Missed Mixed Session 10
An artist sued a filmmaker for copyright infringement and properly demanded a jury trial. The artist alleged that the filmmaker used a character created by the artist in a film. When the artist attempted to introduce drawings of the character into evidence, the filmmaker objected that the drawings were not the original copyrighted drawings. The filmmaker sought to introduce another set of drawings as the original drawings. The artist, in addition to arguing that the drawings she submitted were the original drawings, asserted that the original document rule does not apply to artwork. Who must determine whether the original document rule applies to works of art, and who must determine which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings?
The judge must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. The judge must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and the jury must determine which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. The jury must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and the judge must determine which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. The jury must determine whether the original document rule applies to artwork and which of the two sets of drawings represents the original copyrighted drawings. Answer choice B is correct. The judge as the trier of law bears the responsibility of determining whether the best evidence rule applies to works of art. The jury bears the responsibility of determining which of two works produced at trial is the original.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") managed a reservoir and allocated water from the reservoir between two states. One of the states, dissatisfied with the allocation, sued the Corps in a federal district court. The other state, supporting the current allocation, intervened as a defendant and filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the United States Supreme Court should hear the matter. The federal district court properly found that the plaintiff-state was seeking relief from the Corps, not from the defendant-state. Based on this finding, the court held that the action did not involve a controversy between two states, and that the federal district court therefore retained original jurisdiction over the action. The defendant-state has challenged this ruling. Is the federal district court constitutionally required to dismiss this action because original jurisdiction lies with the Supreme Court?
No, because Congress may and has denied the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction over a controversy involving only one state. No, because the Constitution only requires that the Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction over a controversy involving a state. Yes, because the underlying controversy involves two states, even if the second state is not officially a party to the action. Yes, because the action involves a controversy between a state and an entity of the United States. Answer choice A is correct. While the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction over, among other matters, a controversy involving a state as a party, Congress may grant concurrent original jurisdiction to lower federal courts. By statute, Congress has granted federal district courts concurrent original jurisdiction over all controversies over which the Constitution granted the U.S. Supreme Court original jurisdiction, except for a controversy between two states. Since the district court properly determined that the current action was not a controversy between two states, the district court is not constitutionally required to dismiss this action.
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?
No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Commerce Clause. No, because Congress was acting pursuant to its power under the Enabling Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Yes, because the Eleventh Amendment prevents the recovery of retroactive money damages by citizens against a state agency. Yes, because the strict scrutiny test must be met for there to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Answer choice C is correct. The Court has interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as barring unconsented private suits against a state for retroactive money damages. Congress may abrogate state immunity from liability if it is clearly acting to enforce rights created by the remedial provisions of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments (i.e., the Civil War Amendments), and does so expressly.
A television talk show host and the wife of a politician were good friends. The politician and the wife had been in an unhappy marriage for many years, and had filed for divorce. Over drinks, the wife angrily mentioned to her friend the host, "He's been chasing younger women around behind my back for years. I don't know why I stayed with him so long." The next morning, while discussing the politician's divorce with a guest on the live show, the host said, "It's to be expected. From what I hear, the man is always chasing after underage girls. But that's just my opinion." The politician has sued the talk show host for defamation. Assuming the politician could prove that the statement was in fact false, is the politician likely to succeed in his action against the talk show host?
No, because a defamatory opinion cannot be the basis for a defamation action. No, because the talk show host was repeating the claims of the politician's wife. No, because the plaintiff is merely a public figure, rather than a public official. Yes, because the talk show host acted with actual malice. Answer choice D is correct. If the plaintiff in a defamation action is either a public official or a public figure, then the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant acted with actual malice; that is, he either had knowledge that the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of the statement.
The owner of a residence deeded it to a friend as a gift. After the deed was recorded by the owner's attorney, the owner contacted the friend with the good news. The friend politely thanked the owner, but told her that he did not want the residence. When the deed, which had already been mailed by the attorney, arrived at the friend's house, the friend mailed it back with a note stating, "I am returning ownership of this residence to [name of owner]." Shortly thereafter, the friend died intestate. The friend's heirs, learning of these events, have brought suit against the owner of the residence, seeking a judgment that they are the rightful owners of the residence. Which of the following is the owner's best argument that she is the owner of the residence?
The friend did not accept the residence. The friend reconveyed the residence to the owner. The recording of a deed only affects the rights of third parties, not the rights of the grantor or the grantee to the deeded property. The friend did not provide monetary consideration for the transfer. Answer choice A is correct. In order for a transfer of property to be effective, the property must be accepted. Although a grantee is generally presumed to have accepted any beneficial conveyance, here the owner can successfully argue that the friend clearly indicated that he did not accept the transfer of the owner's residence.
Pursuant to a valid warrant properly served, a police officer arrested a woman in her home for larceny. The police officer did not read the woman her Miranda warnings. In his experience, many arrestees made incriminating statements immediately post-arrest, and he was hoping she would do so. He walked with her along the sidewalk to his squad car, holding her elbow because her hands were cuffed behind her back. As they walked, she said, "I didn't mean to take the perfume. It just fell into my purse." At the police station, the officer gave the woman Miranda warnings. The woman then told the officer that she wanted to remain silent. She did not say anything further. The prosecution seeks to admit the woman's statement regarding the perfume into evidence. She has moved to suppress, arguing (i) that she was not given Miranda warnings before she made the statement and (ii) that the police officer had intentionally manipulated her into making an incriminating statement when she was already under arrest. How should the court rule on the woman's motion to suppress?
Deny the motion. Grant the motion on the ground that the officer failed to give the woman Miranda warnings. Grant the motion on the ground that the police officer had intentionally elicited an incriminating statement. Grant the motion on both grounds. Answer choice A is correct. The motion should be denied on both grounds. A suspect is entitled to Miranda warnings only if she is in custody and being interrogated. Volunteered statements, however, are not protected by Miranda, as they are, by definition, not the product of interrogation. Therefore, because the woman's statement was voluntary, it is not protected by Miranda.
A plaintiff filed a complaint against her former employer in federal district court, alleging that the employer had discriminated against her in violation of federal law. Two weeks after the complaint was served on the defendant, the defendant served an answer denying the factual allegations in the complaint. Ten days later, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding state law claims. Is the plaintiff entitled to amend her complaint without seeking leave of the court?
No, because a plaintiff may amend a pleading without leave of the court only within 21 days of filing the pleading. No, because a plaintiff may not amend a complaint without leave of the court after being served with an answer. Yes, because a plaintiff may amend a complaint once as of right within 21 days of being served with an answer. Yes, because a plaintiff may amend a complaint once as of right at any point before trial. Answer choice C is correct. If no responsive pleading is required, a party may amend a pleading once as of right within 21 days. If a responsive pleading is required, the party may amend within 21 days of service of the responsive pleading or within 21 days of being served with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), whichever is earlier. In this case, the plaintiff amended her pleading within 21 days of being served with an answer and was thus entitled to amend her pleading.
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?
No, because the local fan was the initial agressor. No, because the rival fan displayed only a pen and offered to withdraw from the altercation. Yes, because the local fan was a friend of the individual. Yes, because the individual reasonably thought that the rival fan threatened the local fan with deadly force. Answer choice D is correct. A person has the right to defend others under the same circumstances in which self-defense would be acceptable.
A manufacturer contracted with a company to replace the filter in its air-scrubber unit that reduced emissions from its manufacturing plant below the legally permitted maximum level. The cost of the replacement filter was $25,000. After beginning to construct the specific filter for the manufacturer, the company learned that, due to an unanticipated shortage, the cost of a chemical necessary in the production of the filter had risen. Before contacting the manufacturer about this issue, the company also learned that it did not have to purchase the chemical on the open market because it had enough on hand to make the filter. Nevertheless, the company subsequently contacted the manufacturer about the unanticipated shortage of the chemical and requested a corresponding increase in the price of the filter. The manufacturer, acknowledging that the increase was commercially reasonable, orally agreed to the additional cost of the filter. The manufacturer also knew that it could not obtain the filter from another source for less than the increased amount that it had agreed to pay the company. When the company delivered the filter, the manufacturer accepted it but refused to pay the company more than the original contract price. The company sued the manufacturer, seeking to recover the increased price for the filters to which the manufacturer had agreed. Is the court likely to find for the company?
No, because the modification to the agreement was not in writing. No, because the company did not act in good faith. Yes, because the modification did not require consideration. Yes, because the increased price was commercially reasonable. Answer choice B is correct. The company's reason for requesting the increase in the price of the air filter was that the cost of a chemical necessary to make the filters had risen unexpectedly. However, the company's cost to make the filter was not affected by this increase because the company had sufficient stock of the chemical on hand to make the filter. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs a contract for the sale of goods (e.g., the sale of air filters), a contract may be modified even though there is no consideration for the modification. However, the UCC does require that the modification be requested in good faith. Here, the air-filter company's request for a price increase was not made in good faith.
A pedestrian walking home after a game of laser tag passed a narrow alley and thought that he saw a man attacking a woman. He ran forward brandishing his laser tag gun and yelling, "Hands up, or I'll shoot!" In fact, the man was helping the woman, who had tripped, to her feet. However, the man, thinking that he was being threatened by a mugger with a gun, stumbled as he tried to run away from the pedestrian, falling and breaking his wrist. If the man sues the pedestrian for assault, is the man likely to prevail?
No, because the pedestrian reasonably believed that the woman was in imminent danger of bodily harm from the man. No, because the pedestrian used a toy laser gun to threaten the man. Yes, because the pedestrian intended to make the man afraid of an imminent harmful contact. Yes, because the pedestrian was not entitled to use a threat of force to defend an unrelated third party. Answer choice A is correct. An assault is the plaintiff's reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive bodily contact caused by the defendant's action or threat with the intent to cause the apprehension of such contact or the contact itself. However, a person is permitted to use reasonable force to defend another if he has a reasonable belief that the defended party would have been entitled to use self-defense. Here, the facts provided gave the pedestrian reasonable grounds to believe that the woman was in imminent danger of an imminent harm, and he responded with reasonable force to prevent that harm.
A defendant was charged with assault after being involved in a barroom fight in the middle of the day. The defendant admitted to being at the bar at the time of the fight, but claimed that he was only a bystander. At the defendant's trial, the prosecutor intended to call the defendant's former employer. The employer was to testify that the defendant had been fired and was not working at the time of his arrest. The defendant objected to the employer's testimony. How should the court rule?
Overrule the objection, because it tends to make it more likely that the defendant was at the bar in the middle of the day and involved in the fight. Overrule the objection, because the employer will be testifying based on his personal knowledge of the defendant's employment. Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer's testimony is unfairly prejudicial. Sustain the objection on the basis that the employer's testimony is not probative of a material fact. Answer choice is C is correct. As a general rule, evidence must be relevant in order to be admissible. Evidence is relevant if (i) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence (i.e., probative) and (ii) the fact is of consequence in determining the action (i.e., material). In this case, the defendant is on trial for assault. The fact that the defendant was unemployed at the time of his arrest makes it more likely that he was at the bar (and therefore potentially involved in the fight).
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?
Robbery and larceny only Burglary and larceny only Burglary and robbery only Burglary, robbery, and larceny Answer choice C is correct. Robbery is larceny from the person or presence of the victim by force or intimidation. Larceny merges into robbery. Thus, if a defendant has committed both robbery and larceny, the defendant can only be convicted of robbery. Burglary is the (i) breaking and (ii) entering (iii) of the dwelling (iv) of another (v) at nighttime (vi) with the specific intent to commit a felony therein. A defendant who fails to commit the underlying felony is nevertheless guilty of burglary.
A defendant operated a warehouse, next to which he set up a wooden ramp to assist in loading supplies. The plaintiff, a 13-year-old boy, asked if he could enter the defendant's property during the weekend to ride his skateboard on the ramp. The defendant told the plaintiff, "No you may not enter the property. Besides, skateboarding here would be too dangerous. This ramp is not smooth enough." The plaintiff asked again, saying, "Please. I know how dangerous skateboarding is. I do it all the time." The defendant still refused. That weekend, the plaintiff climbed the fence and rode his skateboard on the ramp. The plaintiff's skateboard hit an uneven patch and he was thrown off the board, suffering serious injury. The plaintiff subsequently brought an action against the defendant under the attractive nuisance doctrine. If the plaintiff is unsuccessful, which of the following is the most likely reason?
The ramp was not designed for skateboarding. The ramp was not designed to be attractive to children. The defendant had explicitly told the plaintiff he did not have permission. The plaintiff, despite his youth, fully appreciated the risks involved. Answer choice D is correct. Under the "attractive nuisance" doctrine, a land possessor may be liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if: (i) an artificial condition exists in a place where the land possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, (ii) the land possessor knows or has reason to know that the condition poses an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury to children, (iii) the children, because of their youth, do not discover or cannot appreciate the danger presented by the condition, (iv) the utility to the land possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared to the risk of harm presented to children, and (v) the land possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect children from the harm.
In a medical malpractice suit by a woman against a doctor, the woman seeks to introduce a properly authenticated photocopy of her hospital chart. The woman alleges that she told the assisting medical resident who took her medical history that, given the option, she would prefer to be prescribed a generic medication that was covered by her insurance. The chart contained a notation made by the medical resident suggesting that the doctor should prescribe the generic medication. The medical resident recalls including a notation regarding the generic medication on the hospital chart. However, the woman was given a non-generic medication during her stay at the hospital, and suffered injuries due to an unexpected side effect. She had never had similar side effects on the generic medication covered by her insurance. The woman has chosen to enter the photocopy of the notated hospital chart, but does not seek to enter the actual prescriptions given and filled by the hospital. Is the photocopy of the notated hospital chart admissible?
Yes, as a record of regularly conducted activity. Yes, as a recorded recollection. No, because the photocopy violates the best evidence rule. No, because the hospital chart is hearsay not within an exception. Answer choice A is correct. While made out of court and offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, a record or other writing (e.g., memorandum, report, data compilation) of any act or event made in the course of regularly conducted business is admissible. Medical records are considered business records to the extent that the entries relate to diagnosis or treatment. Accordingly, the hospital chart falls under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
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?
Yes, because only one of the three alleged conspirators was actually charged with conspiracy. Yes, because there was no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. No, because she and the men plotted to burn down a building. No, because of the "Pinkerton Rule." Answer choice C is correct. At common law, all that is required for a conspiracy to be established is an agreement between two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful purpose with the intent to accomplish that purpose. No overt act is required for the conspiracy to be complete at common law.
A college student had been flirting with a teaching assistant who was in his 20s. She invited the assistant to her dorm room to have sexual intercourse. He arrived at 9:00 p.m., and she immediately took his hand and led him to her bed. After they kissed for a few minutes, the assistant began to remove his clothes. The student then said, "I've changed my mind. I don't want to have sex." The assistant said, "Come on. I really like you." Even though the assistant tried for a few minutes to persuade her, the student continued to refuse to have sex, and the assistant left. The assistant did not know that the student was a child prodigy and was a 14-year-old college sophomore. She appeared to be older, and the assistant reasonably believed she was probably about 19 years old. In this jurisdiction, statutory rape is a strict-liability crime defined, in pertinent part, as "having sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 15." Should the state charge the teaching assistant with attempted rape under this statutory provision?
Yes, because statutory rape is a strict-liability crime. Yes, because the assistant continued the sexual contact after the student said she wanted to stop. No, because the student originally consented and the assistant stopped before intercourse occurred. No, because the assistant did not intend to have intercourse with a person under the age of 15. Answer choice D is correct. Although intent is not required for a strict liability crime such as the one detailed here, an attempted crime requires a substantial step and the specific intent to commit the crime. Because the teaching assistant did not have the specific intent to have sex with a person under the age of 15 when he tried to have sex with the student, he cannot be guilty of attempted rape.
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?
Yes, because the statute is substantially related to preventing teen suicides. Yes, because the statute is rationally related to preventing teen suicides. No, because there are other available solutions to prevent teen suicides. No, because the statute does not apply to bullying committed by female students. Answer choice A is correct. Discrimination based on gender is "quasi-suspect" and subject to intermediate scrutiny, which is less stringent than strict scrutiny but tougher than the rational basis test. Just as with suspect classifications and fundamental rights, there must be discriminatory intent by the government to trigger intermediate scrutiny. Even if discriminatory intent can be shown, under intermediate scrutiny, the burden is on the state to show that a statute or regulation that treats the sexes differently is substantially related to an important governmental interest.
A husband and wife decided to take a luxury cruise. On the last night of the cruise, the husband passed away in his sleep. The next morning, a temporary coffin was brought onto the ship to transport the husband's body to a mortuary. The cruise line used a crane to transport the coffin from the upper deck of the ship to the dock. The crewmembers negligently attached the crane straps to the coffin, and as the coffin was transported over the water, the straps loosened, and the husband's body fell out of the coffin and into the harbor. The wife, who watched her husband's body fall into the water, was horrified and traumatized by the incident. The wife filed suit against the cruise line for damages resulting from her emotional distress. Will the wife prevail?
Yes, because the wife watched her husband's body fall into the harbor. Yes, because the crewmembers did not properly secure the coffin. No, because the wife did not suffer any physical injury from the accident. No, because the crewmembers' actions were not extreme and outrageous. Answer choice B is correct. A plaintiff can recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress from a defendant whose tortious conduct placed the plaintiff in harm's way if the plaintiff demonstrates that: (i) he was within the "zone of danger" of the threatened physical impact—that he feared for his own safety because of the defendant's negligence; and (ii) the threat of physical impact caused emotional distress. Under the majority rule, damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress without physical symptoms are not recoverable; however, an exception exists for the negligent mishandling of a corpse. Here, the crewmembers mishandled the husband's corpse when they failed to properly secure the crane straps to the coffin. Due to their negligence, the wife will prevail.
An employee brought an action in federal district court based on sexual harassment claims under Title VII. The employer, in his answer, alleged that the employee voluntarily terminated her employment after the termination of a consensual sexual relationship with her supervisor. In the alternative, the employer alleged that the employee's poor job performance justified her termination. The court, finding that these allegations were mutually exclusive, ruled that the employer could not plead both and ordered the employer to strike one. Are the court's ruling and order correct?
Yes, because, while alternative allegations are permissible, inconsistent ones are not. Yes, because the employer's allegations were made in an answer rather than a complaint. No, because a court on its own may not strike a defense from a pleading. No, because alternative and inconsistent allegations are permitted. Answer choice D is correct. Both alternative and inconsistent defenses may be alleged in an answer.