Law 100 A Final
A group of students from our class went hiking on Mt. Rainier before the snow started for winter. Once the group reached a high elevation, folks decided to stop and rest. A few people began to play a game of catch with a football that someone brought with them. One overly enthusiastic student threw the ball really far and it disappeared over the hill. When other students went to see where it landed, they crossed over the top of the hill and saw that there was a small cabin with a broken window facing them. The students went up to the cabin and saw that the ball was inside the cabin--it had apparently flown through the window and broke it. The student who owned the ball wanted the ball back and tried to open the door, but the door was locked. So, she put her hand through the broken window pane and unlocked the door. She then opened the door, went in, and picked up the football. On the way out, she noticed a yummy candy bar on the table by the door. Since she was mildly hungry from the hike, she grabbed the candy bar on the way out, closed the door behind her, and reached back through the window to re-lock the door. What tort concepts are implicated the most by this scenario?
Trespass to land; recapture of chattel; conversion.
What does "tenants in the entirety" mean?
Two people have an undivided, one-half interest in an undifferentiated whole thing, like two people owning a bowl of water--each owns half but you can't point to which water in the bowl belongs to which person.
When does "Diversity Jurisdiction" apply?
Diversity Jurisdiction applies when the plaintiff and the defendant are citizens of different states, citizen of a state and citizens of a foreign country, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
On a rainy day in November, a robbery occurred at a store in the Alderwood Mall in Lynnwood, Washington. A police officer happened to be in the mall at that time. Witnesses alerted the police officer about the crime and pointed to the direction the robbers had gone. The police officer called in the robbery to police dispatch and began pursuit. The two of the robbers ran out of the mall and fled through the parking lot on the southwest side of the mall. At the far edge of the southwest parking lot, there sits a large RV with license plates from Texas. There is fresh mud spattered on the wheel wells. And there are two sets of muddy footprints that go from the store that was robbed to the exit of the mall and then to the door of the RV. When the police arrive, they search the parking lot, but do not see the robbers anywhere. However, they follow the footprints and notice they lead to the RV door. They also notice there is steam rising from the engine area of the vehicle, indicating very recent use. But the curtains are drawn and the police cannot see inside. They knock on the door and announce that they are the police, there has been a robbery, and that whoever is inside should open the door. A voice from inside says, "I'm not opening the door! Go away! You're not coming in unless you have a warrant!" What is the most likely legal argument or set of arguments that a search warrant is not required by the police?
A. A search warrant is not required to enter the RV because it is sitting in a parking lot which is for vehicles not homes, the engine is warm and steaming, and the mud is fresh all of which indicate the RV's use as a vehicle not a home. B. A search warrant is not required because the police officer was in immediate pursuit and followed the footprints to the RV and there is no indication the suspects are anywhere but inside that RV.
In Wade v. Jobe, Lydia Jobe rented a house from Clyde Wade in order to live there with her 3 children. A few days after moving in, the hot water stopped working. Investigation discovered that the flame of the water heater had been extinguished by the accumulation of water and sewage in the basement. Jobe notified the landlord Wade and he came to the house several times over a 4-month period to pump out the water and sewage and relight the water heater. After 5 months of this problem, the renter notified the landlord that she would withhold rent until the problem was solved permanently. After 6 months of the problem persisting, the City Inspection Division determined that the house was unsafe for human occupancy and notified the landlord that the house would be condemned if the code violations were not remedied. Jobe moved out of the house with her children and withheld rent. Wade filed a lawsuit with claims for the unpaid rent. Jobe counterclaimed to offset (subtract money from the amount due) because of the uninhabitable conditions, as well as the costs of relocating, her attorney fees, and for violations of the Consumer Protection Act. Wade won at trial and Jobe's counterclaims were dismissed; so she owed him the full amount of rent because the breach of the warranty of habitability was seen as a minor breach whereas the failure to pay rent was a major breach of the lease agreement. Jobe appealed the case, asking the court of appeals whether a tenant could have a remedy when a landlord breaches the warranty of habitability in a lease. What did the court of appeals decide and what were the key reasons supporting their decision?
A. A tenant can have a remedy for breach of the warranty of habitability because, although traditional property leases dealt with farms where the land was most important, now urban housing deals with leases where the building is more important so that the implied warranty of habitability requires landlords to maintain safe and sanitary housing as part of the lease agreement. B. A tenant can have a remedy for breach of the warranty of habitability because the warranty is in harmony with housing and building codes that ensure decent housing. . C. A tenant can have a remedy for breach of the warranty of habitability because a residential landlord must ensure that the dwelling is habitable at the beginning of the lease and throughout the duration of the lease, meeting the bare living requirements like heat and hot water and proper sewage.
In Pebble Beach v. Caddy, the famous golf course/resort filed a lawsuit in federal court against Caddy who occupies and runs a 3-room bed and breakfast located in Great Britain, on a cliff overlooking the pebbly beaches of England's south shore. The bed and breakfast has a non-interactive website www.pebblebeach-uk.com (Links to an external site.). All requests for bookings or payments must be handled separately from the website. Previously, Caddy did work at a restaurant in Carmel California, but his legal domicile has been in the United Kingdom. Pebble Beach tried to assert "long-arm" jurisdiction over Caddy for violation of the golf course/resort's trademark. The trial court dismissed the case because of a lack of personal jurisdiction over Caddy, meaning that long-arm jurisdiction requirements were not satisfied by the facts of the case. Pebble Beach appealed the case. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals used a 3-part "minimum contacts" test to determine whether long-arm jurisdiction over Caddy is appropriate. That test is satisfied when (1) the defendant has performed some act or consummated some transaction within the forum or otherwise purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting activities in the forum, (2) the claim arises out of or results from the defendant's forum-related activities, and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable. The Court concluded that the facts of the case did not satisfy the test and that an exercise of personal jurisdiction over Caddy would offend due process. What reasons did the court provide to support its determination?
A. Caddy took no actions in California or in the United States that invoked the benefits or protects of California or the United States. B. Caddy's using the name Pebble Beach in its website domain name was not directed at California or the United States. C. The fact that it is foreseeable that the use of the name and the website could be viewed from California or the United States is not enough, by itself, to establish personal jurisdiction.
On July 29, 2013, Clarence Jamison, an African American welder, was on his way home to Neeses, South Carolina after vacationing in Phoenix, Arizona. Jamison was driving on Interstate 20 in a recently purchased 2001 Mercedes-Benz CLK-Class convertible. As Jamison drove through Pelahatchie, Mississippi, he passed Officer Nick McClendon, a white officer with the Richland Police Department, who was parked in a patrol car on the right shoulder. Officer McClendon says he decided to stop Jamison because the temporary tag on his car was "folded over to where [he] couldn't see it." The situation then became a Terry stop, based on the case of Terry v. Ohio. Officer McClendon questioned Jamison, detained him, patted him down, searched his car. During the search, the police caused approximately $4,000 of damage to the car. The entire process took one hour and fifty minutes. It did not escalate into police violence against Jamison. But the entire stop was fruitless because Jamison was not engaged in any unlawful behavior and was not in possession of any unlawful substances or property. Jamison filed a civil lawsuit against Officer McClendon based on violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983. In defense against the allegations in the lawsuit, McClendon asserted the defense of "qualified immunity" and moved for summary judgment to dismiss all but one claim in the case based on qualified immunity for the police officer. After writing a highly critical opinion, the court granted McClendon's motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity. Which answer or answers best represent some the key reasons articulated by the court in granting McClendon's motion for summary judgment based on the defense of qualified immunity regarding the prolonged detention and unlawful search claims?
A. It was not clearly established law that an officer who has made five sequential requests for consent to search a car, lied, promised leniency, and placed his arm inside of a person's car during a traffic stop while awaiting background check results has violated the Fourth Amendment. And Jamison also failed to show that Officer McClendon acted in an objectively unreasonable manner because an officer's acts are held to be objectively reasonable unless all reasonable officials in the defendant's circumstances would have known at the time of the incident that the defendant's conduct violated the United States Constitution or the federal statute as alleged by the plaintiff. B. Jamison failed to show that Officer McClendon acted in an objectively unreasonable manner because an officer's acts are held to be objectively reasonable unless all reasonable officials in the defendant's circumstances would have known at the time of the incident that the defendant's conduct violated the United States Constitution or the federal statute as alleged by the plaintiff.
On May 25, 2020, officers Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng responded to a report of a forgery in progress at Cup Foods at the intersection of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue South around 8:30 p.m. When they arrived, they encountered Floyd, identified as a suspect, in his car. The officers ordered Floyd out of the vehicle and handcuffed him. The officers told Floyd they were arresting him for passing a $20 counterfeit bill. They walked him to their squad car, but Floyd would not get inside, telling the officers he was claustrophobic. Chauvin and Thao eventually arrived on the scene to assist. As the officers were trying to force Floyd into the backseat of the squad car, he repeatedly said that he could not breathe and would not go voluntarily into the vehicle. Chauvin pulled Floyd out of the squad car and he went down on the ground, still handcuffed. Kueng held his back and Lane held his legs while Chauvin pressed his knee onto Floyd's neck for approximately 9 minutes during which Floyd repeatedly cried "I can't breathe." Floyd eventually lost consciousness, but none of the officers moved from their positions. The ambulance arrived minutes later. Floyd was later declared dead at the hospital. Based on the Week 10 Lecture and PowerPoint, what are the points in this timeline of events where racial bias may be seen within the legal principles being used by the police?
A. Racial bias may been seen in the officers' interpretation of "unlawful activity." B. Racial bias may been seen in the officers' interpretation of "threat." C. Racial bias may been seen in the officers' interpretation of "reasonable force," D. Racial bias may been seen in the officers' interpretation of "officer safety."
The constitutional right to privacy is a penumbral right that is derived from "Liberty" rights explicitly stated in several parts of the United States Constitution and has been found by the United States Supreme Court to extend to which of the following?
A. The ability of a married couple to use contraception. B. Consensual sexual activity between adults. C. A woman's control of her body and the fetus prior to the point of viability or, more generally, within the first trimester of pregnancy. D. A person's right to view pornographic (but not obscene) material in her/his/their private home.
In Frigaliment Importing Co. v. International Sales Corp., the parties got into a dispute over whether the contract required the delivery of young chicken suitable for frying or broiling or whether delivery could also be satisfied by stewing chickens. The court acknowledged that the word chicken in the contract was ambiguous. Therefore, in order to determine whether International Sales Corporation had breached the contract by sending stewing chickens, the court had to decide what the parties intended chicken to mean under the terms of the contract. What evidence of the meaning of the term chicken did the court examine and use to directly support its decision?
A. The contract itself to see if other parts of the contract language helped with the interpretation, such as the weight of the chicken. B. The trade usage of the term "chicken" to see if there was an accepted, common understanding. D. The dictionary definition of "chicken."
You live in a neighborhood close to downtown and the central business district of your city. After work, you put your backpack on your shoulder and start to walk home. On the way home, you notice that there are a lot of people gathered and shouting something. It looks like the beginning of a protest. Police have started to arrive to maintain the peace. You move past the crowd and, up ahead of you and off to the side, you see a person yelling and making violent gestures at an elderly person with a roller bag containing their groceries. The angry person is blocking the path of both the elderly person and soon your path too. The angry person kicks the roller bag over, spilling the groceries and then moves toward the elderly person with their fist raised to strike. You shout for them to stop and you run in front of the elderly person to prevent them from being hit. Instead, you receive the blow from the angry person's first. It knocks you to the ground and your backpack falls off your shoulder. The attacker tries to take your bag. But you grab your backpack first, swing it at the attacker, and hit them in the head. They fall to the ground unconscious. You stand up fully and move toward the fallen attacker who is no longer moving. At that moment, a police officer from the protest sees you and shouts for you to stop what you're doing, drop your backpack, and put your hands over your head. You comply immediately and the situation does not escalate further. However, you are arrested, read your Miranda rights, and taken to the police station for booking. With your 1 phone call, you call the number of a criminal defense attorney whose business card is posted on the wall by the telephone at the police station. You hire that criminal defense attorney. The attorney arrives and, with her by your side, you are interrogated by the police. You answer their questions and explain why you did what you did. Nevertheless, the next day you are arraigned and charged with second degree assault (based on allegations that you intentionally assaulted another and thereby recklessly inflicted substantial bodily harm) and with third degree assault (based on allegations that you, with criminal negligence, caused bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm). Your attorney enters a plea of "not guilty" for you. Bail is set. After your release from jail on bail, you go to your attorney's office in order to discuss how to defend yourself against the assault charges. The attorney suggests that you try to get a plea bargain, with you pleading guilty to third degree assault or even fourth degree assault. But you maintain that what you did was excusable under the circumstances. You tell the lawyer that you may have hit the angry person, but you did so justifiably. What defenses could you assert in this case?
A. You could assert that you were acting in "Defense of Others" because you were protecting the elderly person. B. You could assert that you were acting in "Defense of Self" because you were protecting yourself after getting hit.
You are an employee at a large company, headquartered here in Seattle and incorporated here in Washington. You have done an excellent job for the 3 years that you have worked for the company. Upper management is considering 3 employees for a promotion to a managerial position. You are excited for the possible promotion because you and your spouse, after 3 years of marriage, have decided to have a child. You are currently 3 months pregnant. The raise in salary would help financially with the costs of birth and child care., especially because the cost of living here in Seattle is very high. During the interview for the promotion, the interviewer asks if you have children or intend to have children. You respond, "yes." And you explain your family situation. The interviewer cautions you that the management position will be demanding and that successful managers in the past have not been tied down with family obligations. The other two candidates are not married and do not have children. After 10 days, you are informed that you did not get the promotion. Instead, the promotion to manager went to one of the other two candidates. You consult with an attorney about filing a lawsuit for wrongful discrimination based on a failure to promote you based on the fact that you are pregnant and may have child care duties. The attorney tells you that there are two anti-discrimination statutes that likely apply directly to your case, the Washington Law Against Discrimination and Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act. If you decide to file the lawsuit, where could you file it?
A. You could file the lawsuit in the county courthouse where the defendant resides. B. You could file the lawsuit in a Washington state court because Washington courts have jurisdiction over cases involving Washington law and concurrent jurisdiction over Federal anti-discrimination employment laws like Title VII. D. You could file the lawsuit in federal court in the Western District of Washington because the facts regarding discrimination raise a federal question under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the federal court could then exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim because the facts supporting a violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination are the same facts that support a claim for violation of the federal statute.
You and your roommate like skateboarding on campus late at night. One night, you are both skateboarding on Red Square, and your roommate dares you to jump the stairs between Red Square and the pathway to Drumheller Fountain. You refuse because it would be too dangerous and you are not a risk-taker when skateboarding. In fact, your friends tease you for always wearing a helmet and safety padding. Nevertheless, your roommate says, "I will pay you $400 if you make that jump!" You think that the money would really help you to celebrate Halloween by allowing you to buy a great costume and go to a socially distanced party with your friends (all of whom wear face masks and maintain 6 feet or more distance between each other). So, you get on your skateboard and make the jump. Your roommate makes a video recording of your jump. You succeed without having an accident or breaking your skateboard. Your roommate immediately uploads the video to Facebook and tags you. Friends start to like the post instantly. You run back up the stairs and hold out your hands for the $400. Your roommate says, "No way! I was only joking!" You have never seen your roommate make this kind of joke before. And you are angry that your roommate won't pay you the $400. You again demand the $400 because you believed that you had an agreement. Your roommate says that you didn't have a written contract and that it is your word against your roommate's that there was any agreement at all. What evidence or contract law arguments stated below do you have to prove that you had a legally enforceable agreement?
A. You performed your part of the contract, which was to make that jump. B. It is unlikely that a habitually safety-conscious person like yourself would make a risky jump like this one without an external incentive like the $400 dollar offer in exchange for the jump..
In order for there to be a "meeting of the minds" in an enforceable agreement (a contract), the parties to the contract must manifest their agreement to the terms of the contract. What are the different ways that can demonstrate agreement by one or both parties?
All of the above.
In criminal law, we discussed crimes against persons or property, as well as "one-step removed" crimes. Generally, regarding any of these crimes, we have identified two characteristics that must be present in the commission of a crime: mens rea and actus reus. Which answer below provides the most correct understanding what actus reus and mens rea mean?
B. Actus reus is the evil doing hand and mens rea is the evil thinking mind. C. Mens rea shows the intent to commit a crime and actus reus shows an action taken in furtherance of that crime.
In Utah, a public school district refused to allow a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and friends support group from being a recognized extra-curricular student group. The school stated that it did not want to support or advocate or even address sexual minority issues. Previously, the school had recognized many other kinds of extracurricular groups, including a soccer team, a track team, a football team, several religious prayer groups, a chess team, a support group for students from difficult family circumstances, a drama club, and several foreign language clubs. The parents of the students requesting the GLBTQQ&F support group brought a federal lawsuit on their behalf alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The court determined that the school had violated that clause and instructed the school to provide a remedy for the violation. Which of the following actions by the school would satisfy (rather than violate) the equal protection clause?
C. Recognize the GLBTQQ&F group as a valid extracurricular group. D. Ban all extracurricular groups.
In 2018, President Donald Trump stated that he was moving forward with a $20,000,000,000 (twenty billion dollar) plan to build a wall along the United States/Mexico border. After this announcement, the game company Cards Against Humanity bought a large piece of real estate along the United States/Mexico border in order to prevent the government from building that wall. Assume the following facts to also be true. In order to increase the value of the land, the game company began the construction process for building a game-playing retreat hotel on their land. However, their land does not connect to the nearest road in the area. There is a piece of property in between the road and the game company's property. Cards Against Humanity contacted the owners of that in-between property in order to negotiate building a road or driveway that runs from the road, across the in-between property and to the company's property in order for the company's property to have access. This scenario raises two legal questions. Can Cards Against Humanity get an access road or driveway across the in-between property? Can the United States government force Cards Against Humanity to allow the construction of a border wall across their property? Please choose the most legally correct answer or answers.
C. Yes because Cards Against Humanity can negotiate an easement from the road to their property, provided they pay for it and the in-between property owners agree to grant them such an easement. D. Yes because the government can exercise eminent domain in order to build the wall provided that it pays fair market value for the property it takes.
What are the 4 required elements (or "formula") for the tort of negligence?
Duty, Breach, Causation, Damages.
What is a "Federal Question" for purposes of jurisdiction and the federal courts?
Federal question jurisdiction comes from a plaintiff's "claim for relief" or "cause of action" that arise from the U.S. Constitution, federal statues, maritime law, bankruptcy, patent law, federal income tax, and other things enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Traditionally, a properly formed contract requires which 3 elements?
Offer, Acceptance, Consideration
The outcome of many search and seizure cases depends on whether the defendant has a legitimate expectation of privacy sufficient to require a warrant. In United States v. Jones, the Court addressed whether attaching a GPS tracking device to an individual's personal vehicle in order to track the individual and gain evidence constitutes a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. In Kyllo v. United States, agents of the U.S. Department of the Interior suspected and investigated Danny Kyllo of illegally growing marijuana in his home and used a thermal imager to scan his home. The Court addressed whether such activity constituted a search because it involved activity conducted in the interior of the home and used "sense-enhancing technology" that was not in general public use. In Katz v. United States, the Court addressed whether the attachment of an electronic eaves-dropping device on the top of a phone booth constituted a search as well. Consider the following. There has been a large theft of maple syrup from a warehouse. It appears that barrels of maple syrup have been slowly removed and replaced with barrels of water over a period of six months. The police are attempting to stop the continued theft and potential smuggling or black market operation due to the high value of maple syrup at approximately $1800 per barrel, which is approximately 13 times the price of crude oil. With the permission of the owner, they attached a GPS tracking device to a barrel and placed the barrel back in the warehouse. After a week, someone loaded the barrel without authorization onto an unknown truck and drove to a different warehouse. The police used tracking information from the GPS device to get a warrant and then raided the warehouse where they found many of the other stolen barrels of maple syrup. They arrested the suspect, and charged him with several crimes. The defendant challenged the evidence by arguing that the GPS tracking device was improper because placing the device on the barrel itself required a warrant. Because the police did not get such a warrant, any evidence found at the second warehouse should be excluded as fruit from the poisonous tree. Will the court agree with the defendant and why? Please select the most accurate answer.
No, because the barrel belonged to someone else who gave permission when the GPS tracking device was installed and, therefore, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the barrel.
What are the elements of adverse possession?
None of the above.
In federal courts, the criminal prosecution of the accused formally begins with an indictment. An indictment is issued by the court after the determination by a Grand Jury. How does the Grand Jury get the evidence they use in making their determination and what is the legal standard that a Grand Jury applies?
The prosecutor presents to the Grand Jury the evidence that the police or investigators have gathered against the accused. The Grand Jury then decides if there is "probable cause" for each element of the alleged crime. If there is, then the indictment can be issued and the accused can then be brought before the court for arraignment.
In Hammer v. Sidway, an uncle promised his nephew to pay him $5,000 to refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and gambling until the nephew became 21 years old. The nephew refrained from the various actions and claimed payment of the promised money was due. The uncle declined to pay and argued that there was no enforceable contract because refraining from all those actions was for the good and the benefit of the nephew and because the nephew gave the uncle no consideration or value for the $5,000. The court disagreed and found in favor of the nephew. Why?
The court will not inquire into whether refraining from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and gambling provided a benefit to the uncle because the nephew actually gave up his right to do those things; and surrendering his right to do those things had sufficient value for consideration.
In Lugenbuhl v. Dowling, a medical patient sued his physician for damages allegedly caused by the doctor's failure to use the surgical mesh requested by the patient to repair a cardiac incisional hernia. The patient was consistently explicit in requesting the use of a particular mesh rather than sutures. The court rejected the idea of potential liability arising from the tort of battery. Instead the court analyze whether the doctor may be liable based on a breach of the doctor's duty to provide the patient with material information concerning the medical procedure, which is to say whether the doctor failed to comply with the requirements of informed consent. The court stated that a plaintiff in a "lack of informed consent" case must prove that (1) the physician failed to disclose all material information, and (2) there was a causal relationship between the doctor's failure and the injuries claimed by plaintiff. Otherwise, the doctor's conduct, however wrongful, is legally inconsequential. What conclusion did the court reach in this case?
The doctor was liable because the breach of the duty of informed consent caused plaintiff to undergo a medical procedure to which the patient expressly objected and for which the doctor failed to provide adequate information in response to the pateint's request, thereby causing damages to the patient's dignity, privacy, and emotional well-being.
You live in an apartment in the Ravenna area of Seattle. Despite classes being offered remotely, you look forward to the time in the near future when classes resume in person. Your apartment is too close to school to justify driving a car whenever you will need to go to campus, but it is too far to walk in bad weather and the bus system is not super convenient and some people don't wear their masks effectively for proper health safety. So you decide to buy a bicycle. You answer an advertisement on a phone app. The seller is offering a used REI bicycle with multiple gears and mud fenders to protect your clothing during Seattle's rainy winters. The price is amazing--just $100. You arrange to meet the seller in front of Solstice Cafe on the Ave. The seller says she is moving from Seattle and needs to sell the bike quickly for cash. The bike looks great but there is a large decal on one side of the center post in the frame that has a rainbow unicorn on it. It seems amusing and whimsical to you. So you agree to buy the bike for the offered amount, which is an unbelievably good deal because these kinds of bikes normally retail for a much higher amount. You are very happy with your new commuting solution until you take a trip to Hall Health for Covid-19 testing. When you leave you leave Hall Health, you walk to the nearby bike rack, where you have secured your bike. Standing next to your bike is a person who seems very upset. You walk up to them and ask if you can help. They accuse you of stealing there bike. You explain how you got it. They pull out a smart phone and show you a pic of their stolen bike and its serial number. Their bike has the same Unicorn decal and the serial number matches the one on your bike. Since the pic was taken on a sunny day, you know that it wasn't just taken while you were getting tested. You ask them what they want to do about this. They demand you return the bike to them. You protest because you paid $100. They call Campus Security, who arrive, listen to the story, and take the bike into their custody. In this conflict, who has superior ownership rights?
The original owner has superior ownership rights because they have the proper title to the bike and, since it was stolen, the title did not transfer to the bicycle thief and, therefore, the bicycle theif could not transfer good title to you.
In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the United States Supreme Court articulated a requirement for law enforcement officers to inform suspects of certain rights and information at the time the individual is taken into custody, which is to say when the individual is no longer free to leave or their movement is substantially or wholly restricted by law enforcement. What are the core ideas contained in the "Miranda" rights?
The right to against self-incrimination, the right to legal counsel, the ability to waive these rights and that, if the rights are waived, what you say can be used against you for criminal prosecution.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the use of race as a factor in student admissions by the University of Michigan is unlawful under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection clause provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Any racial classifications by the government, such as an admission policy by a public university that uses race as a factor in admissions, must be reviewed by a court using strict scrutiny. Grutter was a white Michigan resident who applied for admission with a high GPA and LSAT score, but she was placed on the waitlist and subsequently rejected from admission. She filed a lawsuit for discrimination based on her race because other students with lower GPAs or LSAT scores were admitted. However, the admissions process evaluated each applicant based on all the information in the file, including a personal statement, letters of recommendation, and an essay describing the ways in which the applicant will contribute to the life and diversity to the school, as well as GPA and LSAT scores. The Court held that the Equal Protection clause does no prohibit the way that the school used race in admission decisions in order to further the school's interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. What are the key reasons that justify the Court's decision?
The school had a compelling governmental interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, and the admission policy in narrowly tailored insofar as there is no automatic acceptance or rejection based on any single variable, like race, but rather multiple criteria are evaluated for each individual application.
The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute. In practical terms, free speech can be "burdened" by the government in a constitutionally acceptable way because of the need to balance the interests of people who want to exercise their free speech right with the interests of the government in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the people too. This balance resulted in which of the following recognized restrictions?
The time of the speech, the place of the speech, and the manner of the speech.
What are the basic legal requirements for a warrant?
The warrant must be issued by a judge, be based on probable cause, have persons/places/things subject to the warrant stated with particularity, and when the police are executing the warrant, they must knock, identify themselves, announce the warrant, and delay before entering.
Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that directly relates to which of the following?
When an employee is doing their job (like a pizza delivery driver driving a car to deliver a pizza to you) and that employee commits a tort (like backing into a parked car in front of your apartment building), then the employer can be held liable for the damages caused by their employee.
Wheelcraft Solutions is a Taiwanese corporation. It manufactures an innovative personal transportation device that operates in a similar manner to a Segue except it is smaller and operates only as a motorized platform between the feet with wheels on either side. Wheelcraft got a huge commercial boost when it appeared in several music videos from performers around the world and from some skateboard clothing manufacturers who featured stylish skateboarders using Wheelcraft instead of skateboards. In the United States, Wheelcraft is exclusively sold online. Dmitry is a student at the University of Washington. He ordered a Wheelcraft device and had great fun zooming all over campus, although he had to stop and pick it up to carry it up or down stairs. The device is powered by a rechargeable battery. The device can be charged by plugging it into any regular electrical outlet. Dmitry lived in the dorms. His roommate, Mohammed, thought Wheelcraft was really fun and borrowed it from time to time too. One night, while Dmitry and Mohammed were sleeping, the Wheelcraft charger malfunctioned and the device exploded. Dmitry and Mohammed were both injured by flying debris and by burns and smoke inhalation. Dmitry had to have plastic surgery on the left side of his face. Mohammed had to have skin grafts on his right arm due to the burns he received. They brought a lawsuit in Federal District Court in the Western District of Washington located here in Seattle against Wheelcraft Solutions for their personal injuries. After the lawsuit began, Wheelcraft disclosed to the plaintiffs that the rechargeable batteries were made by an Australian company called Outback Batteries. Outback Batteries has never independently imported batteries into the United States. They are a company that only provides industrial batteries to other companies for use in their devices. And the companies they sell to are in China, Taiwan, Vietnam, and India exclusively. They do not advertise to the general consumer market. Although, Wheelcraft did indicate on its website that the rechargeable batteries in the devices were made by Outback Batteries, a business Wheelcraft was proud to work based on high quality. Based on this information, Dmitry and Mohammed then also sued Outback Batteries for their part in causing the injury to the students. Outback challenged the lawsuit against it, claiming that there was no personal jurisdiction over it. And, therefore, Outback should be dismissed from the lawsuit. Is the court likely to dismiss Outback Batteries from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over it?
Yes, because Outback Batteries did not direct any of its actions toward Washington or the United States, either through sales or marketing and, although the mention of Outback Batteries on the Wheelcraft website might be seen by consumers in Washington or the United States, it was not an advertisement explicitly aimed by Outback Batteries at Washington or the United States.
The University of Washington has a radio station that is run by students in the Communications Department. Several of the students decided to create a radio show that plays only the newest and most interesting music they can find on YouTube. The show is called "Trending." To promote the show, the students decided to have an exciting promotion that was a race from the IMA to Schmitz Hall. The participants in the race wore all white clothing. Their job was to be the first to arrive at Schmitz Hall without getting anything on their white outfits. The radio station challenged all students listening to intercept the racers and get them dirty—throw food, water balloons, paint, ink, mud—anything that would dirty their outfits. Two students who were listening had paint guns. They grabbed their paint guns, loaded them, and rushed to intercept the racers before they reached Schmitz Hall. The students spotted the fastest racers by the Quad. The students hid behind the cherry trees and shot several of the racers as they passed in front of Smith Hall. One of the paint balls, however, missed the racers and hit a librarian, who was also walking through the Quad on her way to Suzzallo Library. The paintball damaged her left eye and may result in permanent blindness. The librarian has sued the students with the paintball guns, the students who have the radio show and ran the promotion, and the University of Washington as the owner of the radio station. The students who operated the radio show and the University have attempted to defend themselves by arguing that they have no responsibility for the injury suffered by the librarian because it was caused by the students with paintball guns, not by the radio show. Based on Weirum v. RKO General, is it likely that the radio show (hosts/university) will be found liable for negligence?
Yes, because the risk of harm to the librarian was reasonably foreseeable, and the radio station owed her a duty of care to prevent her from being injured as a result of their promotional race.
Student loans have piled up, leaving you with enormous debt. Some friends of yours decide to rob a bank in order to get a lot of money quickly. You say that's a terrible idea, but decide to go along with their plan because of financial desperation. One of those friends is a stunt-person from Hollywood. She says that she can put "blanks" in all the guns so that the guns will only be to scare and intimidate people, not actually shoot them. During the robbery something goes wrong. A security guard pulls his gun and shoots at you. You raise your gun and fire back. His bullet misses you. To your shock, however, the person standing just behind the security guard falls to the ground. Apparently your gun did not have blanks, but rather had live ammunition. And, although you were aiming for the security guard, you shot the bystander. The police arrive and all of the bank robbers are arrested, including you. You are charged with attempted bank robbery. Could you also be charged with attempted murder?
Yes, because you intended to shoot at a person and it doesn't matter whether that person or someone else got hit by the bullet due to the fact that intent follows the bullet.
Assume the following fictional scenario to be true. The University of Washington has a policy that states, "Destroying or defacing the flag of Washington or the emblem of the University of Washington shall result in the immediate termination of any employee who does so in a public place because it disgraces the school and devalues both our state and our public institutions of higher learning." For purposes of this question, the school's policies generally are considered to be of equal force and effect. Fatima Rojas is employed as the head of information services for the Jackson School of International Studies. Recently, that school hosted a panel discussion on the building of a border wall between the United States and Mexico. This is part of a controversial national debate on immigration. The panel had speakers who addressed both sides of the issue, which is consistent with the academic freedoms provided under university policy. Part of Ms. Rojas' family is from Mexico, and she has strong political views that building such a wall is discriminatory and offensive. So many people in the local community agreed with her that a protest was held in Red Square. The protest was approved by the administration. A date for the protest was set. Proper security and emergency responders were provided. During the protest, Ms. Rojas and two student activists sprayed the word "Bigot" on the flag of the state and the emblem of the school. The three then burned the flags. Some administrators from the university were present and saw these actions. They reported them to the Provost and an investigation was conducted. After the investigation, Ms. Rojas was terminated for violation of the university policy. Ms. Rojas challenged the policy and her termination, arguing that her behavior was protected under the First Amendment and the school had violated her constitutional rights. Would Ms. Rojas' likely prevail in a federal court and why?
Yes, she is likely to prevail because the policy prohibits her conduct on the basis of the political message she communicated by defacing and burning the flags.
