looking the other way turned back toward the rink just in time to be struck in the face by the puck. He suffered a broken nose and a severe gash under his eye. After the game, the league commissioner fined the player for violating league rules by intentionally directing the puck out of the playing area. If the fan sues the player for battery, will the fan likely prevail? A. No, because by attending a hockey game, the fan assumed the risk of pucks being shot into the stands. B. No, because the player did not have the intent to strike the fan with the puck. C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck. D. Yes, because the player violated league rules by intentionally shooting the puck out of the playing area.

C. Yes, because the player knew that it was substantially certain that a fan would be hit by the puck.

Jamie and Kira state arguing at a baseball game. Their tempers flare. Jamie takes out her knife and tries to stab Kira. Kira gets out of the way and the knife almost goes into Larry, who sees the whole thing. Though the knife does not touch Larry, it comes within an inch of his face, upsetting Larry greatly. Can Larry make out the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for assault against Jaime? A. No, because Jamie did not make contact with Larry B. No, because Jamie did not intend to make contact with Larry C. Yes, even though Jamie did not intend to make contact with Larry D. Yes, unless the knife actually made contact with Larry

C. Yes, even though Jamie did not intend to make contact with Larry

Mark is walking in a dark alley late at night when Ned pops out from the shadows. Ned tells Mark in a threatening voice: "I have a gun in my pocket. If you don't give me all your money right now, I'll shoot you." Mark runs away and Ned is later captured. Can Mark prove the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for assault? A. No, because Ned's threat was conditional B. No, because Ned's threat was not immediate C. Yes, if under the circumstances Mark was put in reasonable anticipation of an imminent harmful contact D. No, because Mark was able to run away

C. Yes, if under the circumstances Mark was put in reasonable anticipation of an imminent harmful contact

What material is protected from discovery by the work product immunity doctrine? A) Confidential communications between a party and his/her attorney. B) Confidential material prepared by a party or that party's attorney. C) Material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by any person. D) Material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by a party, a party's attorney, or some other representative.

D) Material prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by a party, a party's attorney, or some other representative.

Lisette utilizes Good Doctor Health Services for her medical care. Her primary care physician is Dr. Menno. Lisette files a malpractice claim naming Good Doctor Health Services and Dr. Menno as defendants. On September 1st, she has the complaint served on Dr. Menno personally and with a receptionist at the front desk of the medical practice. The statute of limitations for medical malpractice expires on October 31st. On December 1st, while conducting discovery, Lisette learns that the business is registered as The Good Doctor, LLC, not Good Doctor Health Services. She moves to amend her complaint to name The Good Doctor, LLC, as a defendant. Should the amendment be allowed? A) Yes. There is no prejudice to the Good Doctor, LLC, because Dr. Menno had an obligation to inform her employer that she was being sued in her official capacity. B) No. The statute of limitations has expired, so the amendment is no longer allowed. C) No. It does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as Lisette's original claim. D) Yes. It arises out of the same transaction, The Good Doctor, LLC received timely notice, and should have known that, but for a mistake, the suit would have been brought against it.

D) Yes. It arises out of the same transaction, The Good Doctor, LLC received timely notice, and should have known that, but for a mistake, the suit would have been brought against it.

To increase tourism, a city began sponsoring laser light shows, which proved to be very popular. Several charitable organizations received permission from the council to sponsor a show and charge admission to raise money to help support their causes. One of them hired a famous laser light artist to give their show. When the artist arrived, he began setting up his lasers for the show. A city official soon stopped him, informing him that he could use only the city's lasers because the city feared that outsiders might use powerful lasers that could cause eye damage to viewers. The artist told the charitable organization that had hired him that the success of his art depends on the power of his lasers and that he could not produce desirable effects using the city's lasers. The charitable organization appealed to the city, but the city held fast to its rule requiring all laser light artists to use the city's lasers. If the charitable organization files an action against the city, how will the court most likely rule? A. Find for the charitable organization, because art is protected by the First Amendment and the city rule interferes with the artist's freedom of expression. B. Find for the charitable organization, because the city rule is not the least restrictive method for achieving the city's goals. C. Find for the city, because the laser light show is not speech and therefore is not protected by the First Amendment.protected by the First Amendment. D. Find for the city, because the rule is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.

D. Find for the city, because the rule is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.

Donald likes Mickey's brand new fancy sneakers. The sneakers sell for $150. Donald takes Mickey's sneakers when he is not looking and wears them for a week, wearing them down and getting them dirty. Mickey then discovers what Donald has done. Mickey sues Donald for conversion. To what damages is Mickey entitled? A. $150, the reasonable value of the sneakers, unless a court determines that Donald's use of the sneakers seriously interfered with Mickey's property rights B. In addition to return of the sneakers, the loss in value of the sneakers caused by the wear and tear, if the court determine that Donald's use of the sneakers seriously interfered with Mickey's property rights C. Either A or B, but not both D. Neither A nor B sets forth the correct damages standard

D. Neither A nor B sets forth the correct damages standard

Francesca brings her antique gun collection to the public park to show her friend Gina. The guns are not loaded. Gina takes out one of the guns from the case, admiring it. She picks up the gun and holds it out as if she were going to shoot it to get the feel for the gun. When she picks up the gun, she sees no one around. But Henry is riding by on his bicycle and happens to pass right in front of Gina as Gina picks up the gun and holds it out. Henry becomes very afraid and nearly crashes his bike. Henry sues Gina for the tort of assault. Can Henry make out the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for assault? A. Yes, because contact is not required for an assault. B. Yes, unless Henry's bike actually crashed. C. No, because Gina did not act. D. No, because Gina did not have the requisite intent.

D. No, because Gina did not have the requisite intent.

When a crowded city bus braked suddenly, the standing passengers were thrown together, and a woman wearing very high-heeled shoes began to stumble. A man who was unacquainted with her kept her from falling by grabbing her arm. If the woman sues the man for battery, will she recover? A. Yes, because the man intended to grab her arm. B. Yes, because the man touched her without her permission. C. No, because the man prevented her from harm. D. No, because his conduct was socially acceptable.

D. No, because his conduct was socially acceptable.

A woman loaned her car to a friend to use while his car was in the shop for repairs. When the friend's car was repaired, he let his neighbor borrow the woman's car instead of returning it to the woman. The neighbor took the woman's car for several days on a 900-mile trip. While the neighbor was gone on the trip, the woman discovered that the friend had gotten his car repaired and asked him for her car back. She was furious when he told her that he had lent the car to his neighbor. The neighbor eventually returned the car to the friend, who then attempted to return the car to the woman. The woman refused to accept the car even though it was undamaged, and sued the friend for conversion of the car. Which of the following would be the most likely result of this suit? A. The woman will not recover for conversion. B. The woman cannot recover for conversion, but can recover for trespass to chattel. C. The woman will recover the rental value of the car for the 900-mile trip. D. The woman will recover the fair market value of the car from the friend.

D. The woman will recover the fair market value of the car from the friend.

Halle is driving down the street when her brakes fail. if she would have continued going straight, she would have driven into a group of children crossing the street. So she deliberately turns her wheel toward Ida's land, crashing into Ida's fence and stopping on Ida's front law. Ida sues Halle for trespass to land. Can Ida prove the tortious conduct portion of the prima facie case for trespass to land? A. No, because she did not intend to cause harm B. No, because she did not intend to enter Ida's land C. No, Because by entering Ida's land she averted a greater loss to others D. Yes

D. Yes

Damages to conversion

Full value at the time of the tort

Damages to public necessity

No damages if act was reasonable

Damages for trespass to land

Nominal, actual, and/or punitive damages

Mootness

The claim is no longer at issue, so the court will not take the case

Ripeness

The claim is not yet ready for review, so the court will not take the case