***WRONG ANSWERS*** 3L-S | ALPP

Question 7569 A suspect was detained for questioning at a police station in connection with a murder. After being properly advised of his Miranda rights, the suspect said, "My cousin is an attorney, should I call him before we continue speaking?" The police responded by telling the suspect that he could continue speaking to them if he had relevant information to provide. In fact, the suspect's cousin had found out that the suspect had been detained, and was at the police station trying to reach him. The police continued questioning the suspect about the murder, and the suspect eventually confessed. If the suspect files a motion to exclude the confession, how should the court rule?

A. Admit the confession, because the suspect did not unambiguously request an attorney. B. Admit the confession, because the suspect had not been arrested. C. Exclude the confession, because the police did not immediately cease questioning the suspect when he asked about an attorney. D. Exclude the confession, because the police did not advise the suspect that his attorney was trying to reach him. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5950 A telecommunications company applied for a permit to construct a tower on land that the company owned to host a wireless communications signal. The local zoning board denied the permit based on the existing zoning of that land. Prior to seeking a special use variance, the company filed suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that the zoning board's denial violated a federal law that prohibits a state or local government from effectively denying the provision of wireless services to the public. Of the following, which likely constitutes the local government's best constitutional defense against this suit?

A. An action by a local zoning board does not constitute an unconstitutional taking unless the action results in a permanent total loss of the property's economic value. B. The matter is not ripe for adjudication. C. The suit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. D. The suit violates the "case or controversy" requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution because it seeks a declaratory judgment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5184 A businessman was forced to file for bankruptcy in federal court after a stock portfolio manager he hired negligently lost the businessman's fortune. In the state where the businessman resided, a specific state statute governed all relationships and obligations between debtors and creditors. The state statute contained provisions that regulated how a debtor would discharge debts in the event of a default. Many of the statute's provisions conflicted with federal bankruptcy laws because they afforded different procedures and prescriptive periods than those required for discharging debts in bankruptcy. How should the federal court handle the conflict between the state and federal provisions?

A. Apply the state substantive law only, because this conflict arises out of debtor-creditor relations. B. Apply the state procedural law only, because there is a conflict between federal and state law. C. Apply federal substantive and procedural law, because this is a bankruptcy action. D. Apply federal procedural law only, because all procedural issues are addressed by federal law. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3079 A runner was in the midst of his morning run when the defendant jumped out from behind a bush and tripped the runner, intending to steal the runner's wallet. The runner was not carrying a wallet, however. Frustrated, the defendant tore off the runner's hat. The runner tried to grab the hat back from the defendant, but the defendant pulled it away and ran off. The struggle caused the defendant to lose his balance, and he dropped the hat a few feet from the runner. The runner then picked up his hat and completed his run. What is the most serious crime, listed in order of increasing seriousness, for which the defendant may be convicted?

A. Attempted larceny. B. Larceny. C. Battery. D. Robbery. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Twenty years ago, a federal district court found that a city school district, but not surrounding suburban school districts, had violated the Constitution, the district court issued a complex desegregation order. At the time integration efforts began, the city school district was 70 percent white. The city school district is now only 25 percent white. This decline was largely due to white families either moving to surrounding suburbs outside of the city school district or sending their children to private schools within the school district. To attract those white students back into the district schools, and to limit any further movement of white students from the district, the court orders the city school district to build five expensive, state-of-the-art magnet schools. For which of the following purposes is this order unconstitutional?

A. Attracting white students from the surrounding suburban school districts into the district's schools. B. Attracting white students out of private schools located within the city school district. C. Limiting any further withdrawal of white students from the city school district. D. Forcing a state to spend public funds in a particular way that the state would not otherwise wish to do so. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3207 During legislative hearings on a new bill promoted by the President, a congressman made a defamatory statement about the President. That evening, the congressman appeared on a television news program, during which he repeated the defamatory statement in an attempt to entice citizens to contact their congresspersons to encourage them to vote against passage of the bill. In response, the President stated that the congressman was uninformed and possibly taking bribes, encouraging the rest of Congress to ignore the congressman's comments and vote in favor of the bill. If a civil suit for money damages is filed against either the President or congressman as a result of the statements, who may properly be held liable?

A. Both the President and the Congressman, because each exceeded the immunity of his office. B. Neither the President nor the Congressman, because neither exceeded the immunity of his office. C. The Congressman only, because he exceeded his legislative immunity. D. The President only, because he exceeded his executive immunity. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5109 A consumer who leased a car that was damaged in an accident challenged the lessor's calculation of the early termination charge as a violation of the federal Consumer Leasing Act by filing an action in federal district court. Both the consumer and the lessor were citizens of the state in which the federal district court was located. The lessor filed a counterclaim based on state law for recovery of the termination charge pursuant to the lease. The court ruled that it would exercise jurisdiction over the lessor's counterclaim. On what basis can the court justify subject matter jurisdiction over the lessor's counterclaim?

A. Federal question jurisdiction B. Diversity jurisdiction C. Supplemental jurisdiction D. Removal jurisdiction ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3206 A large utility company was located inside State A. The company burned coal to produce electricity, some of which was used within the state, but the majority of which was provided to neighboring states. In order to fund clean-up efforts made necessary as a result of burning coal, State A taxed the electricity the utility provided to its customers based on the amount used. Accordingly, even though some tax revenue came from electricity provided to State A residents, most of the tax revenue came from out-of-state residents. Residents of neighboring State B challenged State A's tax as unconstitutional, claiming that the tax disproportionately affected nonresident individuals. Assuming that Congress has not directly acted in the area, is the court most likely to find the tax constitutional or unconstitutional?

A. Constitutional, as a proper ad valorem tax. B. Constitutional, as a proper state tax that comports with the Commerce Clause. C. Unconstitutional, as a violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. D. Unconstitutional, as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3250 A federal study found that almost all of the accidents on a particular state's highways were caused by out-of-state residents. Congress passed a law requiring the payment of tolls at all of the state's borders. The law also required that any driver with an out-of-state driver's license pay an additional toll and leave a credit card number for the state to use in the event that the out-of-state driver caused an accident on one of the state's roads. Several out-of-state motorists have challenged the constitutionality of the law. Which of the following provides the best ground for challenging the constitutionality of the law?

A. Correct Answer: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. B. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. D. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4952 A plaintiff brought a tort action in diversity against two defendants based on fraud that occurred while the plaintiff was on a business trip in a foreign country with the two defendants. The plaintiff filed the action in the federal district court located in a state adjacent to the state in which the plaintiff resides. One of the defendants is domiciled in the forum state, but resides in the other federal judicial district in that state. The other defendant, who resides across the country in a third state, but was served with process in the forum state, has filed a timely motion to dismiss the action for lack of proper venue. How is the court likely to rule on this motion?

A. Deny the motion, because it is convenient for the nonmoving defendant to defend this action in the forum state. B. Deny the motion, because one of the defendants is domiciled in the forum state. C. Grant the motion, because it would be inconvenient for the movant-defendant to defend the action in the forum state. D. Grant the motion, because neither defendant resides in the judicial district of the court in which the action was filed. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5139 A rock star from a foreign country entered into a management agreement with a concert promoter who was a citizen of State A. According to the terms of the management agreement, the promoter was to receive a designated percentage of the rock star's total earnings from any concerts performed around the world. The agreement was negotiated and signed in the foreign country. The rock star subsequently fired the promoter and hired a new manager. He then appeared in the United States and performed a concert in State B for which he earned more than $5 million. Following the concert, the promoter filed suit in federal district court in State B against the rock star, asserting diversity jurisdiction and alleging that he was entitled to a percentage of the rock star's earnings from the concert due under the original management agreement. The rock star filed a motion to dismiss the case and appeared in court for his attorney's argument at the motion hearing. The rock star asserted that the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him because his contacts with State B did not satisfy the "minimum contacts" requirement for personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant. How should the federal district court rule on the rock star's motion to dismiss?

A. Deny the motion, because the court has jurisdiction over the rock star as a result of his performance in State B. B. Deny the motion, because the rock star filed a motion to dismiss the suit and voluntarily appeared in court. C. Grant the motion, because the negotiations on the management agreement at issue occurred in the foreign country. D. Grant the motion, because the promoter is not a resident of State B. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5136 A woman, who was a citizen of State A, was injured in an automobile accident on a highway in State A when a truck collided with her car. The truck driver was a citizen of State Z, located across the country from State A. Although the woman had no contacts with State Z, she filed suit in federal district court in State Z under diversity jurisdiction, asserting damages resulting from the truck driver's negligence. The truck driver timely filed a counterclaim against the woman, asserting that the woman's negligence had caused the accident and claiming damages as a result. Deciding not to litigate the matter, the woman withdrew her complaint. The truck driver, however, refused to withdraw his counterclaim and is seeking to go to trial in the matter. The woman has filed a motion to dismiss the case, asserting that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over her. How should the court rule on the woman's motion to dismiss?

A. Deny the motion, because the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the counterclaim. B. Deny the motion, because the woman consented to being sued in State Z. C. Grant the motion, because the woman does not have sufficient contacts with State Z to justify an assertion of personal jurisdiction. D. Grant the motion, because the woman was only present in State Z for the purposes of her complaint, which has been withdrawn. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 368 On the basis of an eyewitness description, a student was arrested in connection with the murder of a security guard who was killed during a protest at a college. The police brought the student to the police station and gave him his Miranda warnings. The student then asked to speak with his attorney. Before the attorney could arrive, the eyewitness walked into the station, saw the student, and told the police that this was the person she had seen kill the security guard. The prosecution sought to introduce at trial evidence of the eyewitness identification. The defense moved to have evidence of the identification suppressed. The court should:

A. Grant the motion because the student's Sixth Amendment rights were violated. B. Grant the motion because this was a corporeal identification procedure. C. Deny the motion because there was no Sixth Amendment violation. D. Deny the motion because this was a non-corporeal identification procedure. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5138 A plaintiff brought an action for negligence in federal district court in State A under diversity jurisdiction to recover for injuries allegedly sustained in an accident that occurred while he was a passenger on board a cruise ship in a port in State B. The defendant in the action was a State C corporation that owned the cruise ship. At the time of the alleged negligence, the ship was docked in the State B port after finishing a voyage from a port in State A. For several years prior to the voyage on which the plaintiff was injured, the cruise ship had brought passengers to visit three ports in State A and had most recently spent several weeks in repair at a shipyard in State A. The State A long-arm statute authorizes personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant if the defendant "does business" in State A. The phrase "does business" has been interpreted by the highest court of State A to reach as far as is constitutionally permissible. If the defendant timely moves to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, how is the district court likely to rule?

A. Deny the motion, because the defendant has impliedly consented to the court's jurisdiction. B. Deny the motion, because the defendant could reasonably anticipate being taken to court in State A. C. Grant the motion, because the accident occurred in State B. D. Grant the motion, because the defendant is not "at home" in the forum state. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7461 A police officer observed an individual leaving a residence where the officer had reasonable suspicion that illegal drugs were being sold. Although the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the individual had purchased drugs at the residence, he wanted to question the individual to discover whether his suspicions were correct. He stopped the individual's car, requested the individual's identification, and upon being presented with the individual's driver's license, ran a check to see if he had any outstanding warrants. When the check, which took only several minutes, revealed that there was an outstanding arrest warrant for the individual for a minor traffic infraction, the officer arrested him. During a search of the individual's person immediately following the arrest, the officer found methamphetamine. The individual was charged with possession of a controlled substance. The individual has filed a motion in limine to suppress the evidence of the methamphetamine found on his person. How should the court rule on this motion?

A. Deny the motion, because the officer's detention of the individual was constitutional. B. Deny the motion, because the arrest warrant attenuated the illegal stop. C. Grant the motion, because the evidence did not relate to the reason for the individual's arrest. D. Grant the motion, under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3246 A private citizen filed a slander action against the president for remarks the president made during a presidential debate prior to taking office. The president denied making the remarks and pled executive immunity. Which of the following is the most constitutionally appropriate action for the court to take?

A. Dismiss the case with prejudice because the president enjoys complete immunity from civil liability. B. Dismiss the case with prejudice because of the Speech or Debate Clause. C. Dismiss the case without prejudice with leave to file again once the president leaves office. D. Permit the case to go forward. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6721 A driver from State A was involved in a major car accident in State B with a bus driver from State C and a livery driver from State D. The driver suffered serious injuries in the accident, resulting in $150,000 in medical bills. The driver sought to bring a diversity action in federal district court based on negligence against the bus driver and the livery driver. Assume each state only has one federal district court, and each court has jurisdiction over all of the parties. Where is venue proper?

A. Either State C or State D B. Either State A or State B C. State A only D. State B only ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6635 A beautiful woman preyed upon lonely, desperate men looking for love on the Internet by getting a potential suitor to fall in love with her and then propose marriage to her. After a suitor would propose to her and give her an engagement ring, the woman would have a replica of the engagement ring made at a fraction of the cost of the real one. Shortly thereafter, the woman would break off the engagement, return the knock-off version of the engagement ring to the duped suitor, and then sell the real engagement ring for a sizeable profit. After scamming her most recent suitor, the suitor tried to return the knock-off ring to a high-end jewelry store the same day that he was dumped. The jewelry store marked all of their rings with a very specific insignia that could not be replicated. Once they realized that the ring was a knock-off, they called the police and the woman was arrested. If the woman is guilty of any crime, she is most likely guilty of:

A. Embezzlement B. False pretenses C. Larceny D. Larceny by trick ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4243 A bank teller confessed to his colleague that he was concerned about being fired. The colleague suggested that he had similar concerns himself and had been thinking of how he might acquire extra cash in case he lost his job. The teller suggested a plan to take several hundred dollars from their supervisor's cash drawer, because the supervisor often forgot to lock the drawer when he went to lunch. After the teller took the cash, he would hand it off to his colleague during his lunch break, and the colleague would bring the money to his car to avoid having money on his person at work. The next day, the teller noticed that his supervisor had neglected to lock his cash drawer at lunch, and he carried out the plan. The colleague waited outside the bank, and then took the cash from the teller on his lunch break. He then hid some of the money in a separate stash he intended to apportion to himself only, without the teller's knowledge, but he otherwise followed the plan exactly as he and the bank teller had discussed. In a case against the colleague, which of the following charges would most likely be successfully prosecuted?

A. Embezzlement and larceny. B. Embezzlement only. C. One charge of larceny only. D. Two charges of larceny only. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6591 The owner of a residence contracted with a privately owned utility to provide internet service to the residence. After several years of paying the monthly bills sent by the utility, the owner failed to pay three monthly bills in a row. The contract did not specify what action the utility was required to take in such a circumstance. The utility, after giving the owner two days' advance notice, terminated the owner's access to the internet. After terminating the service, the utility provided the owner with the opportunity for a hearing on the matter. The owner has filed suit against the utility for violating the owner's constitutional rights by failing to give her a hearing before taking such action. The owner's complaint points out the utility in question is a publicly regulated monopoly. How is the court likely to rule on the owner's lawsuit?

A. For the owner, because she had a contractual right to receive internet service. B. For the owner, because the Fourteenth Amendment requires not only prior notice but also a hearing before the termination of service. C. For the utility, because the utility is privately owned. D. For the utility, because the utility provided the owner with notice before termination of service and the opportunity for a hearing afterwards. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 6298 An employee was terminated by her employer. The former employee applied for and was awarded payments from the state's unemployment insurance fund. After several payments, the state agency that administered the fund determined at a pre-termination hearing that the former employee was not entitled to payments from the fund due to her employment at another job. The state sent the employee a notice that explained why her payments were being terminated. The notice also stated that the termination would take effect immediately, and that the employee had 60 days in which to file a protest of the termination with the state agency. If the employee filed a protest, the state agency would be required to hold a post-termination hearing on the matter. The employee contested the termination and lost. The employee then filed an action in federal court contending that she had been denied her procedural due process rights. If the court finds that the termination of worker's unemployment payments should be treated in the same manner as the termination of disability benefits, rather than welfare benefits, how should the court rule with regard to the former employee's claim that she was denied her procedural due process rights?

A. For the state, because a hearing is not required after the worker received timely notice of the termination. B. For the state, because the worker received timely notice of the termination and post-termination hearing. C. For the worker, because the worker did not receive timely notice of the pre-termination hearing. D. For the worker, because she was deprived of her due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7434 A father, as he had been on three other occasions, was held in civil contempt for failure to pay child support payments to the mother of his child. The father was then incarcerated for six months. He appealed the court decision that found him in contempt. He contended that he was indigent and was entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent him at the contempt hearing. He argued that the court's failure to do so violated his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the time the father's appeal was heard, he had been released from prison. The state argues that although the father's financial and employment situation remained unchanged, the father's action should be dismissed as moot. How should the court rule on the state's defense?

A. For the state, because there was no live controversy after the father was released from prison. B. For the state, because any further potential injury to the father would be speculative. C. Against the state, because there is a reasonable expectation that the father will be subject to a civil contempt action again. D. Against the state, because the father is entitled to counsel to represent him at a civil contempt hearing. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 6241 A reliable informant gave police a tip that she had witnessed two men dealing drugs out of a car in a grocery store parking lot ten minutes earlier. She gave the police a detailed description of the men and their car, a white sedan. The police sent a cruiser to the grocery store. About ten minutes later, the patrol officers saw a white sedan like the one the informant had described. Both of the occupants of the car fit the general description that the informant had given. The police pulled the white sedan over. One officer searched a locked steel box in the trunk and found bags of cocaine. The other officer then arrested the driver and searched the driver's pockets and coat. In the driver's coat pocket, he found a bag of marijuana. At his trial for drug possession, the driver's attorney moves to suppress evidence of both the marijuana and the cocaine. How should the court rule on the motion?

A. Grant the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine. B. Grant the motion as to the marijuana, but deny it as to the cocaine. C. Deny the motion as to the marijuana, but grant it as to the cocaine. D. Deny the motion as to both the marijuana and the cocaine. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 362 The Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of a company was indicted by a grand jury on charges of criminal fraud stemming from certain accounting practices she had approved. Prior to indicting the CFO, the grand jury had spent two years hearing and reviewing evidence. A key piece of evidence that resulted in the indictment was a set of computer disks that the police had illegally seized from the CFO's office without a warrant. The prosecutor knew that this evidence had been illegally seized, but did not mention this fact when he showed the evidence to the grand jury. The prosecution turned over copies of all of the evidence that was shown to the grand jury to the CFO following the indictment. The CFO's attorney has filed a motion to quash the indictment based on the fact that the grand jury considered illegally obtained evidence. The court should:

A. Grant the motion because a grand jury may not consider illegally obtained evidence. B. Grant the motion because the prosecutor was required to tell the grand jury that the evidence had been illegally seized. C. Deny the motion because a grand jury is permitted to consider illegally obtained evidence. D. Deny the motion because the prosecution turned over the evidence to the defense following the indictment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4963 After conducting discovery, a defendant filed a motion to dismiss a breach of contract action based on diversity jurisdiction for failure to join a necessary party. The action, which was filed in federal district court, failed to name as a defendant a person with an interest that could be impaired by disposition of the action. That person is domiciled in the same state as the plaintiff. After considering the prejudice to the person and the other parties, and the adequacy of the judgment if the person was not joined, the court determined that the person was an indispensable party and that the same action could be brought in state court. What action should the court take?

A. Grant the motion to dismiss, because the person who has not been joined is both necessary and indispensable, and a state forum is available. B. Deny the motion to dismiss, because the motion was not timely. C. Deny the motion to dismiss and permit joinder of the person as a defendant, because the person is a necessary party. D. Transfer the action to state court. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6214 A woman signed up with an online workout program. The program guaranteed that if the woman followed its diet and workout plan, she would lose 20 pounds in the allotted period. The woman did not lose the 20 pounds during that allotted period, so she sued the company that ran the program to get her money back. The company filed a summary-judgment motion, which the judge granted because the woman did not conduct regular correspondence with her online workout coach per the guidelines of the workout plan. The woman's friend, who had also joined the online workout program, then sued the company. The friend also did not lose the amount of weight she had set out to lose by following the workout plan, and she also did not contact her online workout coach per the workout plan guidelines. The company moved to dismiss the action based upon the doctrine of res judicata. How should the court rule on this motion?

A. Grant the motion, because the issue sought to be precluded in the current action is the same as that resolved in the prior case. B. Grant the motion, because the company was the defendant in the prior case. C. Deny the motion, because the woman's case was resolved through the granting of a summary-judgment motion rather than a full trial. D. Deny the motion, because the plaintiff in the second suit is a different person from the plaintiff in the first suit. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6024 A plaintiff properly filed an action in federal district court to enforce a written land sale contract against the owner of a parcel of land. The contract contained a signature that is purported to be that of the owner. After the parties exchanged discovery materials, the owner timely filed a summary judgment motion. In support of the motion, the owner filed an affidavit, in which the owner stated that she did not sign the contract and, as a consequence, the contract is unenforceable under the jurisdiction's Statute of Frauds. In response, the plaintiff also filed an affidavit, in which he swore that he would call the owner's real estate broker at trial to testify that she witnessed the owner signing the contract. How should the court rule on the owner's summary judgment motion?

A. Grant the motion, because the owner has met her burden of persuasion with regard to the motion. B. Grant the motion, because the court is required to construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the owner as the defendant in the action. C. Deny the motion, because the plaintiff has filed an affidavit in support of his position. D. Deny the motion, because the broker's testimony, as a nonparty, would have greater credibility than the owner's testimony. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 7448 A computer programmer for a local software company was upset by the loud parties held in the apartment next door by a college student whenever her father, with whom she was living for the summer, went out of town. One day, while no one was home, the programmer broke into the apartment and installed a video camera. Operating the camera from his apartment, the programmer recorded the college student's next party. The recording contained evidence of the sale and use of illegal drugs by the college student. The programmer provided that recording to the police, who arrested the college student for the distribution of illegal drugs. The college student has moved to suppress the recording as a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. How should the court rule?

A. Grant the motion, because the programmer illegally gained access to the college student's apartment. B. Grant the motion, because the college student had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment. C. Deny the motion, because the recording establishes that the college student was distributing illegal drugs. D. Deny the motion, because the police had no role in making the recording. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5034 A business owner brought an action for breach of contract under state law against an architect in federal district court. The federal district court was not located in the state in which the architect resided or in the state in which the contract was executed or performed. The business owner's complaint alleged $75,000 in damages and the business owner and architect were citizens of different states. The business owner himself served the architect with the summons and complaint. The architect had no contacts with the forum state that would give rise to personal jurisdiction. The architect served an answer in which he specifically denied the business owner's allegations. Two weeks after serving the answer, the architect sought to have the complaint dismissed. On which of the following grounds will the architect be successful in having the claim dismissed?

A. Improper venue B. Insufficient service of process C. Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction D. Lack of personal jurisdiction ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7179 A state airport commission adopted a regulation prohibiting the solicitation of money inside airport terminals, but permitted the solicitation of money on the pathways outside the terminals where travelers were accessible. The commission adopted the regulation due to the disrupting effect solicitation had on travelers attempting to reach their gates, causing delays and congestion in the terminals. Fundraisers from an organization devoted to raising money to help cure cancer attempted to solicit donations in the airport terminal, and were detained for violating the regulation. The organization has challenged the constitutionality of the regulation. Is the regulation constitutional?

A. No, because a ban on all solicitation is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest. B. No, because the regulation preventing solicitation in airport terminals is not content neutral. C. Yes, because the ban on solicitation is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. D. Yes, because the regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for communication on the sidewalks outside the airport terminals. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3213 A state narrowly adopted legislation allowing for same-sex marriage. A group of several individual talk-radio show hosts who vehemently opposed the legislation rented space on several large billboards around the state, all of which contend that the law is wrong and urge all who see it to take "any and all necessary steps" to get the law repealed. The billboards include a website address that contains the legislative steps for getting a state's law repealed, including gathering signatures on petitions and finding a legislator to sponsor new legislation repealing the law at issue. The billboards proved incredibly controversial, as slightly more than half of the state's population found the billboards extremely offensive, while the rest of the citizens were in favor of repealing the law. The state orders the talk-radio hosts to remove the billboards. The hosts bring proper suit alleging that the state's demand for removal of the billboards constitutes an infringement upon their free speech. Is the court most likely to rule that the billboards are protected or improper?

A. Improper, because the call to take "any and all necessary steps" can be construed as inciting violence. B. Improper, because the state has a compelling interest in regulating subversive speech. C. Protected, because the media has greater First Amendment rights than regular citizens. D. Protected, because there is no compelling or substantial government interest in removing the advertisements. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7095 Two women who shared an apartment in a high-crime neighborhood decided to buy a taser for protection. As permitted by applicable state law, the taser had been advertised as a form of "non-lethal self-defense" when used properly. After purchasing the taser but before receiving the formal training required to learn how to use it, one of the women jokingly put the taser against her roommate's chest and shocked her. The roommate went into cardiac arrest, and although the woman called 911 immediately, the roommate died. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as premeditated and deliberate murder, and gives second-degree murder the same elements as common-law murder. For which of the following crimes is the woman most likely to be found guilty?

A. Involuntary manslaughter B. Voluntary manslaughter C. Second-degree murder D. First-degree murder ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4335 A woman was moving out of state. As she was completing her packing one night, she realized that her neighbor had never returned a book that the woman had lent her. The woman walked over to her neighbor's house and knocked on the door. When she realized that no one was home, she let herself in through the unlocked garage, intending to take the book and return home. While she was in the neighbor's house, the woman remembered that the neighbor had a necklace that the woman had long admired. The woman decided to take the necklace, figuring that her neighbor probably would not notice it was missing until after the woman had moved. As the woman was heading toward the door, she heard her neighbor come in. The woman greeted her neighbor, and apologized for letting herself in to retrieve the book. The woman gave her neighbor a good-bye hug, and then left with the necklace in her pocket. The crimes below are listed ascending order of seriousness. What is the most serious crime for which the woman may be convicted?

A. Larceny. B. Larceny by trick. C. Robbery. D. Burglary. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5026 A plaintiff brought a state law action for medical malpractice against a defendant in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff's complaint alleged only that the defendant's negligent conduct caused the plaintiff's damages. The complaint did not include any specific factual allegations regarding the defendant's conduct. The defendant has not yet filed an answer to the complaint. In response to the complaint, which of the following motions would be most appropriate for the defendant to file?A

A. Motion to strike B. Motion for summary judgment C. Motion for judgment on the pleadings D. Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5959 While climbing a steep mountain, a woman's climbing rope failed, and she fell off the side of the mountain. She landed on a small ledge 30 feet below. Behind her, a man continued climbing. The woman shouted, "Hey! I'm here! Throw me a rope so I can get up!" The man, who did not know the woman but had all the gear that would be necessary to safely rescue her, looked down at her and said, "Sorry, I'd like to help, but I have to reach the summit before dark." He continued on to the summit. On the way back down, he looked down to see that the woman had fallen off the ledge to her death. What is the most serious crime for which the man can be convicted?

A. Murder. B. Voluntary manslaughter. C. Involuntary manslaughter. D. No crime. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6279 A federal statute generally makes age discrimination in the hiring or firing of employees illegal and provides for a civil action for damages against the offending employer. The statute applies to public as well as private employers and contains a clear statement of Congressional intent to abrogate state immunity. In federal court, an employee sued her employer, a state agency, for violation of this statute and sought relief in the form of retroactive money damages. The state agency moved to dismiss the action as constitutionally prohibited. The state employee conceded that the age discrimination that she experienced was rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Should the court dismiss the action on constitutional grounds?

A. No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause. B. No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. C. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment prevents the recovery of retroactive money damages by citizens against a state agency. D. Yes, because the strict scrutiny test must be met for there to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3255 A federal judge improperly granted a search warrant for the home of a woman she believed was dating her ex-husband. In doing so, the judge acted with malice and for the sole purpose of harassing the homeowner. The homeowner brought a civil action in federal court against the judge personally for damages based on the violation of the homeowner's Fourth Amendment rights. The homeowner acknowledges that the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. The judge seeks dismissal on the action on the grounds of immunity. Should the court dismiss the case?

A. No, because the judge acted with malice. B. No, because a judge enjoys only qualified immunity with regard to the violation of a person's constitutional rights. C. Yes, because the judge had jurisdiction to issue the search warrant. D. Yes, because an action for damages may not be maintained against a sitting judge. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5168 An employee was fired by his employer after working for 20 years at the employer's headquarters. Shortly thereafter, the employee accepted a position in a neighboring state and moved to that state. After moving, the employee filed a complaint in federal court in the state where the employer had its headquarters. The plaintiff-employee alleged that the defendant-employer had discriminated against the plaintiff based on his race, and asserted civil rights claims under state law. The complaint was filed one week before the statute of limitations for these claims was set to expire. The defendant filed an answer, and the parties engaged in discovery, which revealed information previously unknown to either party. Six months after the complaint was filed, the plaintiff filed a motion to add federal claims based on information obtained during discovery. The statute of limitations for the federal claims was the same as that for the state law claims. Over the defendant's objection, the court, noting that the defendant would not be unduly prejudiced, granted the motion and allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint. Did the court err in allowing the amendment?

A. No, because a court must freely grant leave to amend a pleading when justice so requires. B. No, because the plaintiff was entitled to amend his complaint once as a matter of right. C. Yes, because the new claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and thus the amendment was futile. D. Yes, because the amendment was untimely. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5172 An employee left her job to move across the country and start her own business. After her departure, the employee and her former employer entered into a contract for the employee to provide consulting services to the employer for a one-year period. One month later, the employer told the employee that it intended to withhold payment under the contract because it was not satisfied with the services provided. The employee filed a complaint in federal court, alleging that the employer had breached the consulting contract, for which the employee sought $60,000 in damages. The complaint further alleged that the employee had been the victim of gender discrimination during the course of her employment, in violation of federal law. One week after being served with the complaint, the employer filed an answer. May the court properly adjudicate the employee's state law claims?

A. No, because a plaintiff may not join federal and state law claims in the same action. B. Correct Answer No, because a court must have subject-matter jurisdiction over all joined claims. C. Yes, because a state claim may be joined if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. D. Yes, because a plaintiff may join as many claims as she has against the opposing party. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 1386 Many citizens are concerned that large contributions by special interest groups and corporations to local politicians' campaigns and recent state constitutional referendums have undermined the state's democratic process. To reduce the danger of corruption and the imbalance in the presentation of arguments posed by excessive contributions, the State legislature passed a law limiting corporate and institutional donors' contributions to candidates and ballot measures to $500. Is the state law constitutional?

A. No, because corporations and other groups enjoy First Amendment free speech rights. B. No, because a law may not limit the contributions to ballot measures. C. Yes, because the law is closely drawn to correspond with a sufficiently important state interest. D. Yes, because the law is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3220 A state statute requires professional gardeners to obtain a license to charge for gardening services within the state. To obtain the license, individuals must pay a $50 fee and complete an instructional class covering, among other things, how to avoid underground electric and gas lines when gardening. Although it was not the legislature's intent, the statute disproportionately affects one race, as the majority of gardeners in the state are of the same race. Is the statute constitutional?

A. No, because it has a disparate impact on a particular race and is not necessary to advance a compelling government interest. B. No, because race is a suspect classification. C. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. D. Yes, because it is substantially related to an important government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5142 A plaintiff properly filed a complaint in federal district court seeking damages from two defendants. The first defendant properly filed a cross-claim against the second defendant. The second defendant has a claim against the first defendant that arises out of the same transaction as the original complaint. Is the second defendant required to bring this claim in the current action?

A. No, because it is a permissive cross-claim. B. No, because it is a permissive counterclaim. C. Yes, because it is a compulsory cross-claim. D. Yes, because it is a compulsory counterclaim. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7308 A defendant met with an undercover officer and conspired with the officer to commit a bank robbery that afternoon. His conduct met the statutory requirements of criminal conspiracy in the state. When the defendant showed up at the bank an hour later, he assumed that the undercover officer had turned off the cameras and deactivated the alarms as they had planned. Instead, when the defendant drew his gun to threaten the bank teller, he was surrounded by officers and arrested. The defendant was subsequently charged with attempted robbery and went to trial. After the jury was empaneled and sworn in but before any witness was sworn in to testify, the defendant accepted a plea deal with the prosecutor. The defendant pled guilty, and the jury was dismissed. Months later, the prosecutor brought a conspiracy charge against the defendant for conspiring with the undercover officer to commit the robbery. The defendant's lawyer has moved to dismiss the charges as a violation of the defendant's constitutional protection from double jeopardy. Should the court dismiss the conspiracy charge on the grounds of double jeopardy?

A. No, because jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the first witness is sworn in. B. No, because attempted robbery and conspiracy each require proof of different elements. C. Yes, because jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn in. D. Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause bars successive prosecutions for lesser-included offenses. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4913 A hospital assigned to a corporation the hospital's claims against various patients for payment for medical services rendered by the hospital to the patients. The corporation paid the hospital only a fraction of the amount owed due to doubts about the collectability of the claims. The hospital, a citizen of State O, relinquished all rights regarding these claims. The corporation, which was incorporated in State F and had its headquarters in State L, had engaged in substantial business activity in State O. With respect to one of the assigned claims, the corporation filed an action in State O federal court to collect $95,000 owed by a patient for services rendered by the hospital. Seeking damages of $15,000, the patient filed a counterclaim against the corporation for violation of state law in attempting to collect the debt. Can the patient, who was domiciled in State O, successfully challenge the court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the corporation's claim?

A. No, because patient's counterclaim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. B. No, because the corporation and the patient are citizens of different states and the amount-in-controversy requirement is met. C. Yes, because the corporation had engaged in substantial business activity in State O. D. Yes, because the citizenship of the assignor of a claim is determinative for purposes of ascertaining diversity jurisdiction. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7044 As part of a woman's religion, she was required to burn a small amount of holy oil in an urn before consuming a meal. Although she was able to burn the holy oil before breakfast and dinner at home, she needed to conduct this ritual at work before her lunch break. The woman's supervisor asked her to burn the holy oil outside, but because she had several other religious accoutrements that she needed to use in conjunction with the ritual, she insisted on burning the oil in her cubicle. In addition, the woman stated that she had a flame snuffer in order to ensure that the fire did not pose a danger. A state fire statute prohibits any open fires in public buildings because they present a fire hazard. The woman has filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of this statute, claiming that it violates her right to the free exercise of religion. Assuming no relevant federal or state statute is applicable, should the court rule that the state statute violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

A. No, because preventing fires inside of public buildings is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. B. You Selected: No, because the state statute does not result in excessive entanglement with religion. C. Yes, because preventing a religious ritual of this type does not advance a compelling state interest. D. Yes, because the statute is not substantially related to an important governmental interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4337 A dog sitter customarily went into her clients' homes, with keys they provided to her, to care for their pets. Over the years, she grew to especially love one particular dog. She would regularly enter the home of her client on days she was not scheduled to watch the dog and would take the dog to the park. One afternoon, the dog she loved wandered into her yard as she was doing yard work. She did not immediately call her client, but instead decided to keep the dog for a few days. A week later when she returned him to the client, the client stated that she so enjoyed having the house to herself that she was going to sell him. The dog sitter immediately purchased him and brought him back to her home. Were the dog sitter's actions sufficient to meet the requirements of larceny?

A. No, because she had a key to enter the home. B. No, because she was only going to keep the dog for a few days. C. Yes, because she kept the dog despite knowing who owned it. D. Yes, because she would enter the client's home regularly and take the dog to the park. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7368 Congress passed a statute that forbade private sellers of real property from discriminating against prospective buyers on the basis of race. A seller entered into negotiations to sell his home to a couple through e-mail. However, when the couple arrived to sign the sales contract and purchase the home, the seller discovered the couple was black. After the seller refused to sell his property to the couple, the couple bought an action against him under this statute. In response, the seller has challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Is the seller's challenge to the constitutionality of the statute likely to succeed?

A. No, because the "obligations of contracts" clause only applies to state legislation. B. No, because the Thirteenth Amendment enables Congress to pass this statute. C. Yes, because the statute regulates purely private conduct. D. Yes, because the statute substantially impairs a contract between private parties. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3254 A federal study found that, in the majority of school shootings, the guns used were purchased within one mile of the school. In order to prevent further school shootings, Congress enacted a statute requiring each state legislature to enact a state law prohibiting the sale of guns that had previously been transported in interstate commerce within one mile of a school. Congress has established a substantial record to show that the limitation on gun sales is the least restrictive means to achieve the government's interest in curbing school shootings. Is the federal statute constitutional?

A. No, because the Second Amendment prohibits federal legislation limiting the sale of guns. B. No, because Congress lacks the authority to require a state to enact any specific legislation. C. Yes, because it was enacted pursuant to Congress's Commerce Clause power. D. Yes, because it is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3264 A state statute requires out-of-state breweries to sell beer through in-state distributors. The state adopted this law in order to enforce its prohibition on the possession and consumption of alcohol by minors and to ensure that state alcohol taxes were paid. In-state breweries may sell their beer directly to consumers. An out-of-state brewery has challenged this statute as unconstitutional. Should the court uphold this statute?

A. No, because the Twenty-First Amendment eliminated any restrictions on the distribution of alcohol in interstate commerce. B. No, because the statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause. C. Yes, because the Tenth Amendment preserves the state's general police power to enact this statute. D. Yes, because the Twenty-First Amendment gives states the power to regulate alcohol distribution. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5849 A Senate committee conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). After a thorough investigation, the committee concluded that five SEC agents had significant illegal interactions with organized crime members over the course of three years. Soon after, Congress, on the advice of the Senate committee, passed a statute that removed the agents from the SEC and barred them from any other federal employment. The five agents, whose employment permitted removal with or without cause, were named in the statute. The agents subsequently challenged the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional. Will the agents' challenge to the statute be successful?

A. No, because the agents could be removed with or without cause. B. No, because the statute does not subject the agents to criminal or penal measures. C. Yes, because the statute constitutes an ex post facto law. D. Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5119 A woman, who was a long-time resident of State A, decided to go on vacation. Unable to fly nonstop to her destination, she changed planes at an airport located in State B. While in the waiting area for her next flight, the woman was served with process in connection with a lawsuit filed against her by her former business partner. The former partner, who had recently become a citizen of State B, had brought suit in federal district court in State B under diversity jurisdiction, asserting that the woman had defrauded him out of his rightful share of the profits of the partnership. According to the complaint, the fraud took place entirely in State A. Can the federal district court in State B properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the woman?

A. No, because the alleged fraud took place entirely in State A. B. No, because the woman is a citizen of State A. C. Yes, because the former partner is a citizen of State B. D. Yes, because the woman was served in State B. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 402 A defendant was tried for theft of a motor vehicle and found guilty. As permitted by state law as a matter of right, he sought to appeal his conviction. His attorney, whom the defendant had hired, timely filed a notice of appeal. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal due to his attorney's failure to file the necessary supporting documentation required by state law. The defendant subsequently challenged the action of the appellate court on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Will the defendant's challenge likely be successful?

A. No, because the attorney timely filed a notice of appeal. B. No, because there is a presumption that an attorney's representation of a client was constitutionally adequate. C. No, because the protection against ineffective assistance of counsel only applies to state-provided counsel. D. Yes, because the attorney's unreasonable conduct prevented the defendant from pursuing his appeal. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7309 A man was properly arrested under suspicion of murder. While continuing their investigation of the case in preparation for trial, the police invited the man's brother to the station for an interview. The brother agreed and spent four hours in an interview room with two officers, sipping coffee and discussing the events surrounding the murder. The officers told the brother that they had not located the murder weapon yet. After some time, the brother said, "You seem like decent fellows, so I'm gonna tell it to you straight. I know my brother is innocent, but I also know he was scared that he would be a suspect. I know because he gave me a gun the day after the murder. He didn't tell me anything, but he didn't need to. I knew he wanted me to get rid of it, and I did." The officers immediately arrested the brother as an accomplice after the fact and read him his Miranda rights. At the brother's trial as an accomplice to murder, the defense attorney seeks to suppress the brother's statement as a violation of the brother's privilege against self-incrimination. Should the court grant the motion to suppress the brother's statement?

A. No, because the brother did not make the statement during a custodial interrogation. B. No, because the brother waived his Miranda rights by voluntarily speaking to the officers. C. Yes, because the brother's confession is inadmissible as a violation of his Miranda rights. D. Yes, because the officers' interview was likely to elicit an incriminating response. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6718 An insurance company, incorporated and with its principal place of business in State A, brought a federal statutory interpleader action in federal district court after a dispute arose as to person(s) entitled under state law to the proceeds of an insurance policy in the amount of $100,000. The claimants under the policy are all citizens of State B. The insurance company posted a bond for $100,000, representing the disputed proceeds. Does the court have jurisdiction over the action?

A. No, because the claimants are not diverse. B. No, because the claim does not arise under federal law. C. Yes, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. D. Yes, because the insurance company is diverse from the claimants. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4250 A defendant entered a convenience store wearing a Halloween mask and carrying a gun. He pointed the gun at the store clerk and told him to empty the cash register into a bag and hand it over. The clerk told the defendant that he needed a key from below the counter to unlock the cash drawer. He leaned over, pulled out a gun from behind the cash register, and quickly fired a shot. The defendant had seen the clerk reach for the gun, however, and jumped out of the way before the shot was fired. The bullet hit a customer, who later died from the injury. Is the defendant likely to be convicted of felony murder in a jurisdiction that follows the majority law?

A. No, because the clerk could not be considered the agent of the defendant. B. No, because the defendant did not shoot the customer. C. Yes, because the customer's death was a natural and probable consequence of the robbery. D. Yes, because the defendant is strictly liable for any death that occurs during an inherently dangerous felony. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3063 A man and a woman planned to rob a liquor store. The man entered the store while the woman stayed in the car to act as a lookout and getaway driver. As a police officer walked by the store, the woman turned on the car lights, which was the signal she had arranged to warn the man in the store if anyone was coming. Seeing the signal, the man ran out the door right into the police officer. Realizing that an armed robbery was in progress, the police officer shot and killed the man, after appropriate warnings. Should the woman be found guilty of felony murder of the man?

A. No, because the killing by the policeman was justifiable. B. No, because the death of the man was not foreseeable. C. Yes, because she was a co-conspirator in the robbery. D. Yes, under the proximate cause theory. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5000 A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court under diversity jurisdiction to rescind a contract due to fraud. The contract involved the plaintiff's purchase of the defendant's helicopter. Prior to the purchase, the defendant, at the plaintiff's request, provided the plaintiff with maintenance records for the helicopter, which the plaintiff now believes were false. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that on a specific day and at a specific time the defendant "fraudulently induced plaintiff to enter into a contract to purchase a helicopter." The defendant has timely moved for a more definite statement of the claim. Should the court grant the defendant's motion?

A. No, because the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim. B. No, because the complaint provides the defendant with notice of the claim. C. Yes, because a complaint must show that there is a probability that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. D. Yes, because the circumstances constituting fraud must be pled with particularity. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6724 A plaintiff brought a diversity action against a defendant in federal district court based on negligence arising out of a car accident. The plaintiff's complaint contained a statement of the grounds establishing diversity jurisdiction, a demand for $100,000 in damages, and the following legal allegations without reference to the factual basis for such allegations: (i) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care (ii) the defendant breached that duty (iii) the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injuries and (iv) the plaintiff sustained significant damages. Upon being served with the complaint, the defendant timely filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Should the court grant the defendant's motion to dismiss?

A. No, because the complaint set forth a plausible claim for relief. B. No, because the complaint provided the defendant with fair notice of the plaintiff's claim. C. Yes, because the complaint must include detailed factual allegations. D. Yes, because the complaint contains mere conclusory statements and assertions devoid of facts. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 3234 Last year, Congress enacted legislation providing for funding opportunities to eligible secular and religiously affiliated colleges and universities. The funding will be available through individual counties as each county's funding limitations allow. The legislation does not require that each county apply standard guidelines nor does it provide any suggested guidelines other than a statement that "all counties should track funding and compile guidelines in the event of a federal audit." A county awards a large grant to a religiously affiliated college that employs a substantial number of residents. The grant contract, signed by representatives from both the county and the college, states as follows: "All grant monies must be used in compliance with county regulations. Further, the college must track the allocation of grant monies throughout the grant term." Is the county's award of the grant constitutional?

A. No, because the county provided grant monies to a religiously affiliated college. B. No, because it does not require that the aid be used only for nonreligious purposes. C. Yes, because the college is required to track funding. D. Yes, because the college may be the subject of a federal audit. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4945 A plaintiff properly filed a civil action for breach of contract in a federal district court sitting in diversity. During voir dire, the defendant's attorney questioned a prospective juror about his familial relationship to the plaintiff. The potential juror stated that he was the plaintiff's third cousin, but also stated that he had not had any dealings with the plaintiff in over 20 years. The defendant challenged this prospective juror for cause, due to his potential bias. After questioning the prospective juror about his ability to give a fair trial to all parties and receiving an affirmative reply, the court denied the challenge. The defendant, having exercised three peremptory challenges, sought to excuse the potential juror by exercising a fourth peremptory challenge. Should the court permit the defendant to exercise a fourth peremptory challenge?

A. No, because the court had denied the defendant's challenge for cause with respect to this prospective juror. B. No, because the defendant has already exercised his peremptory challenges. C. Yes, because a party has an unlimited number of peremptory challenges, provided such challenges are not made for racial- or gender-based reasons. D. Yes, because a court cannot dictate how a party exercises peremptory challenges that are not made for racial- or gender-based reasons. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7012 A daughter babysat her neighbor's children every Thursday night. Her mother had coveted the neighbor's antique vase for many years. The mother bought a cheap replica of the vase, broke it, and gave the pieces to her daughter Thursday morning. The mother told the daughter to leave the broken pieces in the neighbor's trash, steal the antique vase, and claim that the children had broken it. The daughter reluctantly agreed. While she was babysitting that evening, the daughter put the pieces of the cheap replica in the garbage. However, before she actually stole the vase, her mother called her. The mother had changed her mind and told the daughter not to steal the vase. The daughter did not steal the vase, but forgot to take the pieces of the cheap replica out of the garbage. When the neighbor discovered the pieces of the replica in the garbage, she confronted the daughter, and the daughter confessed the whole plan. The neighbor called the police, who arrested the mother, she was subsequently charged with solicitation. Is the mother guilty of solicitation under the common law?

A. No, because the daughter did not actually steal the vase. B. No, because the mother renounced the crime by calling the daughter and telling her not to steal the vase. C. Yes, because the mother encouraged her daughter to steal the antique vase. D. Yes, because the mother took a substantial step towards committing the crime by buying a cheap replica of the vase. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5121 A plaintiff, who was a citizen of State X, sued a defendant, who was a citizen of State Y, in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction for damages resulting from the defendant's negligent driving. The car accident between the plaintiff and the defendant took place in State Y. State X and State Y each have long-arm statutes, which differ in their requirements. The plaintiff filed the action in a federal district court in State X. Which long-arm statute should the court apply in determining personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

A. State X's, because State X is the forum state. B. State X's, because the plaintiff is a citizen of that state. C. State Y's, because the defendant is a citizen of that state. D. State Y's, because State Y is where the tortious act occurred. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5170 A woman and her daughter were involved in a car accident with another car. The mother sustained serious injuries, but the daughter's injuries were relatively minor. The mother and the daughter filed a joint complaint against the driver of the other car in federal court in the state where the accident occurred. The complaint alleged that the defendant's negligence caused the mother and daughter to sustain physical injuries. The mother asserted damages of $250,000 against the defendant, and the daughter asserted damages of $10,000. The defendant is a citizen of the forum state, and the mother and daughter are citizens of a neighboring state. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims asserted by the daughter, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over her claims. May the court exercise jurisdiction over the daughter's claims?

A. No, because the daughter's claims do not meet the requirements for diversity jurisdiction. B. No, because the daughter is not a necessary party. C. Yes, because the court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the daughter's claims. D. Yes, because the daughter's participation is necessary for a just adjudication. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5146 A pedestrian was hit by a car while crossing the street near his home. The pedestrian filed suit against the car's driver, a resident of a neighboring state, in federal district court in the state where the accident occurred. The pedestrian asserted several state law claims and alleged $80,000 in damages. Two weeks after the complaint was filed, the plaintiff's sister went to the defendant's place of business to serve the summons and complaint. The defendant was in a meeting, so the plaintiff's adult sister left a copy of the summons and complaint with the defendant's coworker. The coworker later gave the documents to the defendant. One week later, the defendant filed an answer to the complaint. The following day, the defendant filed a motion to quash the service of process. Is the defendant's motion likely to be granted?

A. No, because the defendant received actual notice of the complaint. B. No, because the defendant waived any objection to service. C. Yes, because the summons and complaint were not delivered to the defendant personally. D. Yes, because the summons and complaint were not served by a process server. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4901 A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal district court following a car accident between the parties that occurred in the state where the federal district court is located. The plaintiff asserted a negligence claim under state law, and in good faith alleged damages of $100,000. At the time of the car accident, both parties were domiciled in the forum state. Following the accident, but before filing the complaint, the plaintiff accepted a full-time job in another state and moved to that state with the intent of living there permanently. After a bench trial, the judge ruled for the plaintiff and awarded $70,000 in damages. The defendant appealed the decision, asserting for the first time that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Is the defendant likely to succeed in his appeal?

A. No, because the defendant waived the issue by failing to raise it in the lower court. B. No, because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction were satisfied. C. Yes, because the plaintiff recovered less than $75,000 in damages. D. Yes, because the parties were not citizens of different states when the claim arose. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3100 A defendant was charged with two separate crimes related to vandalism in a national park. Each of the crimes was punishable by a maximum of six months imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The defendant requested a jury trial, but his request was denied. The defendant proceeded to trial before a judge in federal court, and was subsequently convicted on both charges. The judge sentenced the defendant to five months of imprisonment for each charge, to be served consecutively, as well as a fine of $5,000 for each charge. The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that he was entitled to a jury trial. Was the defendant entitled to a jury trial?

A. No, because the defendant's actual sentence for each offense was less than six months. B. No, because the maximum sentence for each offense was six months. C. Yes, because the combined maximum sentence for the offenses was 12 months. D. Yes, because the sizeable fine makes each crime a serious offense. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4360 A border state had a large number of both legal and undocumented immigrants. During one election, the state's voters elected a number of candidates who ran on platforms focused on limiting access to state benefits to U.S. citizens. Shortly after the election, the state legislature passed a law that would limit enrollment at the state's public universities to U.S. citizens. Under the law, any applicant to a state university who is not a U.S. citizen is automatically denied admission. A legal U.S. resident alien who was denied admission to a state university based on the law brought a suit against the state, arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause. Is the law likely to be upheld?

A. No, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely not substantially related to a legitimate government interest. B. No, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely not the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. C. Yes, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely rationally related to a legitimate government interest. D. Yes, because the exclusion of non-citizens is likely substantially related to an important government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4247 A husband and his business partner owned a large technology company together. After a personally tumultuous but professionally successful decade working together, the husband discovered that the business partner had been fraudulently transferring company funds to the business partner's personal account for years. Before he confronted his business partner about this, he called his own wife to tell her what he had learned. His wife reminded him that the company had a $2 million life insurance policy on the business partner. The couple formed a plan to murder the business partner for the insurance proceeds when he was alone in the office building. On the day that they planned to carry out the murder, the husband told the business partner that he had to leave early and asked the business partner to stay late to finish up a presentation. He knew that by doing so, the business partner would be alone at the office. Later that night, the wife went in and shot the business partner. She then panicked and fled the country. The husband was later charged with the murder and conspiracy to commit the murder, but the wife was never apprehended. The jurisdiction recognizes the majority rule regarding conspirator liability. Is the husband likely to be found guilty of conspiracy and murder?

A. No, because the husband and wife were married. B. No, because the wife was never convicted of the murder. C. Yes, because the husband persuaded the business partner to stay late at the office. D. Yes, because no overt act was required in furtherance of the crime. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3251 A man bought a mile of beachfront property with the intent to build several high-rise condominium buildings and sell them for a substantial profit. After the man had secured the requisite permits to build the condominiums and made substantial progress towards the construction of the condominiums, the state legislature enacted a law prohibiting all construction on a stretch of beach that included the man's property. The legislation was intended to protect sea turtles, seabirds, and beach mice that inhabit the protected area. The man discussed his options with several local real estate agents, all of whom explained to him that the prohibition on development of his land made the land basically worthless. The man sued the state, claiming that the law resulted in a taking of the man's land, and sought just compensation from the state. Is the man entitled to compensation for his property?

A. No, because the law constitutes a regulation, rather than a taking, and thus requires no compensation. B. No, because protecting wildlife habitats from destruction is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose. C. Yes, because the law caused a permanent total loss of the economic value of the man's property. D. Yes, because the law amounts to a taking by exaction. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3249 A tomato farmer in a small state developed a special variety of tomatoes. In addition to being delicious and standing up well during transport, these tomatoes were higher in vitamins and nutrients than other tomatoes. Due to the successful sale of these tomatoes, other farmers outside of the state began growing similar tomatoes and selling them at a lower price. The out-of-state farmers have contracts to sell their tomatoes to discount markets in the state. The out-of-state tomatoes are similar in taste and durability to the special variety, but lack the heightened nutritional value. Nevertheless, because of their lower cost, they are cutting into the sales of the special variety. Accordingly, the state legislature enacted a law "to ensure the health and vitality of its citizens by protecting them from imitation, nutritionally-deficient fruits and vegetables, and to preserve the integrity and prosperity of the state's local produce industry." Among other things, the law forbids the future sale of any tomatoes within the state that fail to meet the nutritional value of the state's own special varietal of tomatoes, no other tomato meets this requirement. Is the state's law constitutional?

A. No, because the law discriminates against out-of-state commerce. B. No, because the law interferes with potential contracts between the tomato farmers and the discount markets. C. Yes, because the law furthers the legitimate state interest of preserving the health of its citizens and its farm industry. D. Yes, because the law does not regulate conduct that occurs beyond its borders. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5862 A landowner owned a large number of acres of land in a rural district fifty miles outside of a major metropolitan area and airport. Due to a field of vision problem pilots experienced in the vicinity of the landowner's property, the county determined it was necessary to erect a 75-foot tall aviation light signal on the landowner's property. Pursuant to its authority under a state law regarding air travel, the county installed the aviation light on a corner of the landowner's property that he did not use. The landowner requested compensation for the installation but the county refused. The landowner subsequently brought suit against the county. Is the landowner constitutionally entitled to just compensation?

A. No, because the light signal was installed on an unused portion of the landowner's property. B. No, because the county's action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. C. Yes, because the county installed a permanent structure on the landowner's property. D. Yes, because the county's action adversely affected the landowner's property interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7564 From a distance, an individual witnessed an altercation between a friend, who was a fan of a local sports team ("local fan"), and a stranger who was a supporter of a rival team ("rival fan"). The local fan, upset with his team's loss to the rival team that day, attempted to punch the rival fan and missed. The rival fan responded by landing a punch to the local fan's stomach. The two continued to engage in fisticuffs without inflicting serious injury on one another until the rival fan displayed what the individual reasonably, but wrongly, thought was a knife followed by a threat to kill the local fan. The individual withdrew a gun and intentionally shot and killed the rival fan. The rival fan had actually displayed a pen, not a knife, and had offered to stop the altercation, rather than threatening to kill the local fan. The individual has been charged with the murder of the rival fan. Can the individual successfully defend against his conviction for murder?

A. No, because the local fan was the initial agressor. B. No, because the rival fan displayed only a pen and offered to withdraw from the altercation. C. Yes, because the local fan was a friend of the individual. D. Yes, because the individual reasonably thought that the rival fan threatened the local fan with deadly force. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5030 A patient brought a suit against a physician in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, alleging medical malpractice based on state law. After the patient presented his case to the jury, the physician moved for judgment as a matter of law. In deciding the motion, the court reviewed all of the evidence presented by the patient in the light most favorable to the patient. The court considered the patient's only two witnesses to not be credible and gave no weight to their testimony. As a result, the court determined that the patient did not present sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably return a verdict in the plaintiff's favor. Accordingly, the court granted the physician's motion for judgment as a matter of law. Was the court's ruling proper?

A. No, because the motion cannot be made until both parties have been fully heard. B. No, because the court considered the credibility of the patient's witnesses and the weight of the evidence. C. Yes, because the court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the patient. D. Yes, because the court determined that patient's witnesses were not credible. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7390 A congressional committee concluded that the national rate of interstate sex trafficking has been skyrocketing due to law enforcement's inability to properly monitor and shut down online auctions of kidnap victims. In an effort to combat sex trafficking, Congress passed a statute making it a capital offense to transport any kidnap victim across state lines with financial motivations. Which of the following best supports congressional authority to pass this statute?

A. The Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8 B. The federal police power C. The Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5 D. The Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6671 A teenager walking down the sidewalk noticed that a car had been left unlocked with the engine running. The car's owner, a security guard, had parked the car beside the curb in front of his house in order to run in and get a pistol, which he was licensed to carry. As the owner came out his front door with the pistol, the teenager was opening the driver's door. The owner warned the teenager not to enter the car or he would shoot the teenager. The teenager ignored the warning. The owner shot and seriously injured the teenager. The owner has been charged with aggravated battery, which includes battery committed with a deadly weapon. Can the owner successfully assert defense of property as a justification for the shooting?

A. No, because the owner used deadly force. B. No, because the owner was negligent in leaving the car running. C. Yes, because the owner reasonably believed that the teenager was about to steal his car. D. Yes, because the owner warned the teenager before using force against the teenager. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5022 The plaintiff, a resident of State A, was visiting the home of the defendant, who resides in State B. As the plaintiff was leaving the house, she fell through a rotted plank in the front steps and broke her ankle. The plaintiff underwent several surgeries and extensive rehabilitation. She brought suit in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently maintained her premises and asking for relief in the amount of $150,000. The defendant filed a counterclaim alleging that the plaintiff owes her $5,000 as payment for web design work that the defendant completed for the plaintiff. If the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction, will the plaintiff succeed?

A. No, because the parties maintain complete diversity. B. No, because the federal district court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over counterclaims. C. Yes, because the defendant's counterclaim does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. D. Yes, because the federal district court may only exercise supplemental jurisdiction when the action includes compulsory counterclaims ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4994 The plaintiff properly filed an action in federal district court for breach of a partnership agreement. At the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence to the jury by both parties, the defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, contending that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish the existence of a partnership. The judge denied this motion. After the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law 25 days after the entry of the judgment. Should the court grant the plaintiff's motion?

A. No, because the plaintiff did not file a motion for judgment as a matter of law prior to the submission of the case to the jury. B. No, because the motion was not filed within 10 days of the entry of the judgment. C. Yes, because the defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence to the jury by both parties. D. Yes, because the court rejected the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the conclusion of the presentation of the evidence. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3272 A public university adopted the following policy: In order to be recognized as a student organization with rights to school facilities and funds, an organization must permit any student to be a member regardless of the student's status or beliefs. One student organization was a local chapter of a national organization that restricted membership in local chapters to members of a particular religious sect and denied membership to homosexual individuals. May the university apply its policy to the student religious group?

A. No, because the policy violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. B. No, because the policy violates the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause. C. Yes, because a public university is free to allocate its funds among student groups in any rational manner it sees fit. D. Yes, because a public university is a limited public forum and the policy is viewpoint neutral. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5068 As part of the purchase price of a business, the buyer gave the seller several nonnegotiable promissory notes, each with a different amount and due date. When the buyer defaulted on the first note, the seller brought an action in state court to enforce the note. Although the buyer received proper and timely notice of the action, the buyer did not defend against it, even though the buyer was aware that the seller had fraudulently deceived the buyer as to the sales volume of the business. The state court in State L granted the seller a default judgment. Subsequently, the buyer defaulted on the second note. The seller brought an action to enforce this note in a federal court located in State L. The buyer defended against this action on the basis of the seller's fraud, which induced the buyer to purchase the business. The seller contends that the buyer is precluded from asserting this defense. Should the court rule that the buyer is collaterally estopped from asserting the seller's fraud as a defense to this action?

A. No, because the prior judgment was a default judgment. B. No, because each note constitutes a separate claim. C. Yes, because the buyer failed to raise this defense in the prior action. D. Yes, because all notes were given by the buyer for the purchase of the business. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6701 An employee was accused of stealing money from her employer. The matter was sent to a grand jury. During the grand-jury proceedings, the prosecutor presented evidence on behalf of the State. However, the prosecutor failed to disclose that the employee would have lost her job had she not participated in the embezzlement scheme. The grand jury returned an indictment against the employee. The employee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment due to the prosecutor's failure to disclose the fact that the employee was acting under duress. Should the grand-jury indictment be dismissed?

A. No, because the prosecutor does not have a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. B. No, because the defense of duress cannot be presented to a grand jury. C. Yes, because the prosecutor has a legal obligation to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. D. Yes, because the prosecutor's role is to advise the grand jury with respect to the law. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4932 A plaintiff brought an action for negligence in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction to recover for injuries he allegedly sustained in an automobile accident with the defendant. In preparation for trial, the defendant's attorney hired a private investigator to interview a woman who witnessed the accident. The private investigator recorded the woman's statements on his tablet computer. Two days after recording the interview, the woman died. The recording is the only statement the woman ever gave with regard to the accident. Is the plaintiff likely entitled to a copy of the recording in discovery?

A. No, because the recording constitutes protected work product of the defendant's attorney. B. No, because the witness's statement was not made under oath. C. Yes, because the information in the recording is not available by other means. D. Yes, because relevant information that is not protected by the attorney-client privilege is discoverable. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3252 A group of parents of public school students proposed a new school rule that would require teachers to begin each school day by standing for a minute of silent prayer before lessons began. The rule would not require the teachers or students to pray during the minute of silent prayer, but would require teachers to say, "Please stand for a minute of silent prayer." Students who did not wish to participate could remain seated. Would the school rule be constitutional?

A. No, because the rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. B. No, because the rule is not rationally related to any neutral law of general applicability. C. Yes, because none of the students would be required to participate. D. Yes, because parents of the students, and not the school board, wish to implement the rule ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3270 A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors. Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city. Is the court likely to strike down the law?

A. No, because the state's interest in the health of minors is compelling and dovetails with the federal purpose of preventing minors from smoking. B. No, because the law directly advances the state's compelling interest. C. Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose. D. You Selected: Yes, because the law prohibits truthful speech. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7371 Due to rising public concerns about the treatment of chickens in the egg industry, there has been a recent spike in the number of households raising chickens on their private property to collect eggs. Because it was often easy for a family to raise enough chickens to produce more eggs than the family could use, many households sell their surplus eggs at local markets and to private buyers. Lobbyists for the egg industry recently presented Congress with a study that revealed that, because so many buyers were purchasing eggs from local private sellers, eggs from backyard chickens were starting to substantially affect the national market. As a result, rates of salmonella contamination in eggs used by private consumers are rising and the big egg factories are losing business. In response to this study, Congress seeks to pass a statute that would prevent family households from raising more than two hens per household without a license. Will this statute be constitutional?

A. No, because the statute does not consider the number of members of a household to determine how many hens would produce a surplus. B. No, because the statute will regulate the purely private conduct of raising hens, not the sale of eggs. C. Yes, because Congress can restrict private conduct that poses a public health risk or endangers the public welfare. D. Yes, because the trend of raising backyard chickens, in the aggregate, has a substantial effect on the national egg market. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 3271 Relying on its Commerce Clause power, Congress enacted a statute that criminalized the knowing possession of sexually explicit visual displays of a minor. Congress adduced facts that possession of such displays substantially affected interstate commerce. Simulated displays, or those that use youthful looking adults or computer graphic techniques instead of minors, are not prohibited. Amalgamate displays, or those that contain actual minors but with the sexually explicit aspect created by using youthful looking adults or computer graphic techniques, are prohibited. The definition of the crime is neither vague nor overbroad. A defendant who possessed amalgamated displays in his home and did not sell or otherwise transfer them was convicted under this statute. He has challenged his conviction, contending that the statute is unconstitutional. Should an appellate court uphold his conviction?

A. No, because the statute exceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause by regulating the possession of material that has not entered into the stream of commerce. B. No, because the statute violates the defendant's privacy interest which is protected by the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. C. Yes, because the statute does not violate the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. D. Yes, because there is no constitutional right to possess pornography. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7229 A state statute was recently enacted prohibiting any grocery store or market within one mile of a school from displaying any posters advertising items for sale. The goal of the statute was to discourage minors from illegally purchasing alcohol or soliciting others to purchase alcohol for them after seeing posters advertising that it was for sale. Before the regulation, many affected stores that did not sell alcohol also advertised in this manner, and the stores that did sell alcohol often advertised non-alcoholic items for sale with posters as well. Is the statute constitutional?

A. No, because the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the government's goal. B. No, because the statute was not the least restrictive available means to achieve the government's goal. C. Yes, because restrictions on commercial speech are not subject to protection by the First Amendment. D. Yes, because the government's interest is rationally related to the restriction. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4184 In response to several violent and fatal confrontations, Congress enacted a law prohibiting all public speeches related to gun control inside government offices. Shortly thereafter, a protestor was arrested after displaying a large placard in a government office that said "GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM, GOVERNMENT IS." At trial, the protestor challenged the law as a violation of his free speech rights. The government replied by stating that the law served the legitimate government interest of preventing violence in government offices. Is the protestor likely to prevail in his challenge?

A. No, because the statute was viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. B. No, because First Amendment restrictions apply only to public forums. C. Yes, because the statute regulated speech that was not content-neutral and was not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government purpose. D. Yes, because government offices are public forums. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4332 A local convenience store was robbed and the clerk on duty was shot. The next day, the police arrested a suspect and brought her into the police station for questioning. An officer read the suspect her Miranda rights, which she stated she understood. For an hour, a police officer questioned the suspect about her involvement in the robbery. The suspect did not respond to the questions, remaining silent. Learning that the clerk had died, the officer informed the suspect of the clerk's death, and told her that she should start talking if she wanted to get the best possible plea deal. She confessed to the robbery and shooting. At trial, the suspect sought to suppress her confession. Is the confession likely to be suppressed for violation of Miranda rights?

A. No, because the suspect waived her Miranda rights by making the statement. B. No, because the suspect's statement was not made in response to a question from police. C. Yes, because the suspect did not receive fresh Miranda warnings before she was told of the clerk's death. D. Yes, because the suspect invoked her Miranda rights by remaining silent in the face of police questioning for over an hour. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3248 A federal statute imposes a $500 tax on all new automobiles sold in the United States. It requires that all proceeds of the tax will be allocated to a special fund, which will be distributed to school boards in every state for the purchase of new science textbooks. Is the statute constitutional?

A. No, because the tax is not rationally related to the use of the proceeds. B. No, because the regulation of school agendas is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. C. Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of Congress's power to tax and spend. D. Yes, because providing schoolchildren with textbooks is a compelling government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4995 The jury in a federal class action lawsuit rendered a verdict that awarded the plaintiffs substantial damages resulting from exposure to toxic chemicals released by the defendant corporation. The verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence and the damages awarded were not excessive. Shortly after the entry of the judgment, the defendant timely filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. While this evidence existed at the time of the trial, the defendant was excusably ignorant of it until after the trial. Moreover, this evidence refuted evidence presented by the plaintiffs at trial that successfully undermined the corporation's defense. Should the court grant the corporation's motion for a new trial?

A. No, because the verdict was not against the clear weight of the evidence. B. No, because the damages were not excessive. C. Yes, because of the newly discovered evidence. D. Yes, because the trier of fact was a jury rather than a judge. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5118 A grocery store clerk found a ring while helping a customer with his groceries. Both the customer and the store owner have asserted a claim with regard to the ring, which has been valued at $67,000. The clerk, who has also claimed ownership of the ring, filed an interpleader action under Rule 22 in federal district court. The store owner and customer are citizens of the same state, and the clerk is a citizen of a neighboring state. The store owner has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Should the court grant the store owner's motion?

A. No, because there is complete diversity between the clerk and the other two claimants. B. No, because the clerk has asserted a claim to the ring. C. Yes, because the customer and the store owner are citizens of the same state. D. Yes, because the value of the ring does not exceed $75,000. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 424 A police officer spotted a disheveled middle-aged male sitting on a bench in a public park. The officer did not recognize the man, but was aware that the park was frequently used as a site for illegal drug transactions. The officer approached the man who remained seated on the bench. The officer asked the man for his name. When the man refused, the officer arrested him. Under state law, it is a misdemeanor for an individual to intentionally refuse to give his name to a police officer who, having lawfully detained the person, has requested it. Although a search of the man revealed that he did not possess any drugs, he was charged with violating the law and fined. The man challenged his conviction as a violation of both the federal and state constitutions. The highest court in the state upheld the conviction as valid under both. The man sought review of his conviction in federal court on the grounds that it violated his federal constitutional rights. Should the federal court rule in favor of the man?

A. No, because there was adequate and independent state grounds for upholding the conviction. B. No, because the state identification requirement did not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. C. Yes, because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain the man. D. Yes, because the man did not possess any illegal drugs. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7169 Global warming lobbyists were putting pressure on Congress to reduce the effects of global warming caused by personal vehicles. In response to these concerns, Congress passed legislation conditioning federal subsidies to oil producers on using cleaner extraction techniques for producing fuel, ultimately leading to lower emissions of carbon dioxide from personal vehicles. Which of the following constitutional provisions most strongly supports the enactment of this legislation?

A. The Necessary and Proper Clause under Article I, Section 8 B. The Police Power under Article I, Section 8 C. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment D. The Taxing and Spending Power under Article I, Section 8 ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 4961 A car driven by a vacationer and a tractor-trailer driven by truck driver collided with each other. The vacationer filed an action based on negligence against the truck driver in federal district court in the state in which he resided. The court had subject-matter jurisdiction over this action but not personal jurisdiction over the truck driver, who did not reside in the forum state but rather in the state in which the accident had occurred. The truck driver timely filed a motion to dismiss the action due to lack of personal jurisdiction and proper venue. May the court transfer the action to the federal district court for the district in which the truck driver resides if the court determines that such transfer is in the interest of justice?

A. No, because venue is improper, the court must dismiss the action. B. No, because the forum court lacks personal jurisdiction over the truck driver. C. Yes, because transfer is permitted if the court has determined that the transfer is in the interest of justice. D. Yes, even though venue is proper in the forum court. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5924 A woman and a man were living together in a house owned by the man when they broke up. The man told the woman to leave and changed all the locks in his house. The woman, wanting to take the man's television to punish him, asked her friend to help her, telling her friend that the woman owned the television. One night, the friend helped the woman pick the lock on a back door while the boyfriend was away. Once inside, the woman pointed out the television. The friend carried the television out to the woman's car. She drove to her new apartment where her friend brought the television inside. When the man discovered the television was gone, he broke into the woman's new apartment one night, and retrieved the television. The jurisdiction continues to follow the common law with regard to the crime of burglary. Given these facts, which, if any, of these individuals is guilty of burglary?

A. None of them. B. The friend and the woman. C. Only the woman. D. Only the man. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7057 A municipality enacted an ordinance detailing a mandatory movie-ratings system for all theaters in the municipality. The ordinance also prohibited minors from showings of movies with certain ratings indicating obscene imagery or language. A movie theater located in the municipality did not want to adhere to the ordinance's rating system, and filed a case in state court challenging its constitutionality based upon the freedoms of speech provided in the state and federal constitutions. The state court found that the ordinance violated both the state constitution and the federal Constitution, and ruled in favor of the movie theater. The municipality appealed to the state supreme court. The state supreme court sustained the ruling of the lower court in part, declining to decide the issue under the federal Constitution because the state constitution, which granted greater protection than the federal Constitution to obscene speech, was clearly violated by the ordinance. The municipality subsequently filed a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. What should the U.S. Supreme Court do in response to the writ of certiorari?

A. Remand the case to the state supreme court B. Dismiss the writ of certiorari C. Reverse the state supreme court's decision D. Affirm the state supreme court's decision ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7326 A wealthy bicycle aficionado loaned one of his bicycles to a cyclist for use in a race. After the race, the cyclist failed to return the bicycle despite repeated requests by the aficionado. Several months later, while walking through the park, the aficionado happened upon the cyclist riding another bicycle that was the same make, model, and color as the aficionado's bicycle. Believing it to be his bicycle, the aficionado, standing only inches away from the bicycle, verbally threatened to grab the bicycle out from under the cyclist if he did not hand it over immediately. The cyclist, fearful of such an attack, surrendered the bicycle to the aficionado. Of the following, what is likely the most serious offense of which the aficionado could be properly convicted?

A. Robbery B. Larceny C. Assault D. No crime ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7329 A man broke into and entered a home at night with the intent of bludgeoning the homeowner to death with a baseball bat. Upon seeing the man raise the baseball bat to strike him, the homeowner pleaded for his life. The man decided not to strike or kill the homeowner and instead took personal property worth several thousand dollars from the home. Of the following, which are the most serious crimes for which the man can be convicted?

A. Robbery and larceny only B. Burglary and larceny only C. Burglary and robbery only D. Burglary, robbery, and larceny ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3069 A criminal told his girlfriend that he was planning to rob a local liquor store and would give her a third of the proceeds from the robbery if she agreed to drive the getaway car. The girlfriend agreed and following the robbery, drove the criminal away from the scene of the crime. Subsequently, the police arrested the criminal for the robbery and he made a constitutionally valid confession, implicating the girlfriend. With which of the following crimes may the girlfriend properly be charged?

A. Robbery only. B. Conspiracy only. C. Both robbery and conspiracy. D. Neither robbery nor conspiracy. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 6732 A patient from State A traveled to State B for a minor medical procedure with a well-known doctor from State C. After the procedure was complete, the doctor failed to properly stitch the area where he had made an incision. As a result, the patient contracted a major infection. The patient filed a diversity action for medical malpractice against the doctor in federal district court in State C, alleging $300,000 in damages. During discovery, the doctor filed a motion to transfer venue to State B. After reviewing the doctor's motion, the court determined that State B was a more appropriate venue and transferred the case. What choice-of-law rules should the court in State B apply?

A. State A B. You Selected: State B C. State C D. Either State B or State C ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7441 A 60-year-old driver received a traffic citation for his failure to use the headlights on his automobile after dark. He pled not guilty and requested a trial, at which he was found guilty. He requested that, in lieu of paying a fine, he be required to attend the driving school course that was offered by the municipal court for certain traffic offenses. The court program offering driving school in lieu of fine was rationally limited to drivers between the ages of 15 and 18 years old because they were the most likely to modify their driving habits and thereby benefit from the school. Based on this reasoning, the judge denied the driver's request solely because he did not qualify for driving school due to his age. The driver has challenged the judicial refusal to admit him into driving school as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Of the following reasons, which best supports the rejection of the driver's constitutional challenge?

A. The age limitation on the driving school option is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest of encouraging safe driving habits. B. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to age discrimination. C. The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to judicial action. D. The Equal Protection Clause only applies to state action. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6027 A plaintiff filed suit against a defendant in federal district court. The court had diversity jurisdiction over the action, which was based on state law, and personal jurisdiction over the parties. On February 14, the defendant, alleging that the plaintiff had failed to prosecute the matter, moved to dismiss the entire complaint and the trial judge granted the motion. The judgment was entered on February 25. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the district clerk on April 13. Which of the following is most accurate regarding the plaintiff's appeal?

A. The appeal is precluded by the final judgment rule. B. The appeal may be permitted according to the discretion of the court of appeals. C. The appeal is precluded because the claim was based on state law. D. The appeal was not timely filed. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6029 A plaintiff lost a non-jury trial in federal district court in a state-law breach of contract action heard under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff has appealed the judgment to the appropriate court of appeals. Which of the following is most accurate concerning the appellate court's review of the case?

A. The appellate court can only set aside the trial judge's findings of fact if they are clearly erroneous. B. The appellate court reviews the factual record de novo to determine whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. C. The appellate court cannot set aside the trial judge's findings of fact. D. The appellate court must reach its own independent conclusions on factual issues. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6028 A plaintiff properly filed a negligence action in federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction. Although either party could have filed a demand for a jury trial, neither party did. The case was heard before a judge. The defendant admitted liability, but contested the amount of damages sought by the plaintiff. The judge considered both documentary as well as testimonial evidence before detailing her findings and making the award. The defendant has timely appealed this award. What is the appropriate standard of review for the appellate court to apply to the amount of damages awarded by the trial judge?

A. The award should not be set aside unless it is clearly erroneous. B. The award should be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. C. The preponderance of the evidence standard applies because this is a civil case. D. The appellate court should consider the evidence de novo because this is a bench trial. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4934 A plaintiff filed suit against a defendant in a federal district court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, alleging state law fraud. In discovery, the plaintiff served 32 interrogatories on the defendant's bank for information regarding the defendant's banking transactions related to the subject matter of the lawsuit. How can the bank respond to the interrogatories?

A. The bank may refuse to answer interrogatories 26 through 32 because they exceed the numerical limitation on interrogatories. B. The bank may refuse to answer all of the interrogatories because the plaintiff may only serve 25 interrogatories. C. The bank must move for a protective order to avoid answering the plaintiff's interrogatories. D. The bank has no obligation to answer any of the interrogatories that have been served by the plaintiff. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 4967 A celebrity with diminished capacity and a filmmaker entered into a written contract for the filmmaker to create a documentary of the celebrity's life. The contract obligated the celebrity to pay $100,000 if the celebrity was satisfied with the film. The filmmaker created the film, but after previewing the film, the celebrity refused to pay. The filmmaker filed an action for breach of contract in federal district court. Although the filmmaker's complaint was sufficient with regard to jurisdiction, it did not allege with specificity that (a) the celebrity had the capacity to contract, (b) the condition precedent to the celebrity's performance under the contract had been satisfied, and (c) there was not a mutual mistake as to the currency in which payment was to be made. The complaint also stated that (d) the filmmaker was entitled to special damages. The celebrity filed a motion for a more definite statement regarding each of these items. With respect to which of these items is a court most likely to require greater specificity from the filmmaker?

A. The celebrity's capacity to enter into the contract. B. The satisfaction of the condition precedent to the celebrity's performance. C. The absence of mistake as to the currency in which payment was to be made. D. The special damages sought by the filmmaker. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5153 A class action based on a state consumer protection act was removed from state court to federal court. Each of the 200 plaintiffs seeks $10,000 in damages. Each of the representative plaintiffs is a citizen of the same state as at least one of the defendants, but there are members of the class who are citizens of states of which no defendant is a citizen. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the action to state court due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. For which of the following reasons should the district court grant this motion?

A. The class is not sufficiently numerous. B. The diversity-of-citizenship requirement is not met. C. No one plaintiff has damages in excess of $75,000. D. The amount-in-controversy requirement is not met. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5140 The owner of a professional football team in State A rarely left the state. On one occasion, she visited State B to negotiate and sign a licensing contract with a sports jersey manufacturing company. This visit was her sole contact with State B. The contract gave the sports jersey manufacturing company exclusive rights for five years to use the team's copyrighted logo on reproduction sports jerseys in exchange for an annual licensing fee. After one year under this contract, the owner signed an agreement with a limited partnership in State A giving it the rights to use the team's copyrighted logo on jerseys. The manufacturing company then filed suit against the owner in federal district court in State B under diversity jurisdiction, asserting a breach of contract under state law. Which of the following is the manufacturing company's best argument that the federal district court in State B may exercise personal jurisdiction over the owner?

A. The court has general jurisdiction because the copyrighted logo was used in the stream of commerce. B. The court has general jurisdiction because the owner had minimum contacts with State B. C. The court has specific jurisdiction because the claim against the owner arose out of her contacts with State B. D. The court has specific jurisdiction because the claim arose out of federal copyright law. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 7137 A state enacted an intestacy statute that provided full inheritance rights for marital children from both parents. Under the statute, nonmarital children were permitted to inherit only through their mothers. The underlying purposes of the statute were to promote family relations and establish an accurate and efficient method of disposing property at death. The father of a nonmarital child recently died intestate. The nonmarital child brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the statute. Which of the following most accurately states the appropriate standard of review for the court?

A. The court must determine whether the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving an important government interest. B. The court must determine whether the statute is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. C. The court must determine whether the statute is substantially related to an important government interest. D. The court must determine whether the statute is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4990 After the plaintiff properly filed a breach of contract action in federal district court, the defendant timely filed a demand for a jury trial. The defendant then timely filed a summary judgment motion. The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. In ruling on the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court should apply which of the following standards?

A. The court must grant the motion if the jury, based on a preponderance of the evidence, would find that the defendant is entitled to judgment. B. The court may grant the motion if the jury, based on a preponderance of the evidence, would find that the defendant is entitled to judgment. C. The court must grant the motion if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. D. The court may grant the motion if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4938 In federal district court, a city employee sued the city and its mayor under a federal statute for violation of the employee's constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The employee's complaint sought both permanent injunctive relief and damages. The complaint contained a demand for a jury trial on all claims. There are common issues of fact regarding both types of remedies sought. The damages claim is more complex and more important to the employee. The defendants have demanded that the claim for permanent injunctive relief be tried first. Which claim should be tried first?

A. The damages claim, because of the Seventh Amendment. B. The damages claim, because this claim is more important to the employee. C. The claim for injunctive relief, because, as it is less complex, it can be disposed of more quickly. D. The claim for injunctive relief, because the defendant has demanded that this claim be tried first. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6026 A group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been injured by a corporate defendant's negligent design of its product sought certification as a class in federal district court for a class-action lawsuit against the corporate defendant. The federal district court entered an order certifying the class on August 1. The corporate defendant seeks to appeal the certification of the class. Which of the following is most accurate regarding an appeal by the corporate defendant?

A. The defendant is precluded from filing an appeal of the order because of the final judgment rule. B. The defendant is precluded from filing an appeal of the order because the order is interlocutory. C. If the defendant timely files a petition for permission to appeal, the court of appeals may hear the appeal in its discretion. D. The defendant may appeal the order as of right. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4229 The police obtained a warrant to arrest the defendant for the murder of his girlfriend. When they arrived at the defendant's house to serve the warrant, the defendant's neighbor informed the police that the defendant had left the previous day to visit his sister. The police drove to the sister's home. The defendant answered the front door, and the police promptly arrested him and placed him in the car. The police then asked the defendant's sister for permission to search the house, but she refused. Believing that the sister would likely dispose of any evidence, the police searched the guest room, where the defendant had been staying, without a warrant. During the search, the police found a knife that was later determined to be the murder weapon. The defendant was subsequently charged with murder, but was acquitted after he successfully pled self-defense. The girlfriend's parents later sued the defendant for wrongful death, and during those proceedings, the defendant moved to suppress evidence of the knife found during the search. What is the plaintiff's best argument that the evidence should be admitted?

A. The defendant was an overnight guest in his sister's home. B. The current proceeding is a wrongful death action. C. The search was performed incident to a lawful arrest. D. There were exigent circumstances justifying the search. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5122 A plaintiff, a citizen of State X, sued a defendant, a citizen of State Y, for negligence in federal district court in State X based on diversity jurisdiction. The case involved a car accident that occurred in State Y. The defendant timely filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), asserting that the court had lacked personal jurisdiction over her because she had no contacts with State X. The court set a hearing on the motion and the defendant traveled to State X and appeared before the court to argue the motion. Which of the following statements is accurate regarding the defendant's actions?

A. The defendant's motion under Rule 12(b) and voluntary appearance in court in State X automatically subject her to the court's personal jurisdiction. B. The defendant's Rule 12(b) motion and voluntary appearance in court in State X are factors to be considered in determining whether she is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. C. Only the defendant's voluntary appearance in court and not her Rule 12(b) motion can be considered as a factor in determining whether she is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. D. Neither the defendant's Rule 12(b) motion nor her voluntary appearance in court subject her to the court's personal jurisdiction. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6588 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides that specific provisions of the Act "supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan." Among those specific provisions is one that requires an employer with a group health plan to provide to each employee who would lose coverage as the result of termination of employment the opportunity to elect continuation coverage under the plan for a period of at least 60 days. Prior to the enactment of the continuation coverage election requirement, a state statute imposed a similar requirement on employers within the state with a group health plan. What is the effect of the federal provision on the state statute?

A. The federal provision preempts the state statute. B. The state statute continues to be effective because it imposes the same requirements as the federal provision. C. The state statute continues to be effective because it only applies to employers within the state. D. The state statute continues to be effective because it was enacted before the federal provision. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer.

Question 7014 An FBI agent was accused of killing a witness in a federal case. A U.S. Marshal who had been guarding the witness had actually killed the witness after being paid by the defense attorney to do so. The agent knew this, but because the U.S. Marshal threatened to harm the agent's family, he told no one. The agent was indicted for murder, and his lawyer counseled him about the legal elements of the crime. At the arraignment, the judge explained the nature of the charge and the applicable statutory sentences. The judge also explained that although the normal maximum penalty for the charge was capital punishment, based on the plea bargain offered by the prosecution, the prosecutor would recommend no more than life without parole if the agent pled guilty. Finally, the judge explained that by pleading guilty, the agent would waive his right to a jury trial. Fearing for the safety of his family, the agent pled guilty to the murder charge. Determining that there was a factual basis for the plea, the judge accepted the agent's plea. One month after the arraignment, the U.S. Marshal was arrested and charged with the murder of another witness. The agent, believing his family would now be safe if he disclosed the truth, subsequently filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea. What is the strongest argument in favor of setting aside the guilty plea?

A. The judge did not determine whether the plea resulted from force or improper threats. B. The judge did not investigate whether there was any evidence that could prove the agent's innocence. C. The judge did not personally explain each element of the crime to the agent on the record. D. The prosecutor's plea bargain unconstitutionally coerced the agent into entering a guilty plea by threatening him with capital punishment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 7050 A recently enacted state statute prohibits drivers from using privately owned cars to pick up passengers at the airport for a fare, only cars-for-hire in a regulated industry, such as taxicabs, are permitted to do so. These cars-for-hire are required to obtain permits to pick up passengers and they must wait in a designated taxicab line. The stated purpose of the statute is to reduce the recent upswing of car congestion at the arrival deck of the airport, and to reduce the parking of the privately owned cars-for-hire on the arrival deck while drivers wait for their passengers to arrive. A driver who drives a privately owned car-for-hire challenges the constitutionality of this statute, claiming it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Which of the following tests is the most appropriate test to apply in determining the constitutionality of the statute?

A. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. B. The law must be substantially related to important government interest. C. The law must be the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. D. The law must be narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4228 A wife was having an affair with her neighbor. The wife and her husband had a prenuptial agreement that prevented the wife from receiving any of the husband's sizable fortune in the event of a divorce. The wife and her neighbor formed a plan to murder the husband and run away together with the wife's inheritance. The neighbor shot the husband one evening, killing him instantly, then drove to a town 100 miles away and checked into a motel. Later that night, the police showed up at the motel with a valid warrant for the neighbor's arrest. After the neighbor was arrested and placed in a police car, the police asked the motel clerk for permission to search the room, and the clerk granted the request. The police found the gun hidden in the tank of the toilet. The wife and the neighbor were each charged with first-degree murder and tried separately. At her trial, the wife sought to suppress any evidence of the gun, arguing that it was seized illegally. What is the prosecution's strongest response to this argument?

A. The motel clerk gave the police permission to search the room. B. The wife was not staying in the motel room where the gun was found. C. The gun was found in a search incident to a lawful arrest. D. The neighbor did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the motel room. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 6025 After a court-approved discovery period in a breach-of-contract case, the defendant timely filed a motion for summary judgment. After reviewing the motion and the plaintiff's response, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, issuing an order denying summary judgment. The defendant wants to appeal the court's order. Which of the following statements is most accurate?

A. The order is not subject to appeal before final judgment on the merits. B. The order is not subject to appeal without the consent of the plaintiff. C. The order is immediately appealable, as it constitutes a final disposition. C. The order is immediately appealable with the consent of the court of appeals. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4359 A city adopted an ordinance that prohibited any apartment building from housing more than one convicted felon on the premises. A convicted felon owned an apartment building in the city. He lived in one of the apartments in the building with his brother, who was also a convicted felon. The building owner received a citation from the city for violating the ordinance, and was ordered to pay a fine and bring the building into compliance. The building owner sued the city, arguing that the ordinance violated his constitutional rights. What is the best argument for striking down the ordinance?

A. The ordinance violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. B. The ordinance violates the Equal Protection Clause. C. The ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment. D. The ordinance violates the Due Process Clause. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

A man was asleep at table in a food court at a mall. While he slept, his hand rested on his wallet. A passerby, who was in the mall to shop, seized the opportunity to steal the man's wallet, slightly lifted the man's hand, and took the wallet. The man, waking up as the passerby turned to leave, noticed that the passerby had the wallet. The passerby ran and the man gave chase. The passerby threw the wallet down in front of an industrial floor cleaning machine that was being used to clean the floor. The machine destroyed the wallet. The passerby was arrested and charged with robbery. Of the following, which would constitute the passerby's best defense?

A. The passerby did not keep the wallet permanently. B. The passerby did not act with premeditation. C. The passerby did not harm the man. D. The passerby did not use force or intimidation to gain possession of the wallet. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5931 The criminal code of a state defines kidnapping as follows: "Kidnapping is the unlawful confinement of a person against that person's will, coupled with either the movement or the hiding of that person." At a defendant's trial for kidnapping his ex-girlfriend, the defendant, testifying in his own defense, contended that his ex-girlfriend had consented to go on a cross-country road trip with him and that she only got upset later in the trip when they had had an argument on the road. How should the trial judge instruct the jury regarding the burden of proof on the issue of the ex-girlfriend's consent to travel with the defendant?

A. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ex-girlfriend was moved against her will. B. The prosecution must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the ex-girlfriend did not consent. C. The defendant must prove the ex-girlfriend's consent by clear and convincing evidence. D. The defendant must prove the ex-girlfriend's consent by a preponderance of the evidence. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3215 A public school teacher's employment was terminated after she announced her pregnancy. During a post-termination hearing, the school relied on a state statute allowing for the "discharge of any employee based on physical limitations preventing full performance of his or her job duties." The teacher was only two months pregnant at the time of her announcement, and there was no indication that she would have a difficult pregnancy. The teacher sued in state court on the basis that she had no physical limitation preventing her from performing her job and that the statute was in conflict with federal law. In the court's opinion, which reinstated the teacher, the court analyzed the state statute in light of federal law regarding a variety of issues related to discrimination, employment practices, and public employment, but failed to clearly indicate the basis for its decision. On appeal, the decision was affirmed per curiam by the highest court of the state. The school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court were to review this case, what would be the most likely reason allowing such review?

A. The school did not discriminate against the teacher. B. The state court decision relied on federal law. C. The Supreme Court is required to hear the case. D. The state court decision incorrectly applied state law. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7420 A local religious community constructed a place of worship on land that they owned. Several years later, the community's religion divided into two different sects, with one sect recognizing a new leader and a new interpretation of their religious tenets. The schism led to a dispute among the members of the local religious community as to which sect the local community should belong, with the majority in favor of joining the sect that recognized the new leader. The place of worship is now occupied and used by the members who voted to recognize the new leader of the religion. The minority, supported by the original leader of their religious sect, brought an ejection action in state court to gain possession of the place of worship. In determining who is entitled to ownership of the place of worship, which of the following courses of action may the state court take?

A. The state court must follow the wishes of the majority of the local religious community in determining ownership of the local place of worship because title to the land is held by the local religious community. B. The state court must legally enforce the established religious tenets of the original sect by awarding ownership to the original leader of the religion at the time that the place of worship was constructed. C. The state court may determine which sect more closely adheres to the religious doctrines followed by the local religious community at the time that the place of worship was constructed, and award ownership to that sect. D. The state court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to determine ownership of the place of worship ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7376 A state statute sets a statewide residency limit on private homes. Under the statute, every private home may house no more than two people per bedroom, not counting any children under three years old. A family in the state consists of two parents, four children between the ages of four and nine, and a 19-year-old daughter who had recently moved back in to the family's home with her infant child. The daughter's presence in the three-bedroom home increased its occupancy to seven family members over the age of three. The state files suit against the family under the residency limitation statute. The family defends only on the ground that the statute in question is unconstitutional as applied to their living situation. Which of the following is the most probable burden of persuasion on this constitutional issue?

A. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the family is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. B. The state has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to the family is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. C. The family has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to them is not necessary to vindicate an important state interest. D. The family has the burden of persuading the court that the application of this statute to them is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4241 A defendant was in jail for an aggravated assault charge after his attorney was unable to post bail for that offense. The police believed that the defendant had also been involved with other criminals in executing an unrelated series of bank robberies, and they placed an undercover officer in the jail to pose as the defendant's cellmate. They hoped to acquire information that might prevent further robberies from occurring. One afternoon, the undercover officer mentioned that he knew the victim of the assault with which the defendant had been charged. The defendant said that the victim had a beating coming to him, and that he was glad he had been the one to complete that task. The next day, the undercover officer mentioned the bank robberies. The defendant began bragging that he had a substantial amount of cash waiting for him once he got out of jail, noting that "all those bankers would hardly miss it." Which of the defendant's statements to the undercover officer are admissible against him at trial?

A. The statements regarding the assault and the bank robbery are both admissible. B. The statement regarding the assault is admissible, but the statement regarding the robbery is not admissible. C. The statement regarding the robbery is admissible, but the statement regarding the assault is not admissible. D. Neither the statement regarding the assault nor the statement regarding the bank robbery is admissible. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 6030 A plaintiff brought suit in federal district court against her former employer for damages resulting from alleged employment discrimination. By agreement of the parties, the matter was heard without a jury. The trial judge held for the plaintiff and the employer timely and properly appealed to the appropriate court of appeals. Which of the following is most accurate with regard to the appellate court's review of the case?

A. The trial court's conclusions of law cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous. B. The trial court's findings of fact cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous. C. Both the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are subject to de novo review by the appellate court. D. The appellate court must defer to both the trial judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 397 A defendant was charged with theft of a motor vehicle and convicted primarily on an identification of the perpetrator by the individual who purchased the stolen automobile from the defendant. The police did not reveal to the prosecutor that the buyer was serving as a paid police informant with regard to traffic in stolen vehicles. Since the prosecutor was unaware of this information, the prosecutor did not reveal it to the defendant's attorney. The defendant's attorney did not make a discovery request of the prosecutor for evidence favorable to the defendant. Subsequently, upon learning of the buyer's role as a paid police informant, the defendant challenged his conviction on the grounds that the prosecution's failure to reveal such information violated the defendant's due process rights. Among the following, which is the strongest argument that the state can make to uphold the defendant's conviction?

A. The withheld evidence does not exculpate the defendant, but only impeaches the buyer's testimony. B. A prosecutor has no duty to reveal information of which the prosecutor is unaware. C. The defendant made no request for disclosure of such evidence. D. The defendant was not prejudiced by the nondisclosure of the information. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 4342 While shopping in a department store, a man saw an expensive wallet on display, and slipped it into his girlfriend's purse without her knowledge as a practical joke to embarrass her. He intended for her to find it as she reached into her purse to pay for other items at the cashier's station and turn it over to the cashier. The couple shopped for the next hour, and the man forgot about the wallet. Before they could pay for their purchases, the couple got into an argument, abandoned their intended purchases, and headed toward an exit. When they attempted to leave the store, they were detained by a store security officer who found the wallet in the purse. Both parties were charged with larceny. Of the following, which would provide the man with his best defense to larceny?

A. The woman, and not the man, carried the wallet away from the display. B. There was not a trespassory taking of the wallet since the man was on the store premises as a customer. C. The wallet was never taken from the store. D. The man lacked the necessary intent to steal the wallet. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 3242 Congress, without holding hearings or providing public notice, passed a bill immediately signed into law by the President. The bill terminated supplemental security income (SSI) payments to all resident aliens. The reason for the legislation was to address a budgetary shortfall. A resident alien who depended upon the payments to acquire food and shelter filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law. How is the court likely to rule on the law's constitutionality?

A. Uphold it, because Congress has plenary power over aliens. B. Uphold it, because a person does not have a property interest in a government benefit. C. Strike it down, because the law violated the plaintiff's procedural due process rights. D. Strike it down, because alienage is a suspect class. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6700 A man and woman who were co-workers were brought into the station house by police for questioning regarding embezzlement from their employer. Each voluntarily made a statement to police after being properly Mirandized. They were jointly tried before a jury, and both elected to testify at trial. The woman's statement to police at the station house implicated both the man and the woman in the embezzlement. The man's objection to the admission of the woman's statement at trial, which implicated him, was overruled. When the woman took the stand, she repeatedly denied making a self-incriminating statement at the police station, even under cross-examination by the man's attorney. Both were convicted of embezzlement. The man has appealed his conviction, seeking a reversal on the basis of the admission of the woman's statement at the trial. How should the appellate court rule?

A. Uphold the man's conviction, because the woman testified at the trial. B. Uphold the man's conviction, because the man testified at the trial. C. Reverse the man's conviction, because the woman denied making the statement. D. Reverse the man's conviction, because admission of the woman's hearsay statement violated the Confrontation Clause. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3058 To test his new, high-powered cross-bow, the defendant went out into the woods behind his home, which bordered the backyard of a house where the defendant knew several children lived and played. The defendant posted a target on a tree and began firing arrows at the target. As he was testing his cross-bow, the defendant heard the children playing nearby, but took no action to warn them as to the danger. Even though the children began to run directly behind the target the defendant continued testing his cross-bow. The defendant accidentally misaimed and shot an arrow to the side of the tree with the target, striking and killing one of the children. The defendant was convicted of murder for the death of the child. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to support a conviction of murder. What action should the appellate court take with regard to this appeal?

A. Vacate the conviction, because although the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter, it was not sufficient for murder. B. Vacate the conviction, because although the evidence would have been sufficient to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter, it was not sufficient for murder. C. Vacate the conviction, because the evidence showed no intent to kill by the defendant. D. Affirm the conviction, as the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction of murder. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6292 In order to improve the safety of passenger train services on northeast corridor routes, Congress imposed a $25 tax on all tickets sold by passenger train services for travel throughout the United States. As an exercise of Congress's taxing power, is this tax constitutional?

A. Yes, because Congress can tax passenger tickets due to its power to regulate interstate commerce. B. Yes, because Congress may exercise its power to tax for any public purpose. C. No, because the tax impinges on the fundamental right to travel. D. No, because direct taxes are subject to the apportionment requirement of Article I, Sec. 2 of the U. S. Constitution. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5164 A plaintiff filed a complaint in federal district court, alleging that the defendant had violated federal civil rights statutes. A process server properly served the defendant the following day. Ten days after being served, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be grated. Thirty days later, the court denied the motion to dismiss. The following day, the defendant served an answer making a general denial stating that he denied every allegation of the complaint. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the defendant's answer did not effectively deny the allegations in the complaint and that the allegations should thus be deemed admitted. The defendant responded in good faith that he intended to controvert all the allegations in the complaint. Should the factual allegations in the complaint be deemed admitted by the defendant?

A. Yes, because a defendant must specifically deny each allegation, rather than make a general denial. B. Yes, because a defendant must serve an answer admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint within 21 days of being served with the summons and complaint. C. No, because a defendant may make a general denial if he, in good faith, intends to controvert all of the allegations. D. No, because an allegation in a complaint will not be deemed admitted unless a defendant specifically admits the allegation. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 363 A defendant was convicted of aggravated assault. His attorney appealed the conviction, and the first verdict was overturned based on the judge's finding that after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no reasonable fact finder could have voted to convict. The prosecution now seeks to retry the defendant for the same crime. The defendant's attorney objects to the retrial on double jeopardy grounds. Should the retrial be allowed?

A. Yes, because a defendant waives any double jeopardy rights by filing an appeal of his conviction. B. Yes, because the Double Jeopardy Clause only prevents retrial when a defendant has been acquitted or when the prosecution dismisses its case. C. No, because retrial after reversal of a conviction due to insufficiency of evidence is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. D. No, because retrial after a reversal of a conviction on any grounds is prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5150 A patron who was being seated at a restaurant sustained injuries when another patron, agitated over not being seated, started a physical altercation. The patron filed a complaint in federal district court against both the other patron and the restaurant, alleging that the assault and battery committed by the other patron and the negligence of the restaurant in responding to the situation resulted in the patron's injuries. The patron's complaint asserted that the other patron and the restaurant were jointly and severally liable for his injuries, but did not allege that the defendants acted in concert. Is joinder of these defendants and claims proper?

A. Yes, because a plaintiff may bring whatever claims he has, including independent claims, against any party. B. Yes, because the defendants were alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the patron's injuries. C. No, because the complaint did not allege that the defendants acted in concert. D. No, because the same cause of action was not pled against each defendant. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 7385 A public employer often hired graduates from a local college. Because the state gives public employers a one-year stipend for employees hired just out of college, the employer often hired these students upon their graduation on a one-year temporary basis. In the last week of the one-year period, the employer notified the employee by e-mail as to whether the employee was going to be offered permanent employment. One of these temporary employees, on the first day of the last week of his one-year term, came to work intoxicated, as he had several times previously. The employee was told that his employment was terminated, effective immediately, because of his drinking problem, that he would be paid as if he worked the remainder of the week, and he was escorted off the premises. The employee was never given a hearing with regard to his termination. The employee has initiated an action against his former employer alleging that he was denied due process when he was dismissed without a hearing. Is the employee likely to succeed in his action?

A. Yes, because a public employee is entitled to notice and a hearing before termination of the employee's employment. B. Yes, because the employee had a legitimate property interest in continued public employment. C. No, because the employee was terminated for cause. D. No, because the employee had no right to continued employment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 386 Acting alone, a 17-year-old deliberately committed a murder. More than a year later, he was tried and convicted for this crime. During the sentencing phase of the trial, the jury, in addition to evidence of mitigating circumstances, received evidence from the victim's wife as to the impact of the victim's death on his family. In addition, the prosecution presented evidence of the defendant's prior crimes. The jury determined that the death penalty should be imposed on the defendant after finding the existence of a statutory aggravating factor. On appeal, the defendant seeks to modify his sentence on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Should the court rule in his favor?

A. Yes, because evidence of the defendant's prior crimes was presented during the sentencing phase of the trial. B. Yes, because the death penalty may not be imposed on a defendant who was minor at the time the crime was committed. C. No, because the jury found a statutorily-defined aggravating factor. D. No, because a victim impact statement may be considered by the jury during the sentencing phase. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5962 One cold winter day, a senator was flying from one city to another in his home state to campaign for his reelection. On a commercial flight, he put his navy blue coat into the overhead bin. The flight was crowded, and many passengers also put their coats into the overhead bins. When he deplaned, the senator reached into the bin, took out a navy blue coat, and put it on. He then went to a campaign fundraising event, still wearing the coat. At the event, the senator was approached by the police and arrested for larceny. It turned out that the senator was wearing the wrong coat. The senator had taken a similar looking navy blue coat out of the bin, believing it to be his own. The true owner, a businessman, ended up with the senator's coat, which had the senator's business card in the inside pocket. The businessman disagreed with the senator's politics, so he reported him to the police for larceny. Will the senator be convicted of larceny?

A. Yes, because he intended to take the businessman's coat. B. Yes, because he was wearing the coat when the police arrested him. C. No, because he thought the coat was his when he took it out of the bin. D. No, because the businessman was acting out of political motivation. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3075 A woman who was pregnant with her first child was driving a car when she thought that she was going into labor. As a consequence, she began speeding towards the local hospital. As she approached a four-way intersection, she saw no cars and decided to run the red light. She failed to see a pedestrian who was crossing the street. The woman's car struck the pedestrian, causing him serious injuries. Could the woman be properly charged with attempted murder?

A. Yes, because her recklessness results in a presumption of the intent to inflict serious bodily harm. B. Yes, because she intended to drive through the red light and is therefore presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of such action. C. No, because she was justified in running the red light. D. No, because she did not intend to kill the pedestrian. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5117 A plaintiff filed an action in federal district court based on a state law claim. The court had diversity jurisdiction over the action. An entity timely sought to intervene as of right, contending that, although no federal statute conferred this right, the entity's interest was not adequately represented by the existing parties. Although it found that the entity had the right to intervene, the court refused to permit the intervention because, even though the entity's presence in the action would not violate the diversity-of-citizenship requirement, the entity's claim did not satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. Was the court's refusal proper?

A. Yes, because intervention is not permitted in an action over which the court has diversity jurisdiction. B. Yes, because the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the entity's claim. C. No, because the entity's intervention was as of right rather than permissive. D. No, because the court had supplemental jurisdiction over the entity's claim. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 5857 A state enacted a statute regulating a woman's ability to have an abortion. Among other pre-viability restrictions, the statute provides that a married woman who seeks to have an abortion must notify her spouse beforehand. Is the statute constitutional?

A. Yes, because it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. B. Yes, because it is necessary to further a compelling state interest. C. No, because a woman's right to an abortion cannot be restricted pre-viability. D. No, because it places an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 3061 Two men and a woman plotted to burn down a building. Before the men and woman took any overt act towards completion of the arson, the police discovered the plot and arrested the three plotters on charges of conspiracy to commit arson. For evidentiary reasons, the prosecutor decided that he could only charge the woman for the conspiracy and decided not to charge the two men. The woman is convicted of conspiracy in a jurisdiction that follows the common law. On appeal, should the woman's conviction be overturned?

A. Yes, because only one of the three alleged conspirators was actually charged with conspiracy. B. Yes, because there was no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. C. No, because she and the men plotted to burn down a building. D. No, because of the "Pinkerton Rule." ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4338 One afternoon, a woman was walking down the street when a man walked up behind her, grabbed her purse, and ran away. That evening, as the woman and her husband dined at a restaurant, she recognized an identical purse hanging from the back of a chair upon which another woman was sitting at a table a few feet away. She pointed the purse out to her husband before going up to the table to confront the couple sitting there. The couple claimed that the purse was certainly not stolen and refused to give it to her, so the woman violently yanked it from the chair, knocking it and the woman sitting on it over, and returned to the table with her husband. Robbery charges were subsequently brought against her, and during trial, evidence indicated the purse did actually belong to her. Is the woman likely to be successfully convicted of robbery?

A. Yes, because she stole the property at night. B. Yes, because she took the purse by force. C. No, because the purse had been stolen from her earlier in the day. D. No, because she took the purse from the chair, not the other woman. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3232 The jury commissioner at a state court was charged with stealing the identities of dozens of potential jurors. She readily confessed to her crime to her employer immediately after the allegations of her behavior surfaced. The county immediately terminated her employment. Both her employment contract and state law clearly stated that jury commissioners can be terminated only if there is just cause to do so. A hearing was scheduled for a week following the commissioner's termination. The commissioner filed suit to have herself reinstated as commissioner. She alleged that, because she had not been convicted, she was entitled to a pre-termination notice and an opportunity to respond. Has the commissioner likely received the due process to which she is entitled?

A. Yes, because she will receive a prompt post-termination hearing. B. Yes, because no hearing is required when there is cause to terminate the employee. C. No, because she has not been convicted of a crime. D. No, because she did not receive a pre-termination hearing. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6678 From across the street, a woman watched as a man exited a bank with a drawn gun and a bag. As she continued walking home, she realized that she knew the man. From subsequent news reports, she confirmed her suspicions that the man had robbed the bank and learned that the police were requesting that anyone with information about the robbery contact the police. The woman did not contact the police. Is the woman an accessory after the fact to the robbery?

A. Yes, because she witnessed the man leave the scene of the crime and was subsequently aware that the man had committed a felony. B. Yes, because, by opting not to inform police of the man's identity, she effectively aided the man in avoiding apprehension. C. No, because she did not help the man to escape arrest or conviction. D. No, because she did not aid the man in the commission of the robbery. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5024 While vacationing in State D, a plaintiff, a citizen of State A, was involved in an automobile accident with a delivery truck. The delivery truck driver was a citizen of State B, and he was delivering packages for a parcel shipping company that was incorporated in State C and whose principal place of business was in State D. The plaintiff brought a common law negligence suit against the delivery truck driver and the parcel shipping company in State D state court seeking to recover $85,000 for personal injury and property damage. If the delivery truck driver and the shipping company seek to remove the action to the federal district court in State D, will they be successful?

A. Yes, because the State D federal district court has diversity jurisdiction over the claim. B. Yes, because the right of removal belongs to the defendants. C. No, because a state law claim filed in a state court cannot be removed to a federal court. D. No, because the parcel shipping company is a citizen of State D. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5854 A state healthcare act contained an ambiguous provision regarding the requirements for an insured person to bring a claim against an insurer. This provision in the state healthcare act was identical to one in the federal healthcare act, and relied in part on definitions contained in the federal act. An insurance company was sued under the state healthcare act. In its defense, the insurance company claimed that, based on the ambiguous provision, it could not be sued under the state act. When the case reached the state's highest court, that court sided with the insurance company, but it was unclear whether the court's decision relied on the court's interpretation of definitions contained in the federal act. The insured person petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of the state court's decision. Is it constitutional for the Supreme Court to review the state court's decision?

A. Yes, because the Supreme Court may review any final judgment rendered by the highest court of a state. B. Yes, because the Supreme Court may determine whether the state court decision relied upon a determination of a federal issue. C. No, because the state court's decision could rest on adequate and independent state grounds. D. No, because the suit by the insured person against the insurance company involved a state, not federal cause of action. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 3210 A federal agency regularly contracted with a construction company to perform renovations on federal government buildings. In contracting with the company, the agency followed the federally mandated competitive bidding process, each individual renovation project was covered by a separate contract. Recently, the company made a contribution to a political action committee with interests adverse to the current administration. As a consequence, the agency terminated renovation contracts that had been awarded to the company. Did the agency's decision to terminate its contracts with the company violate the Contracts Clause of Article I, Section 10?

A. Yes, because the agency cannot cancel a contract to serve the current administration's political ends. B. Yes, because a governmental entity cannot impair an existing public contract. C. No, because a governmental entity, as a party to the contract, had the right to cancel it. D. No, because the governmental entity was a federal agency. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 6200 As a benefit to his employees, a small business owner in State A offered to match the funds contributed to an IRA and would use his own financial planner when determining how to invest his employees' funds. His financial planner lived and worked in neighboring State B. After the financial planner fraudulently transferred many of the client funds to his own account, an employee filed suit in federal district court against both the financial planner and the employer in the amount of $100,000. In his complaint, the employee, a citizen of State A, included a short and plain statement asserting that the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter based on diversity jurisdiction. May the court properly exercise jurisdiction over the claims against the financial planner and the employer?

A. Yes, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. B. Yes, because the financial planner resides in the neighboring state. C. No, because the employee included the employer as a defendant in the complaint. D. No, because diversity jurisdiction does not apply to this type of dispute. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3253 A city owned and operated a minor-league baseball park. The city sold advertising space on billboards above the park and along the walls of the baseball field. While most of the advertising space was purchased by beer and snack food companies that also sold their goods at the baseball games, a city ordinance allowed for the sale of space to political, charitable, and religious causes. All final decisions on the advertising were solely at the discretion of a particular city official. A modern-day temperance organization wanted to buy space on some of the billboards to warn of the dangers associated with drinking alcohol. The city official wanted the baseball games to remain light-hearted and fun events for the citizens, and also did not want to risk the beer companies pulling their advertisements from the ballpark. Accordingly, he denied the temperance organization's request for advertising space. The temperance organization sued the city and the official, claiming that the denial of the organization's request was unconstitutional. Is the temperance organization likely to succeed in its suit?

A. Yes, because the city official may not deny an organization's right to broadcast its message in a public forum on the basis of its content unless the denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest. B. Yes, because the city official may not refuse to allow an organization the use of a public facility to broadcast a message dealing with an issue of public concern. C. No, because the city official's denial of advertising space was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. D. No, because a valid city ordinance gave the official discretion to grant or deny advertising space. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 5020 A plaintiff brought suit against a defendant in federal district court alleging that the defendant violated the Federal Credit Card Protection Act, which creates a private cause of action. The plaintiff also filed a claim against the defendant for state-law conversion. The claim stems from an incident in which the defendant allegedly took the plaintiff's credit card from a restaurant table and made $100,000 worth of purchases using the credit card. The defendant is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff. If the defendant moves to dismiss the conversion claim due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, will he prevail?

A. Yes, because the conversion claim does not present a federal question. B. Yes, because the defendant is a citizen of the same state as the plaintiff. C. No, because the alleged damages satisfy the amount-in-controversy requirement. D. No, because the conversion claim and the Federal Credit Card Protection Act claim arise from a common nucleus of operative fact. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 3274 A state enacted a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. The legislative history demonstrated a concern that there was a correlation between playing such games and subsequent violent behavior. A maker of video games brought suit contending that this law violated its First Amendment right of free speech. Is this law unconstitutional?

A. Yes, because the costs of such a restriction on speech outweigh its benefits. B. Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction. C. No, because video games do not qualify for First Amendment protection. D. No, because states have the power to protect children from harm. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 6236 One night, while waiting to cross an intersection, a cowboy suddenly felt someone grab his shoulder and turn him around. The accoster mistook the cowboy for a man who had bullied the accoster in high school. The accoster decided to scare the cowboy, and so he pulled a large hammer out of his tool belt and screamed that he was going to smash the cowboy's skull. The cowboy was terrified and reasonably believed that the accoster would kill him if the cowboy did not stop him. Not knowing what else to do, the cowboy took a gun out of one of his holsters and fatally shot the accoster. The cowboy is charged with murder. If the cowboy claims self-defense, is he likely to be acquitted?

A. Yes, because the cowboy had a reasonable belief that the accoster was going to kill him. B. Yes, because the accoster sufficiently provoked the cowboy, justifying the killing. C. No, because the cowboy was wrong in believing that the accoster intended to kill him. D. No, because the cowboy did not attempt to retreat before shooting the accoster. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 6705 After being indicted for attempted murder, an indigent defendant was brought into the police station. While at the police station, the victim identified the defendant in a lineup. After the lineup but prior to trial, the defendant was appointed counsel. The lineup identification was admitted and used as evidence at trial. The jury found the defendant guilty of attempted murder. The defendant appealed this conviction, arguing that he was denied his right to counsel in the lineup. Can the court reverse the conviction?

A. Yes, because the defendant had a right to counsel upon indictment. B. Yes, because a violation of the right to counsel warrants an automatic reversal of a conviction. C. No, because the defendant waived his right to counsel by not invoking it. D. No, because the right to counsel does not attach until trial. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 379 A defendant is on trial for cocaine possession. The cocaine was found during a warrantless search of the defendant's car by a police officer. The search occurred immediately after the defendant was arrested for driving a car with an inoperative taillight, a misdemeanor punishable only by a fine. The defendant had been placed in a police car prior to the search. The cocaine was found inside a closed bag on the back seat of the passenger compartment of the defendant's car. The defendant now moves to suppress the cocaine. Will the defendant's motion be granted?

A. Yes, because the defendant was in the police car at the time of the search. B. Yes, because the arrest was unreasonable and the cocaine seized was a fruit of the poisonous tree. C. No, because the police may search a car without a warrant under the automobile exception. D. No, because the search was a lawful search incident to arrest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4904 A corporation filed a complaint against a former executive in state court, alleging a breach of the duty of loyalty imposed by state law. The former executive filed an answer that contained a counterclaim based on federal law. The case was assigned to a judge who had a reputation for being anti-business. Unhappy with the assignment, the plaintiff corporation, which is incorporated in the forum state, filed a timely notice of removal with the federal district court for the district in which the state court sat. The plaintiff argued that removal was proper due to the federal-question basis for the counterclaim. Is the plaintiff's removal of the case to federal court proper?

A. Yes, because the defendant's counterclaim could have been brought in federal court. B. Yes, because the plaintiff's notice of removal was timely filed with the correct court. C. No, because the plaintiff is a citizen of the state in which the action was filed. D. No, because a plaintiff may not remove a case to federal court. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5149 A plaintiff properly filed an action in federal district court against a defendant for injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a car accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was liable under a respondeat superior theory for the negligent driving of the defendant's employee. The defendant properly impleaded the employee, asserting a claim against the employee based on indemnification. At trial, the jury reached a general verdict in favor of the defendant. Subsequently, the employee filed an action in federal district court against the defendant, seeking to recover for injuries suffered as a consequence of the accident. The employee has asserted that the accident was caused by the defendant's failure to properly maintain the car that the employee was driving. Is the employee barred from pursuing this action?

A. Yes, because the employee's claim arises out of the same occurrence that was the subject matter of the defendant's indemnification claim. B. Yes, because the employee failed to assert a cross-claim against the defendant in the prior action. C. No, because the employee was not the original defendant in the prior action. D. No, because the prior action was decided by a general jury verdict. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 4949 An employee filed an action in federal district court against her employer, who does business as a sole proprietor, for violation of federal law regarding overtime pay. Both the employee and her employer reside within the geographic boundary of the district of the court where the action was filed. The business is located in the same state, but within the geographic boundaries of another federal district court. The employer has timely filed a motion to dismiss the action due to improper venue. Can the court grant this motion?

A. Yes, because the events or omission on which the action is based took place in a judicial district other than the district in which the action was filed. B. Yes, because the court lacks diversity jurisdiction. C. No, because the employee resides in the district of the court where the action was filed. D. No, because the employer resides in the district of the court where the action was filed. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7315 One night, when no one was home, an individual broke into a residence to steal a painting by a particular artist. Not finding the painting, the individual instead stole a drawing by the same artist. Can the individual properly be charged with burglary?

A. Yes, because the individual stole the drawing while in the residence. B. Yes, because the individual, when entering the residence, intended to steal the painting. C. No, because the individual did not steal the painting. D. No, because the individual did not use force or intimidation to steal the drawing. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 6717 A man brought a diversity action for negligence against his former friend based on significant injuries the man sustained when he fell into an unmarked hole on the former friend's property. The man filed and served his complaint within the relevant statute of limitations. The man decided that he wanted to join another claim against the former friend for breach of contract arising out of a business transaction between the man and his former friend. Ten days after receiving the former friend's answer, the man filed and served an amended complaint, adding the breach-of-contract claim against the former friend. The relevant statute of limitations for breach of contract was two years. The two-year period had expired one week after the man filed and served his original complaint. Does the statute of limitations bar the man's breach-of-contract claim?

A. Yes, because the man needed leave of court to amend his complaint. B. Yes, because the claim does not arise out of the occurrence set out in the original complaint. C. No, because the amended complaint relates back to the date of the original complaint. D. No, because the filing of the original complaint tolled the statute of limitations. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 176 A man who suffered from a mental illness shot and killed his neighbor after making plans to do so. The man was arrested and charged with murder. At trial, the man admitted that he intended to kill the neighbor, and that he appreciated that what he was doing was illegal. However, he also testified that he performed the killing under orders from his pet goldfish, who was possessed by a demonic spirit, and that he was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging to kill the neighbor. The Model Penal Code test of criminal responsibility applies in the applicable jurisdiction. If the man timely and properly pleads that he was not criminally responsible, can he be found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity?

A. Yes, because the man was unable to resist the goldfish's constant urging. B. Yes, because the man suffered from a mental illness. C. No, because the man understood that killing his neighbor was illegal. D. No, because the man planned to kill his neighbor. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 426 A police officer obtained a valid warrant to arrest a woman for felonious credit card fraud. Having probable cause to believe that the woman was spending the afternoon at a friend's house, the officer went to the friend's house to serve the warrant. No one responded to the officer's knocking or to his identification of himself as a police officer. The officer, finding the door unlocked, opened the door and entered the house. Once in the house, the officer did not find the woman, but, while searching for her, did find illegal drugs in plain view on a kitchen counter. The friend was charged with the possession of illegal drugs. The friend challenged the officer's seizure of the drugs as unconstitutional. Will the court deny the challenge?

A. Yes, because the officer was attempting to serve a valid arrest warrant and had probable cause to believe that the woman was at the house. B. Yes, because the officer saw the drugs in plain view. C. No, because the officer's search of the house was unreasonable. D. No, because the woman did not have a valid privacy interest in the friend's house ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 360 A police officer had probable cause to believe that a defendant was involved in a robbery. The officer obtained a valid arrest warrant and went to the defendant's apartment to execute it. The officer decided to go to the defendant's apartment right when he believed the defendant would be home from work, so he could search the defendant's apartment before he had a chance to hide the stolen goods. When the officer arrived at the defendant's apartment, the door was ajar, but nothing else seemed out of the ordinary. The officer slowly opened the door and entered the apartment. He walked toward the back of the apartment, and when he heard the defendant in a bedroom, pushed open the door, loudly told the defendant to freeze, and arrested him. Did the officer properly execute the arrest warrant?

A. Yes, because the officer went to the defendant's home when he had a reasonable belief that the defendant would be home. B. Yes, because the officer obtained a valid arrest warrant, which gives the officer the right to arrest the defendant in his home. C. No, because the officer failed to "knock and announce" before he entered the defendant's apartment. D. No, because the officer had no consent to enter the defendant's apartment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 1398 A city council passed an ordinance prohibiting all police officers from working a second job. The council wanted to have its officers available in case of an emergency, such as a blizzard, or for certain major events, such as professional football games. Other city employees, including members of the city council, had no such restriction on secondary employment. A veteran and well-respected city police officer was upset because she would have to give up her well-paying second job working for an entertainment company as a clown who performs at children's birthday parties. The company complies with all of the city's entertainment licensing regulations and employs the officer at-will. The officer challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Is she likely to prevail?

A. Yes, because the ordinance is not the least restrictive means of achieving the city's legitimate interest. B. Yes, because the ordinance unreasonably discriminates against police officers. C. No, because the ordinance is rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in public safety and social welfare. D. No, because the officer, as an at will employee of the entertainment company, does not have property interest in her second job. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 3099 A grand jury indicted a politician on charges of corruption. After the indictment, the politician learned that the prosecutor had tried to indict the politician the previous year on the same charges, but that the first grand jury had refused to return an indictment. The prosecutor had gathered new evidence before attempting the second indictment, and this evidence was presented to the second grand jury. The new evidence included physical evidence seized in violation of the politician's Fourth Amendment rights, as well as hearsay testimony from the politician's chief-of-staff. The politician has moved to dismiss the charges. Is the politician likely to succeed in having the charges against him dismissed?

A. Yes, because the prosecutor presented hearsay evidence to the grand jury. B. Yes, because the prosecutor presented illegally obtained evidence to the grand jury. C. No, because a grand jury indictment may not be dismissed by a judge. D. No, because there are no grounds upon which to dismiss the indictment. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 3236 A state board of transportation ordered a railroad company to sell a parcel of land adjoining its railroad track. The parcel in question had been part of a much larger section of land transferred a number of years before from the state to the railroad company in exchange for the company's provision of railroad services to the citizens of the state. The state board fixed a reasonable price based on the land's fair market value to compensate the railroad company for the loss of its land. The railroad refused to sell the land to the designated buyer, a farmer's cooperative. The private cooperative planned to build a warehouse on the land in order to store its members' produce for shipment by rail and other means. In an action to compel the railroad to comply with the order of the state board, should the court rule in favor of the state board?

A. Yes, because the railroad is regulated by the state board of transportation. B. Yes, because the price set by the board constitutes just compensation. C. No, because the order violates the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation of the Fifth Amendment. D. No, because the order originated with a state board rather than a state legislature. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4363 A city enacted legislation that required schools to automatically expel any male student who bullied another student, with bullying defined as "physical violence not used in self-defense." The legislation did not reference bullying committed by female students. The law was enacted in response to a high level of teen suicides that were linked to severe bullying, and it directly followed similar legislation in a neighboring state that was successful in the reduction of teen suicides over a five-year period. The in-depth analysis of the reduction of suicides in the neighboring state revealed, in those cases where bullying resulted in suicide, the vast majority involved bullying initiated by males, which was more severe than female bullying and less likely to stop without intervention. Would this statute likely survive a constitutional challenge?

A. Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides. B. Yes, because the statute is rationally related to preventing teen suicides. C. No, because there are other available solutions to prevent teen suicides. D. No, because the statute does not apply to bullying committed by female students. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer

Question 3228 A state owned and operated a silver processing plant located within the state. The state enacted a statute requiring that the plant sell the processed silver to residents of other states only if there were no outstanding orders from residents within the state. An out-of-state business that was located much closer to the state processing plant than any such plant in its own state was prevented from purchasing silver from the plant due to the demand for silver by in-state buyers. The business sued to have the statute struck down as unconstitutional. Should the court strike down the statute?

A. Yes, because the statute protects the interests of its own residents over out-of-state residents. B. Yes, because only Congress can regulate commerce. C. No, because the plant selling processed silver is located within the state. D. No, because the state owns and operates the plant. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7136 State X recently enacted a statute that required any sushi-grade fish sold in State X to sushi restaurants to be sourced from a State X fishmonger located no further than 50 miles from any sushi restaurant located in State X. The purpose of the regulation was to ensure that fish that was typically consumed in a raw form in sushi restaurants maintained its quality and freshness during delivery. A corporate fishmonger incorporated in State Y, which borders State X, has its sole place of business located 25 miles away from a group of sushi restaurants in State X that used to buy their fish from the fishmonger prior to the enactment of the statute. If the State Y fishmonger challenges the constitutionality of the statute, will it prevail?

A. Yes, because the statute violates the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. B. Yes, because the statute unduly burdens interstate commerce. C. No, because the statute protects an important local interest. D. No, because State X is acting as a market participant. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 6996 A wife discovered that her husband had been having an affair with her best friend for many months. Enraged, the wife decided to invite her best friend over for poolside cocktails, spike her drinks with a strong sedative, and then push her into the pool to drown after she passed out. The best friend agreed to come over, but because the wife was extremely nervous, she took ten times the recommended amount of her prescribed anti-anxiety medication. The best friend arrived to find the wife acting erratically, clearly under the influence of the drugs. However, the wife managed to add the sedative to the best friend's cocktails, and when she passed out, the wife pushed her into the pool. The best friend drowned. The police eventually arrested and charged the wife with first-degree murder. The jurisdiction defines first-degree murder as a deliberate and premeditated unlawful killing of another human being. Does the wife have a valid intoxication defense to the first-degree murder charge?

A. Yes, because the wife's intoxication is a defense to specific-intent crimes. B. Yes, because the wife's excessive level of intoxication brought on actual insanity. C. No, because the wife was not intoxicated by alcohol or illegal drugs. D. No, because the wife formed the intent to kill before she became intoxicated. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 186 Immediately after she arrived home from work, a woman found her husband engaged in sex with a female who worked in the husband's office. Enraged, the woman retrieved a handgun from her dresser drawer. She fired the gun, intending to shoot her husband's co-worker. Her shot missed the co-worker, and instead killed her husband. The woman was charged with common-law murder of her husband. Based on the foregoing facts, should she be convicted?

A. Yes, because the woman acted with reckless indifference with regards to her husband's life. B. Yes, because of the doctrine of transferred intent. C. No, because the act was provoked. D. No, because the woman's extreme temporary distress completely excuses her actions. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5107 Upon the death of the insured, the named beneficiary of the $150,000 life insurance policy on the insured sought payment of the insurance proceeds. The personal representative of the insured's estate, contending that the beneficiary had exerted undue influence over the insured, demanded payment of the insurance proceeds to the insured's estate. The insurer filed an interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, naming both the beneficiary and the personal representative as defendants. In its complaint, the insurer alleged that, since the insured committed suicide, the insurer was not obligated to pay out the insurance proceeds to either defendant. The beneficiary and the personal representative are citizens of the same state, the insurer is a citizen of another state. Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction over this action?

A. Yes, because there is no amount-in-controversy requirement in a Rule 22 interpleader action. B. Yes, because diversity jurisdiction exists. C. No, because both of the claimants are citizens of the same state. D. No, because the insurer has alleged that it is not liable to either defendant. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

A man committed a rape. Although the victim reported the crime immediately and the police promptly gathered DNA evidence as to the perpetrator of the crime, the police were unable to determine that the man was the perpetrator until 10 years after the event. At that time, the man's conviction for a different crime resulted in the taking of a sample of his DNA and the subsequent match of his DNA with the DNA of the perpetrator of the rape. Shortly thereafter, the man was charged by the state with rape, and due to his indigence, provided with a court-appointed public defender. Attributable solely to this attorney, the trial was delayed for over a year, despite the defendant's protests that he be tried immediately. Eventually, the court replaced the public defender with another attorney. That attorney filed a motion to dismiss the rape charge on the basis that the man's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. The state does not have a statute of limitations in which a rape charge must be brought. Should the court grant the motion?

A. Yes, because there was a delay of over ten years in bringing charges against the defendant. B. Yes, because, since the defendant's trial was delayed due to a court-appointed public defender, such delay is attributable to the state rather than the defendant. C. No, because the state was not responsible for the delay in trying the defendant. D. No, because the right to a speedy trial does not apply where there is no statute of limitations. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 5141 A manufacturer properly brought a product liability action in federal district court based on a design defect in a machine used by the manufacturer in producing a product. The suit named both the maker of the machine and the inventor of the machine as defendants. All three parties were citizens of different states. After the manufacturer won a judgment against both defendants, the manufacturer properly sought and obtained satisfaction of the judgment from the machine maker. The machine maker has now sued the inventor in federal district court for indemnification of $200,000 of the amount paid to the manufacturer. The inventor has asserted that the machine maker's failure to raise the indemnification claim in the prior action precludes this lawsuit. Should the court rule in favor of the inventor?

A. Yes, because this claim arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as the manufacturer's claim. B. Yes, because the machine maker failed to raise the indemnification claim in the prior action. C. No, because the court in the prior action would not have had subject-matter jurisdiction over the indemnification claim. D. No, because a cross-claim is never mandatory. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 409 Two police officers stopped a car for a minor traffic violation. While one of the officers dealt with the driver and the traffic violation, the other officer talked with the passenger. Seeking to question the passenger about gang involvement, but lacking reasonable suspicions of criminal activity, the officer ordered the passenger out of the car. As the passenger exited the car, the officer saw a bulge in the passenger's coat which the officer suspected might be a gun. Upon patting down the passenger, the officer felt the handle of a revolver and removed the gun. The passenger, who was a convicted felon, was charged with the possession of a gun by a prohibited possessor. Prior to trial, the defendant sought to suppress the gun as evidence, contending that its seizure was unconstitutional. Should the court suppress the gun as evidence?

A. Yes, because, since the car had been stopped for a traffic violation, the officer could not order the passenger, who had not committed the violation, to exit the car. B. Yes, because, since the officer lacked reasonable suspicion that the passenger was engaged in criminal activity, the officer could not pat down the passenger. C. No, because a valid traffic stop gives an officer the right to pat down a passenger. D. No, because the gun was discovered as a consequence of a valid Terry stop and frisk ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 5852 A public middle school principal requested the services of a clergy member in the school's graduation ceremony. The principal asked the clergy member to deliver a prayer at the beginning of the ceremony. A parent of one of the middle school children learned that the prayer would take place at the ceremony and immediately filed an injunction, claiming the prayer would be unconstitutional. Is the prayer constitutional?

A. Yes, if the clergy member's prayer at the ceremony is nonsectarian. B. Yes, if the graduation participants are not required to participate in the prayer. C. No, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. D. No, because the principal requested the service of the clergy member. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ C. Correct Answer

Question 4927 A plaintiff filed suit in federal district court under diversity jurisdiction, asserting a state-law claim against two co-defendants for civil fraud in a business transaction. Each defendant's attorney indicated that she sought to depose eight different witnesses, for a total of 16 witness depositions by the defense. The plaintiff declined to stipulate that the defendants can take more than 10 depositions. Do the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow all 16 depositions?

A. Yes, the defense may automatically depose all 16 witnesses. B. Yes, the defense may depose the 16 witnesses with the approval of the court. C. No, the defense may not depose the 16 witnesses without the plaintiff's agreement. D. No, the defense is subject to an absolute limit of 10 depositions in an action based on diversity jurisdiction. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ B. Correct Answer

Question 4357 A city ordinance provided that only applicants under the age of 50 would be considered for the city's fire department, even though the employees of the fire department may serve until they reach the age of 55. A 50-year-old man applied for a position in the fire department, and his application was rejected solely because he did not meet the age restrictions in the ordinance. The applicant sued the city, alleging that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. What statement most accurately describes the burden of proof?

A. You Selected: The city must show that the ordinance is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling government interest. B. The city must show that the law is substantially related to a legitimate government interest. C. The applicant must show that the ordinance is not substantially related to an important government interest. D. The applicant must show that the ordinance is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ D. Correct Answer

Question 7444 A defendant was unaware that he had been charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine in violation of federal law. Prior to his arrest, he traveled to a foreign country. He returned to the United States a year later, and lived in the United States under his own name for more than seven years before he was arrested on the cocaine conspiracy charge of which he had been unaware. Shortly after his arrest, he filed a motion to dismiss the charge against him on the grounds that his right to a speedy trial granted by the Sixth Amendment had been violated. Upon which date is the time period for measuring the defendant's Sixth Amendment right commenced?

A.The date on which he was charged. B. The date on which he returned to the United States. C. The date on which he was arrested. D. The date on which he asserted his Sixth Amendment right. ✪⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯✪ A. Correct Answer