Bar Prep Midterm

A patient domiciled in State A sued a surgeon domiciled in State B in a federal court in State A, alleging claims for malpractice. The surgeon moved to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and set discovery cutoff and trial dates. The surgeon has appealed the denial of the motion. Should the appellate court hear the merits of the surgeon's appeal?

No, because the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

A woman, domiciled in State A, entered into a contract with an art dealer, domiciled in State B, to purchase several pieces of artwork for the woman's office in State C. The parties negotiated and signed the contract in State C. The contract required the dealer to deliver the artwork to the woman's office on a specified date. The woman paid the dealer the contract price. When the specified date arrived, the dealer refused to deliver the artwork because he wanted to keep the pieces for himself. He also refused to return the woman's money. The dealer stored the artwork in a warehouse he owned in State A and returned home. The woman sued the dealer in a federal district court in State A, seeking a declaratory judgment that she lawfully owns the artwork. The dealer filed an answer and asserted a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the dealer's motion?

No, because the artwork is located in State A

A businesswoman sued a website owner in federal court for violating federal copyright law. The businesswoman sent a copy of the complaint and a form requesting waiver of service of process to the website owner's residence via first-class mail. The request named the court where the complaint was filed and the date when the request was sent. The businesswoman did not receive anything back from the website owner, so 31 days after mailing the request, she had a process server hand-deliver a copy of the summons and complaint to the website owner. Is the website owner liable for the expenses associated with the process server?

No, because the businesswoman did not include all that was necessary for a waiver request

After 10 years of marriage, a husband and wife decided to separate. The husband remained in the family home in State A, while the wife moved into an apartment in State B. Seven months later, the wife filed for divorce in a state court in State B. She knew that her husband would be attending a professional conference in State B the following week, so she hired a process server to personally hand-deliver a copy of the divorce petition and the State B summons to him at the conference. The husband moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the husband's motion to dismiss?

No, because the husband was personally served with the process in State B

A woman was charged with a felony. After charges were filed but before the woman's trial, the state passed a law requiring any convicted felon to make a payment to the victim of the crime. Under the law, the payment "shall be such amount as the court may find appropriate at the time of sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offense, but shall not exceed $25,000." The law applies to all defendants whose trials or guilty pleas take place after the law's passage. Is the law valid as applied to the woman?

No, because the law cannot be applied retroactively to crimes committed before its passage

The United States government demonstrated that terrorist attacks involving commercial airliners were perpetrated exclusively by individuals of one particular race. In response, Congress enacted a statute imposing stringent new airport and airline security measures only on individuals of that race seeking to board airplanes in the United States. Which of the following provides the best ground for challenging the constitutionality of this statute?

The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment

A worker took a temporary job of unknown duration in a distant state. The worker entered into a written agreement to rent a room in that state on a weekly basis, with the weekly period to start on Sunday and a weekly rent of $350, reflecting a per-day rental rate of $50, to be paid at the end of the week on Saturday. The worker occupied the room and paid the rent for several months before learning on a Tuesday that his job would be finished the following day. That same Tuesday evening, the worker gave an oral notice of termination to the landlord. There is no applicable statute. Assuming that the landlord is unable to find someone else to rent the room, how much rent is the worker obligated to pay?

$700, because the worker's notice Ould terminate the lease at the end of the next full period, on the following Saturday

A man who owned property in fee simple mortgaged the property to a bank to secure a loan of $100,000. The mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. The man later mortgaged the property to his mother to secure a loan of $50,000. This mortgage was also promptly and properly recorded. Subsequently, the man conveyed the property to a purchaser. About a year later, the purchaser borrowed $100,000 from an elderly widow and gave her a mortgage on the property to secure repayment of the loan. The widow did not know about the mortgage held by the mother. The understanding between the purchaser and the widow was that the purchaser would use the $100,000 to pay off the mortgage held by the bank and that the widow would therefore have a first mortgage on the property. The widow's mortgage was promptly and properly recorded. The purchaser paid the $100,000 received from the widow to the bank and obtained and recorded a release of the bank's mortgage. The $50,000 debt secured by the mother's mortgage was not paid when it was due, and the mother brought an appropriate action to foreclose, joining the man, the purchaser, and the widow as defendants and alleging that the mother's mortgage was senior to the widow's mortgage on the property. If the court rules that the widow's mortgage is entitled to priority over the mother's mortgage, which of the following determinations are necessary to support that ruling?

All of the above.

A man bought an antique car from a car dealer in State A. Under State A law, a person who buys from such a dealer acquires good title, even if the property was stolen from a previous owner. The man showed the car at an antique car show in State B. A woman recognized the car as having been stolen from her. Under State B law, a person whose property is stolen may reclaim it, even if the current possessor is an innocent purchaser. The woman sued the man in a State B court to reclaim the car. In his defense, the man claimed that he had good title under the law of State A. Nevertheless, the State B court applied State B law, and the woman prevailed. The man did not appeal. The sheriff had the car returned to State B and gave the woman possession of the car. Several months later, the woman moved to State A, bringing the car with her. The man brought a new suit against the woman in a State A court, claiming that the State B court in the prior suit should have applied the State A law, which protects innocent purchasers. The woman appeared and moved to dismiss the suit. What should the State A court do?

Dismiss the suit, because the State A court must give full faith and credit to the State B judgment

A manicurist entered into a one-year agreement to lease a nail salon from a landlord. During the first six months of the lease, the plumbing in the building functioned properly. During the seventh month, a pipe under the bathroom sink began leaking over a three-day weekend, causing flooding throughout the nail salon. The manicurist took reasonable steps to mitigate damages, including turning off the water to the bathroom sink and cleaning up the excess water to prevent water damage to the floors. The manicurist was still able to operate the nail salon despite the leaking pipe but not at full capacity. She notified the landlord about the leaking pipe, but the landlord refused to repair the faulty plumbing. The manicurist refused to pay the following month's rent, and the landlord has filed a breach-of-contract action against her. For whom is the court likely to decide?

For the landlord, because he did not have a duty to repair the plumbing

A brother and sister acquired title in fee simple to property, as equal tenants in common, by inheritance from their aunt. During the last 15 years of her lifetime, the aunt allowed the brother to occupy an apartment in the house on the property, to rent the other apartment in the house to various tenants, and to retain the rent. The brother made no payments to the aunt, and since the aunt's death 7 years ago he has made no payments to the sister. For those 22 years, the brother has paid the real estate taxes on the property, kept the building on the property insured, and maintained the building. At all times, the sister has lived in a distant city and has never had anything to do with the aunt, the brother, or the property. Recently, the sister needed money for the operation of her business and demanded that the brother join her in selling the property. The brother refused. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. There is no other applicable statute. The sister brought an appropriate action against the brother for partition. The brother asserted all available defenses and counterclaims. How should the court rule on the sister's action for partition?

Grant the partition and require, as an adjustment, an accounting to determine if either the brother or sister is indebted to the other on account of the rental payments, taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs

A federal statute appropriated $7 million for a nationwide essay contest on "How the United States Can Best Stop Drug Abuse." The statute indicates that its purpose is to generate new, practical ideas for eliminating drug abuse in the United States. Contest rules set forth in the statute provide that winning essays are to be selected based on the "originality, aptness, and feasibility of their ideas." The statute expressly authorizes a first prize of $1 million, 50 second prizes of $100,000 each, and 100 third prizes of $10,000 each. It also states that judges for the contest are to be appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate and that all residents of the United States who are not employees of the federal government are eligible to enter and win the contest. A provision of the statute authorizes any taxpayer of the United States to challenge its constitutionality. In a suit by a federal taxpayer to challenge the constitutionality of the statute, how should the court rule?

Hold the statute constitutional, because it is reasonably related to the general welfare, it states concrete objectives, and it provides adequate criteria for conducting the essay contest and awarding the prize money

A state statute requires each insurance company that offers burglary insurance policies in the state to charge a uniform rate for such insurance to all of its customers residing within the same county in that state. So long as a company complies with this requirement, it is free to charge whatever rate the market will bear for its burglary insurance policies. An insurance company located in the state files suit in federal district court against appropriate state officials to challenge this statute on constitutional grounds. The insurance company wishes to charge customers residing within the same county in the state rates for burglary insurance policies that will vary because they would be based on the specific nature of the customer's business, on its precise location, and on its past claims record. How should the court rule in this suit?

Hold the statute constitutional, because the statute is a reasonable exercise of the state's police power.

A new federal statute establishes a five-member commission on cultural heritage sites. The statute directs the commission to develop regulations to protect such sites on federal public lands and to implement the regulations through specified fact-finding and adjudicatory functions. The commission is not under the supervision or control of any federal agency. Which, if any, of the following methods of appointing the commission members would be constitutional?

Members are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate

The House of Representatives passed a bill imposing a tax on all insurance premiums for policies covering shipments of goods to foreign countries. The legislative record states that the purpose of this export tax is to subsidize the marine insurance industry. The tax applies to all goods manufactured or grown in every state. The bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by the President. Pursuant to the statute, a company paid the tax on insurance premiums for policies that cover goods exported to its foreign subsidiaries. The company filed a claim for a tax refund and was denied. The company filed suit alleging that the tax is unconstitutional. Is this federal tax likely constitutional?

No, because Congress does not have the power to tax exported goods or closely related services

A man conveyed a valid easement appurtenant across his ranch to a woman who owned the adjoining property, on which she operated a commercial farm. The easement was not recorded. Shortly before his death, the man devised his ranch to his son. The will made no mention of the woman's easement. The son, who lived out-of-state, never came to visit the ranch. The woman decided to expand the size of her crops and openly used the man's ranch to do so. She paid the taxes on the property and used the land exclusively for 20 years. However, she never used the easement during that time. After facing some financial hardship, the son decided to sell the ranch. To prevent the sale, the woman filed and won a quiet-title suit confirming that she had acquired ownership of the ranch through adverse possession. The son felt guilty about losing his father's ranch, so he worked out a deal with the woman to repurchase the ranch. After the sale, the woman resumed her use of the easement across the ranch that had been granted to her by the man. The son, already angry over having to repurchase the ranch, immediately objected to the woman entering his property. The woman has filed suit to enforce the easement. The jurisdiction has a notice recording act. Will the woman likely prevail?

No, because she acquired title to the ranch through adverse possession

The existence of an express right-of-way easement over land was discovered during a title search conducted by an individual who had contracted to buy the land. The seller desired to secure a release of the easement, so he traveled to the easement holder's neighboring property. When the seller arrived, the neighbor's adult daughter informed him that the neighbor had been living in a nursing home for the past year and that she had been taking care of his land. In exchange for a small sum, the neighbor's daughter executed the requested document. The document stated that the neighbor "hereby releases" the easement over the seller's land, which was described in full. The seller then deeded the land to the buyer, and the neighbor died shortly thereafter. The neighbor's property passed by will to the neighbor's daughter. The daughter claims that she continues to possess a right-of-way easement over the buyer's land. Is the neighbor's daughter correct?

No, because the daughter signed the release of the easement

A federal criminal law imposes penalties for the intentional publication of communications by individuals who know or have reason to know that the communications were unlawfully recorded. A teachers' union and school board were engaged in contentious negotiations over a collective-bargaining agreement. One of the members of the teachers' union unlawfully placed a wiretap on the president of the school board's telephone. The teachers' union member anonymously sent the recordings of several of the president's phone conversations about the negotiations to a local radio talk show host. The talk show host received the recordings in a box with no return address, sender information, or label. After listening to the recordings, the talk show host played them on her show. In the conversations, the president made several derogatory and embarrassing remarks. A prosecutor subsequently filed charges against the radio talk show host for playing the recordings on her show in violation of the federal law. The radio talk show host claims that the federal law is unconstitutional. Is the prosecution of the radio talk show host under the federal law likely constitutional?

No, because the host did not unlawfully obtain the recordings and does not know who did

Thirty years ago, a brother owned Lot 1, a lot contiguous to Lot 2, in fee simple. He executed and delivered to his sister an instrument in writing which was denominated "Deed of Conveyance." In pertinent part it read, "[Brother] does grant to [sister] and her heirs and assigns a right-of-way for egress and ingress to Lot 2." If the quoted provision was sufficient to create an interest in land, the instrument met all other requirements for a valid grant. The deed was recorded. The sister held record title in fee simple to Lot 2, which adjoined Lot 1. Twelve years ago, a cousin succeeded to the brother's title in fee simple in Lot 1. Seven years ago, a friend succeeded to the sister's title in fee simple in Lot 2 by a deed that made no mention of a right-of-way or driveway. At the time the friend took title, there existed a driveway across Lot 1 which showed evidence that it had been used regularly to travel between a public highway and Lot 2. Lot 2 did have frontage on a public side road, but this means of access was seldom used because it was not as convenient to the dwelling situated on Lot 2 as was the highway. The driveway originally was established by the sister. The friend has regularly used the driveway since acquiring title. The period of time required to acquire rights by prescription in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Six months ago, the cousin notified the friend that he planned to develop a portion of Lot 1 as a residential subdivision and that the friend should cease any use of the driveway. After some negotiations, the cousin offered to permit the friend to construct another driveway to connect with the streets of the proposed subdivision. She declined this offer on the ground that travel from Lot 2 to the highway would be more circuitous. The friend brought an appropriate action against the cousin to obtain a definitive adjudication of their respective rights. In such lawsuit, the cousin relied upon the defense that the location of the easement created by the grant from the brother to the sister was governed by reasonableness and that the cousin's proposed solution was reasonable. Should the cousin prevail?

No, because the location had been established by the acts of the brother and the sister

A large privately owned and operated shopping mall is open to the public and includes small shops, major department stores, and restaurants that are located around a pedestrian area. It also has several movie theaters, an ice-skating rink, a small amusement park, and a branch of the local public library. The mall is advertised as "a small town with a big-town feel." During shopping hours, a group of 10 protesters gathered in the pedestrian area near the entrance to a department store to denounce the sale of animal-fur products in that store. The protesters were peaceful and did not interfere with traffic into or out of the store, but they carried signs and vocally communicated their message to people walking in the area. Mall management quickly broke up the protest and required the protesters to leave the mall. The protesters have sued the mall, claiming that their right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments was violated. Should the protesters prevail?

No, because the mall is private property, and there was no state action to which the freedom of speech guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply

A son loaned his father a large sum of money. The father signed a 10-year promissory note and secured the note with a mortgage on his farm. The mortgage was promptly recorded. The next year, the father died intestate. The father's heirs were the son and his two sisters. The sisters first learned of the mortgage just after their father died. The sisters now assert that the son, their brother, holds the mortgage for their benefit as well as for himself because as a tenant in common with his sisters, he has a fiduciary duty toward them. There are no applicable statutes. Are the sisters correct?

No, because the mortgage was granted before the tenancy in common was created

A statute passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President created a federal agency to regulate consumer financial products such as credit cards, student loans, and mortgages. The federal statute authorizes the agency to issue regulatory rules, conduct administrative proceedings, and initiate suits in federal court on behalf of consumers. A statutory provision establishes that the agency is led by a single director who must be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The provision also states that the director serves a five-year term and can only be removed from office by the President for good cause. Is the provision allowing the director to be removed by the President for good cause constitutional?

No, because the provision amounts to an unconstitutional legislative interference with an executive function

A farmer borrowed $100,000 from a bank and gave the bank a promissory note secured by a mortgage on the farm that she owned. The bank promptly recorded the mortgage, which contained an acceleration clause and a due-on-sale provision. A few years later, the farmer borrowed $5,000 from a second bank and gave that bank a promissory note secured by a mortgage on her farm. The bank promptly recorded the mortgage. Subsequently, the farmer defaulted on her obligation to the first bank, which then validly accelerated the debt and instituted nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as permitted by the jurisdiction. The second bank received notice of the foreclosure sale but did not send a representative to the sale. At the foreclosure sale, a buyer who was not acting in collusion with the farmer outbid all other bidders and received a deed to the farm. Several months later, the original farmer repurchased her farm from the buyer, who executed a warranty deed transferring the farm to her. After the farmer promptly recorded that deed, the second bank commenced foreclosure proceedings on the farm. The farmer denied the validity of the second bank's mortgage. Does the second bank continue to have a valid mortgage on the farm?

No, because the purchase at the foreclosure sale by the buyer under these facts eliminated the second bank's junior mortgage lien

A state legislature enacted a statute that allowed executors to claim a tax deduction for the sale of securities that were purchased by an estate after the decedent's death. After the statute was enacted, the state suffered a significant decrease in revenue because the number of estates that claimed the tax deduction was greater than originally projected. To recover this lost revenue, the legislature amended the statute to prevent an estate from claiming the deduction unless the decedent owned the securities prior to death. The amendment was made retroactive so that its effective date was when the statute was initially enacted. Before the amendment was enacted, an executor sold securities that he had purchased for a decedent's estate after her death. The executor attempted to claim the tax deduction on the estate's tax returns but the state agency that processes tax returns denied his claim even though the estate had purchased the securities before the amendment was enacted. The executor has filed suit against the agency to challenge the constitutionality of the retroactive application of the amendment. Is the executor's suit likely to succeed?

No, because the retroactive application of the amendment was rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

A state law that restricted access to contraception was challenged in state court as a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as a violation of a similar due process provision of the state constitution. The case made its way to the state's highest court, which ruled that the law violated the due process provisions of both the U.S. and the state constitutions. If petitioned to do so, may the U.S. Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to review the state court decision?

No, because the state court's decision in this case rests on adequate and independent state law grounds

A state law required vacant public school buildings to be sold at auction to the highest bidder. A church in a city located in the state wanted to acquire larger facilities for its school. The city's school board proposed a new state law that would authorize it to sell a vacant public school building, at a price below its fair market value, to the church for use as its school. If enacted, would this law be constitutional?

No, because the transfer of the building to the church under these circumstances would constitute an establishment of religion prohibited by the First and Fourteenth Amendment

A man obtained a bank loan secured by a mortgage on an office building that he owned. After several years, the man conveyed the office building to a woman, who took title subject to the mortgage. The deed to the woman was not recorded. The woman took immediate possession of the building and made the mortgage payments for several years. Subsequently, the woman stopped making payments on the mortgage loan, and the bank eventually commenced foreclosure proceedings in which the man and the woman were both named parties. At the foreclosure sale, a third party purchased the building for less than the outstanding balance on the mortgage loan. The bank then sought to collect the deficiency from the woman. Is the bank entitled to collect the deficiency from the woman?

No, because the woman is not personally liable on the loan

A woman borrowed money from her local credit union to purchase an undeveloped lot on which to build her dream home. She executed a promissory note agreeing to repay the loan over a 10-year period. The loan was secured by a deed of trust that contained a power-of-sale clause. The deed of trust was promptly recorded. After the woman missed five loan payments, the credit union accelerated the debt and instructed the trustee to initiate nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings as permitted by the jurisdiction. The trustee followed the jurisdiction's notice requirements and procedures. At the foreclosure sale, the credit union was the sole bidder. The winning bid was equal to the remaining obligation on the note, amounting to only 60% of the fair market value of the property. The woman immediately filed an action against the credit union to set aside the foreclosure sale. Is the woman likely to prevail?

No, because there is no indication that the procedure or price would show the conscience of the court

A city owns and operates a large public auditorium. It leases the auditorium to any group that wishes to use it for a meeting, lecture, concert, or contest. Each user must post a damage deposit and pay rent, which is calculated only for the actual time the building is used by the lessee. Reservations are made on a first-come, first-served basis. A private organization that permits only males to serve in its highest offices rented the auditorium for its national convention. The organization planned to install its new officers at that convention. It broadly publicized the event, inviting members of the general public to attend the installation ceremony at the city auditorium. No statute or administrative rule prohibits the organization from restricting its highest offices to men. An appropriate plaintiff sues the private organization seeking to enjoin it from using the city auditorium for the installation of its new officers. The sole claim of the plaintiff is that the use of this auditorium by the organization for the installation ceremony violates the Fourteenth Amendment because the organization disqualifies women from serving in its highest offices. Will the plaintiff prevail?

No, because this organization is not a state actor, and therefore, its activities are not subject to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment

An entrepreneur owned a ranch. He entered into a written three-year lease of the ranch with a rancher. Among other provisions, the lease prohibited the rancher from "assigning this lease, in whole or in part, and from subletting the ranch, in whole or in part." In addition to a house, a barn, and a one-car garage, the ranch's 30 acres included several fields where first the entrepreneur, and now the rancher, grazed sheep. During the following months, by a written agreement, the rancher allowed his neighbor, a car enthusiast, exclusive use of the garage for storage, under lock and key, of his antique automobile for two years, charging him $240. The rancher told his other neighbor, a golfer, that she could use the fields to practice golf as long as she did not disturb his sheep. Which, if any, of the rancher's actions constituted a violation of the lease?

Only allowing the car enthusiast exclusive use of the garage for storage

A plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a state tax law, alleging that it violated the equal protection clauses of both the United States Constitution and the state constitution. The state supreme court agreed and held the tax law to be invalid. It said: "We hold that this state tax law violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and also the equal protection clause of the state constitution because we interpret that provision of the state constitution to contain exactly the same prohibition against discriminatory legislation as is contained in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." The state sought review of this decision in the United States Supreme Court, alleging that the state supreme court's determination of the federal constitutional issue was incorrect. How should the United States Supreme Court dispose of the case if it believes that this interpretation of the federal Constitution by the state supreme court raises an important federal question and is incorrect on the merits?

Reverse the state Supreme Court decision with respect to the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution and remand the case to the state Supreme Court for further proceedings, because the state and federal constitutional issues are so intertwined that the federal issue must be decided so that this case may be disposed of properly

Twenty percent of a city's residents are members of minority racial groups. These residents are evenly distributed among the many different residential areas of the city. The five city council members of the city are elected from five single-member electoral districts that are nearly equally populated. No member of a minority racial group has ever been elected to the city council. A group of citizens who are members of minority racial groups files suit in federal district court seeking a declaratory judgment that the single-member districts in the city are unconstitutional. The group claims that the single-member districting system in that city diminishes the ability of voters who are members of minority racial groups to affect the outcome of city elections. The group seeks an order from the court forcing the city to adopt an at-large election system in which the five candidates with the greatest vote totals would be elected to the city council. No state or federal statutes are applicable to the resolution of this suit. Which of the following constitutional provisions provides the most obvious basis for the group's claim in this suit?

The Fifteenth Amendment

A jury convicted a federal district court judge of bribery. When the judge subsequently refused to resign from his office, the House of Representatives adopted and presented to the Senate an article of impeachment that charged the judge with bribery. Pursuant to its rules for impeachment, the Senate authorized a committee of senators to hold closed-door hearings to take testimony and receive evidence related to the impeachment charge. At the conclusion of the hearings, the committee reported the facts and summarized the evidence to the full Senate. Based on the committee's report, the Senate voted to convict the judge and remove him from office. The judge has filed suit in federal court to enjoin the Senate from removing him from office. The judge claims that the Senate violated Article I of the U.S. Constitution by prohibiting the full Senate from taking part in the hearings.

The action involves a nonjusticiable political question

The United States had long recognized the ruling faction in a foreign country as that country's government, despite an ongoing civil war. Throughout the civil war, the ruling faction controlled the majority of the country's territory, and the United States afforded diplomatic immunity to the ambassador representing the ruling faction. A newly elected President of the United States decided to recognize a rebel group as the government of the foreign country and notified the ambassador from the ruling faction that she must leave the United States within 10 days. The ambassador filed an action in federal district court for a declaration that the ruling faction was the true government of the foreign country and for an injunction against enforcement of the President's order that she leave the United States. The United States has moved to dismiss the action. If the court dismisses the action, what will be the most likely reason?

The action involves a nonjusticiable question

A state barber licensing statute provides that the Barber Licensing Board may revoke a barber license if it finds that a licensee has used his or her business premises for an illegal purpose. A licensed barber in the state was arrested by federal narcotics enforcement agents on a charge of selling cocaine in his barbershop in violation of federal laws. However, the local United States Attorney declined to prosecute, and the charges were dropped. Nevertheless, the Barber Licensing Board commenced a proceeding against the barber to revoke his license on the ground that he used his business premises for illegal sales of cocaine. At a subsequent hearing before the board, the only evidence against the barber was affidavits by unnamed informants, who were not present or available for cross-examination. Their affidavits stated that they purchased cocaine from the barber in his barbershop. Based solely on this evidence, the board found that the barber used his business premises for an illegal purpose and ordered his license revoked. In a suit to have this revocation set aside, what is the barber's best constitutional argument?

The barber's inability to cross-examine his accusers denied him a fair hearing and caused him to be deprived of his barber license without due process of law

A businesswoman owned two adjoining tracts of land, one that was improved with a commercial rental building and another that was vacant and abutted a river. Twenty years ago, the businesswoman conveyed the vacant tract to a grantee by a warranty deed that the businesswoman signed but the grantee did not. The deed contained a covenant by the grantee as owner of the vacant tract that neither he nor his heirs or assigns would "erect any building" on the vacant tract, in order to preserve the view of the river from the commercial building on the improved tract. The grantee intended to use the vacant tract as a nature preserve. The grantee promptly and properly recorded the deed. Last year, the businesswoman conveyed the improved tract to a businessman. A month later, the grantee died, devising all of his property, including the vacant land, to his cousin. Six weeks ago, the cousin began construction of a building on the vacant tract. The businessman objected and sued to enjoin construction of the building. Who is likely to prevail?

The businessman, because the cousin is bound by the covenant made by the grantee

A man owned an oceanfront cottage. A woman owned land across the street that did not have direct ocean access. For $10,000, the man executed a deed titled "Grant of Pedestrian Right-of-Way" to the woman and "her heirs and assigns" over a designated strip of his land between the street and the ocean. The deed was never recorded. Several years later, the woman sold her land. The woman made no mention of the easement, and the buyer had no actual notice of it. After the buyer took possession of the land, neighbors informed her about the pedestrian easement over the man's land, but when the buyer attempted to use the easement, the man informed her that it was no longer available and constructed a chain-link fence to block the way. The buyer promptly sued the man to establish her right to use the easement. Who will likely prevail?

The buyer, because the easement was appurtenant to her land.

A landowner conveyed his land by quitclaim deed to his daughter and son "as joint tenants in fee simple." The language of the deed was sufficient to create a common law joint tenancy with right of survivorship, which is unmodified by statute. The daughter then duly executed a will devising her interest in the land to a friend. Then the son duly executed a will devising his interest in the land to a cousin. The son died, and later the daughter died. Neither had ever married. The daughter's friend and the cousin survived. After both wills have been duly probated, who owns what interest in the land?

The daughter's friend owns the fee simple

An elderly woman had two children, a son and daughter. In the months before the woman's death, the son had lived in the woman's home and cared for her. Although the daughter had provided no assistance to the woman, both children inherited the woman's home upon her death and became tenants in common. The son continued to live in the woman's home and paid all taxes, insurance, and other carrying charges on the property. The daughter never visited the property and did not seek rent or other compensation from the son until they got into a heated dispute 15 years later. The son has filed an action to quiet title and claims that he owns the property in fee simple. The period of time to acquire title by adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 10 years. Who is likely to prevail?

The daughter, because there is no evidence that the son has ousted the daughter

A fan had a season ticket for the local team's hockey games at an arena (Section B, Row 12, Seat 16). During the intermission between the first and second periods of a game between the local team and the visiting team, the fan solicited signatures for a petition urging that the coach of the local team be fired. The arena and the local team are owned by a privately owned entity. As evidenced by many prominently displayed signs, the entity prohibits all solicitations anywhere within the arena at any time and in any manner. The entity notified the fan to cease her solicitation of signatures. The fan continued to seek signatures on her petition during the local team's next three home games at the arena. Each time, the entity notified the fan to cease such solicitation. The fan announced her intention to seek signatures on her petition again during the local team's next home game at the arena. The entity wrote a letter informing the fan that her season ticket was canceled and tendering a refund for the unused portion. The fan refused the tender and brought an appropriate action to establish the right to attend all home games. In this action, for whom will the court decide?

The entity, because the fan's ticket to hockey games created only a license

A state enacted a statute providing for the closure of the official state records of arrest and prosecution of all persons acquitted of a crime by a court or against whom criminal charges were filed and subsequently dropped or dismissed. The purpose of this statute is to protect these persons from further publicity or embarrassment relating to those state proceedings. However, this statute does not prohibit the publication of such information that is in the possession of private persons. A prominent businessman in the state was arrested and charged with rape. Prior to trial, the prosecutor announced that new information indicated that the charges should be dropped. He then dropped the charges without further explanation, and the records relating thereto were closed to the public pursuant to the state statute. A newspaper in the state conducted an investigation to determine why the businessman was not prosecuted but was refused access to the closed official state records. In an effort to determine whether the law enforcement agencies involved were properly doing their duty, the newspaper filed suit against appropriate state officials to force opening of the records and to invalidate the statute on constitutional grounds. Which of the following would be most helpful to the state in defending the constitutionality of this statute?

The fact that the statute only prohibits public access to these official state records and does not prohibit the publication of information they contain that is in the possession of private persons

A city's personnel handbook contains all of that city's personnel policies. One section of the handbook states that "where feasible and practicable supervisors are encouraged to follow the procedures specified in this handbook before discharging a city employee." Those specified procedures include a communication to the employee of the reasons for the contemplated discharge and an opportunity for a pre-termination trial-type hearing at which the employee may challenge those reasons. After a year of service, the secretary to the city council was discharged without having received any communication of reasons for her contemplated discharge and without having received an opportunity for a pre-termination trial-type hearing. The former secretary files suit in federal district court to challenge her discharge solely on constitutional grounds. Which of the following best describes the initial burden of persuasion in that suit?

The former secretary must demonstrate that the state law creates a constitutionally protected interest in her employment or in the procedures by which her employment is terminated

One year ago, the woman conveyed Lot 2 to a friend. The deed provided that the friend and the woman, their respective heirs and assigns, would use Lots 2 and 4, respectively, only for one-family residential purposes. The deed was promptly and properly recorded. The friend promptly built a one-family residence on Lot 2. Last month, the woman conveyed Lot 4 to a banker. The deed contained no restrictions. The deed from the woman to the friend was in the title report examined by the banker's lawyer. The banker obtained a building permit and commenced construction of a two-family residence on Lot 4. The friend, joined by the owners of Lots 1, 3, and 5, brought an appropriate action against the banker to enjoin the proposed use of Lot 4 or, alternatively, damages caused by the banker's breach of covenant. Which is the most appropriate comment concerning the outcome of this action?

The friend should be awarded an appropriate remedy, but recovery by other plaintiffs is doubtful

A man owned property that he used as his residence. The man received a loan, secured by a mortgage on the property, from a bank. Later, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank then brought an appropriate action to foreclose the mortgage, was the sole bidder at the judicial sale, and received title to the property as a result of the foreclosure sale. Shortly after the foreclosure sale, the man received a substantial inheritance. He approached the bank to repurchase the property, but the bank had decided to build a branch office on the property and declined to sell. If the man prevails in an appropriate action to recover title to the property, what will be the most likely reason?

The jurisdiction provides a statutory right of redemption

A landlord and a tenant orally agreed to a commercial tenancy for a term of six months beginning on July 1. Rent was to be paid by the first day of each month, and the tenant paid the first month's rent at the time of the agreement. When the tenant arrived at the leased premises on July 1, he learned that the previous tenant had not vacated the premises at the end of her lease term on May 31 and did not intend to vacate. The tenant then successfully sued the previous tenant for possession. The tenant did not inform the landlord of the eviction action until after the tenant received possession. The tenant then sued the landlord, claiming damages for that portion of the lease period during which the tenant was not in possession. If the court finds for the landlord, what will be the most likely explanation?

The landlord had delivered the legal right of possession to the tenant

A landlord leased an apartment to a tenant on a month-to-month basis beginning on the first of the month, with rent payable monthly. Five months into the lease, the tenant failed to pay rent. The landlord then sued the tenant for possession for nonpayment of rent. The tenant successfully defended this suit on the ground that the apartment was uninhabitable and that, accordingly, no rent was properly payable. On May 7, immediately following the court order in the tenant's favor, the landlord served the tenant with a written but not notarized notice to terminate the tenancy and to vacate the apartment on or before June 30. On July 1, the tenant was still in possession, nothing had changed, and the landlord brought an appropriate action for possession. The tenant prevailed. What is the most likely reason for the court's decision?

The landlord was attempting to terminate the tenancy as a reaction to the tenant's defense in the previous lawsuit

A landlord leased a commercial building to a tenant for five years. Rent was payable on the first day of each month, and the landlord retained the right to terminate the lease if the tenant defaulted. The lease term ended 18 months ago. However, the tenant has stayed in possession of the building and has continued to pay the rent on time. The landlord has continued to accept the rent. The fair rental value of the building is now substantially more than what the tenant has been paying, and the landlord recently found a third party who will pay the higher rent. When the tenant paid the rent two months ago, the landlord accepted the rent. At the end of the month, the landlord told the tenant in writing that she had to vacate at the end of the following month. The tenant, who is still in possession of the building, has informed the landlord that she does not want to move and is willing to pay the current fair rental value. The landlord has asked his lawyer for advice regarding the right to possession. Who should the lawyer say is entitled to possession?

The landlord, because he gave her proper notice to terminate the tenancy

Seven years ago, a man, his sister, and his cousin became equal owners, as tenants in common, of a house. Until a year ago, the man lived in the house alone. The sister and the cousin are longtime residents of another state. One year ago, the man moved to an apartment and rented the house to a tenant for three years under a lease that the man and the tenant both signed. The tenant has since paid the rent each month to the man. Recently, the sister and the cousin learned about the rental. They brought an appropriate action against the tenant to have the lease declared void and to have the tenant evicted. The tenant raised all available defenses. What will the court likely decide?

The lease is valid, and the tenant is not evicted but must share possession with the sister and the cousin

An investor purchased a tract of commercial land, financing a large part of the purchase price with a loan from a business partner that was secured by a mortgage. The investor made the installment payments on the mortgage regularly for several years. Then the investor persuaded a neighbor to buy the land, subject to the mortgage to his partner. They expressly agreed that the neighbor would not assume and agree to pay the investor's debt to the partner. The investor's mortgage to the partner contained a due-on-sale clause stating, "If Mortgagor transfers his or her interest without the written consent of Mortgagee first obtained, then at Mortgagee's option the entire principal balance of the debt secured by this Mortgage shall become immediately due and payable." However, without seeking his partner's consent, the investor conveyed the land to the neighbor, the deed stating that it was "subject to a mortgage to [the partner]" and giving details and recording data related to the mortgage. The neighbor took possession of the land and made several mortgage payments, which the partner accepted. Now, however, neither the neighbor nor the investor has made the last three mortgage payments. The partner has sued the neighbor for the amount of the delinquent payments. In this action, for whom should the court render judgment?

The neighbor, because she did not assume and agree to pay the investor's mortgage debt

A farmer executed a document granting to a local gun club and its assignees the exclusive right to hunt geese to the extent permitted by law on a portion of his farm. The club recorded the document. Two years later the club disbanded, but before doing so, the club assigned its hunting rights on the farm to its 10 members, individually. The farmer denied the former members access to his farm to hunt geese. The former members filed a court action to compel the farmer to permit them access. If a court rules in favor of the former members, which of the following is it likely to apply in dividing this profit?

The one-stock rule

A large tract of land is owned by a religious order. The order erected a large residential building on the land where its members reside. The order's land is surrounded by rural residential properties and its only access to a public way is afforded by an easement over a strip of land 30 feet wide. The easement was granted to the order by deed from a woman who owned one of the adjacent residential properties. The order built a driveway on the strip, and the easement was used for 20 years without incident or objection. Last year, as permitted by the applicable zoning ordinance, the order constructed a 200-bed nursing home and a parking lot on its land, using all of the land that was available for such development. The nursing home was very successful, and on Sundays visitors to the nursing home overflowed the parking facilities on the land and parked all along the driveway from early in the morning through the evening hours. After two Sundays of the resulting congestion and inconvenience, the woman erected a barrier across the driveway on Sundays preventing any use of the driveway by anyone seeking access to the order's land. The order objected. The woman brought an appropriate action to terminate the easement. In this action, for whom will the court likely hold?

The order, because expanded use of the easement does not terminate the easement

A state's department of education routinely accredits public and private schools, licenses their teachers, sets strict curriculum guidelines, and provides funds for busses and secular extracurricular activities. A private high school in the state receives all of these benefits and enforces a strict "whites only" admissions policy. A group of parents whose children were denied admission to the private school solely because they are minorities brought suit in federal court. The parents sought to enjoin the private school from continuing its admissions policy on the ground that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. The private school's sole defense is that it is not bound by this constitutional provision. What is the parents' strongest argument that the private school must comply with the equal protection clause?

The private school is subject to pervasive state regulation and support

A doctor is a resident of state A and is licensed to practice medicine in State A as well as neighboring State B. The doctor finds that the most convenient place to treat her patients who need hospital care is in a publicly owned and operated hospital located in State B. For many years, the doctor had successfully treated her patients in that hospital. Early this year, the hospital adopted a new rule in conformance with all required procedures. The new rule stated that every doctor who practices in that hospital must be a resident of State B. The doctor was then notified that she could no longer treat patients in that hospital because she was not a resident of State B. Which of the following constitutional provisions would be most helpful to the doctor in an action to challenge her exclusion from the State B hospital solely on the basis of this hospital rule?

The privileges and immunities clause of Article IV

A landowner granted a sawmill the exclusive right to remove timber from the landowner's property for 10 years in exchange for a quarterly payment based on the size, type, and number of trees removed. Three years later, the sawmill purchased the landowner's property and built a facility for processing timber on the property. Eight years after purchasing the property, the sawmill sold the timbered portion of the land to a buyer, while retaining the portion of the land on which the processing facility was located. The contract made no specific mention of the prior recorded agreement, but the sawmill had come to rely on the supply of timber from the property. Although there are other sources of timber, timber is a necessary raw material for the sawmill. The buyer has refused to permit the sawmill to continue to remove timber from the property purchased by the buyer. Which of the following is the sawmill's best argument for the continued existence of a profit?

The profit exists by implication

A landowner granted an exclusive easement to a farmer to grow wheat for commercial use on a portion of the landowner's land for a period of 10 years. The easement made no mention of the transferability of the easement. For five years, the farmer grew wheat on the land. In year six of the easement, the farmer apportioned one-half of the easement to a rancher for grazing his cattle and the other half of the easement to a horticulturist for growing sunflowers. Unhappy with this arrangement, the landowner filed an action in court to invalidate the apportionment of the easement that he originally granted to the farmer. Which of the following is the landowner's strongest argument that the apportionment of the easement is invalid?

The rancher and the horticulturist did not use the land in the same way as the farmer

The legislature of State B enacted a statute requiring that all law enforcement officers in that state be United States citizens. A lawfully admitted noncitizen became a permanent resident five years before the enactment of this statute. He sought employment as a forensic pathologist in the state coroner's office. He was denied that job solely because he was not a citizen. The resident noncitizen thereupon brought suit in federal district court against appropriate state officials seeking to invalidate this citizenship requirement on federal constitutional grounds. Which of the following is the strongest ground upon which to attack this citizenship requirement?

The requirement denies noncitizen equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment

Congress passed a statute directing the United States Forest Service, a federal agency, to issue regulations to control campfires on federal public lands and to establish a schedule of penalties for those who violate the new regulations. The statute provides that the Forest Service regulations should "reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, all potential hazards that arise from campfires on Forest Service lands." The Forest Service issued the regulations and the schedule of penalties directed by Congress. The regulations include a rule that provides for the doubling of the fine for any negligent or prohibited use of fire if the user is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Which of the following arguments best supports a finding that the rule providing for the fines is constitutional?

The rule was issued pursuant to a valid exercise of Congress's power to delegate rule-making authority to federal agencies

A state has a statute providing that an unsuccessful candidate in a primary election for a party's nomination for elected public office may not become a candidate for the same office at the following general election by nominating petition or by write-in votes. A woman sought her party's nomination for governor in the primary election. After losing in the primary, the woman filed nominating petitions containing the requisite number of signatures to become a candidate for the office of governor in the following general election. The chief elections officer of the state refused to certify the woman's petitions solely because of the above statute. The woman then filed suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of this statute. If the court holds that the statute constitutes a severe restriction, which of the following is the proper burden of persuasion in this suit?

The state must demonstrate that the statute is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling state interest.

A state law provides that a person who has been divorced may not marry again unless he or she is current on all child-support payments. A woman who was refused a marriage license pursuant to this law sued the appropriate state officials. What standard should the court apply in reviewing the constitutionality of this law?

The state must show that the law is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

According to a state law, state employees may be fired only "for good cause." A woman who was both a resident and an employee of the state was summarily fired on the sole ground that she had notified federal officials that the state was not following federal rules governing the administration of certain federally funded state programs on which she worked. The state denied the woman's request for a hearing to allow her to contest the charge. There is no record of any other state employee having been terminated for this reason. In a suit to reinstate her employment, which of the following claims provides the LEAST support for the woman?

The state's firing of her unconstitutionally denied her a privilege or immunity of state citizenship protected in Article IV

A landlord and a tenant entered into a valid written agreement to lease a single-family residence for a period of one year at $1,200 per month. Among the provisions in the agreement was a waiver of the implied warranty of habitability. Two months into the lease, the electricity stopped working through no fault of the tenant. The tenant notified the landlord, but after one week, the landlord had done nothing to remedy the problem. When the next month's rent came due, the tenant refused to pay it because the landlord had still not fixed the electricity. The landlord has filed an action for breach of contract against the tenant for failure to pay rent. Who is likely to prevail?

The tenant, because the tenant notified the landlord of the problem and gave him a reasonable opportunity to correct it.

A man borrowed $500,000 from a bank, securing the loan with a mortgage on a commercial building he owned. The mortgage provided as follows: "No prepayment may be made on this loan during the first two years after the date of this mortgage. Thereafter, prepayment may be made in any amount at any time but only if accompanied by a prepayment fee of 5% of the amount prepaid." One year later, the man received an unexpected cash gift of $1 million and wished to pay off the $495,000 principal balance still owed on the loan. Concerned that the bank might refuse prepayment—despite a rise in market interest rates in the year since the loan was made—or at least insist on the 5% prepayment fee, the man consulted an attorney concerning the enforceability of the above-quoted clause. There is no applicable statute. What is the attorney likely to say?

The two-year prepayment prohibition and the prepayment fee provision are both valid and enforceable

An organic farm was conveyed to a married couple by a deed that created a cotenancy in equal shares with the right of survivorship. The husband later informed the wife that he intended to convey his "undivided one-half interest in the farm" to his sister. The wife objected to the conveyance, but the husband nevertheless conveyed his interest in the farm to the sister by deed. The husband has since died. In an action between the sister and the wife to determine title to the farm, who will prevail?

The wife, but only if the jurisdiction recognizes tenancies by the entirety

A woman acquired land by a deed that contained the following language in the grantee section: "to [the woman], her heirs and assigns, provided, however, that said grantee may not transfer any interest in the land for 10 years from the date of this instrument." Two years later, the woman contracted to sell the land to an investor for a price based on a recent appraisal. When the investor's title search revealed the above language in the grantee section of the deed to the woman, the investor refused to close the transaction. The contract was silent as to the woman's title obligation. The woman has sued the investor for specific performance. Who is likely to prevail?

The woman, because the deed's restraint on transfer is void as a matter of law

A federal statute enacted pursuant to the power of Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits any state from requiring any of its employees to retire from state employment solely because of their age. The statute expressly authorizes employees required by a state to retire from state employment solely because of their age to sue the state government in federal district court for any damages resulting from that state action. On the basis of this federal statute, a retiree sues State X in federal district court. State X moves to dismiss the suit on the ground that Congress lacks authority to authorize such suits against a state. Which of the following is the strongest argument that the retiree can offer in opposition to the state's motion to dismiss this suit?

When Congress exercises power vested in it by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may enact appropriate remedial legislation expressly subjecting the states to private suits for damages in federal courts

In order to provide funds for a system of new major airports near the 10 largest cities in the United States, Congress levies a tax of $25 on each airline ticket issued in the United States. The tax applies to every airline ticket, even those for travel that does not originate in, terminate at, or pass through any of those 10 large cities. Is this tax constitutional as applied to the issuance in the United States of an airline ticket for travel between two cities that will not be served by any of the new airports?

Yes, because Congress has broad discretion in choosing the subjects of its taxation and may impose taxes on subjects that have no relation to the purpose for which tax funs will be expended

A developer financed the purchase of a tract of vacant land with a mortgage loan from the seller. Two years later, at a time when the land remained vacant, the developer took out a second mortgage loan from an investor to construct self-storage units on the land. Both mortgages were promptly recorded in the order in which they were executed. The developer made all payments on both mortgage loans for several years but eventually defaulted on the loan from the seller, who threatened to initiate foreclosure proceedings. To avoid the foreclosure, the developer executed a deed in lieu of foreclosure conveying the land back to the seller. But before the developer delivered the deed to the seller, it notified the investor of the proposed conveyance and gave her the option to cure the developer's default on the seller's loan. The investor declined to do so, and the developer delivered the deed to the seller. If nothing else has happened since the conveyance to the seller, is the investor's mortgage still valid?

Yes, because a deed in lieu of foreclosure does not eliminate your junior mortgages

A state adopted a rule denying admission to its bar to anyone who was currently or had previously been a member of a subversive group. The state's bar-application form was modified to ask applicants whether they were or had previously been members of any subversive organization. An applicant refused to answer the question and was denied bar admission on that basis. The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that the question infringed upon his freedom of association. Is the applicant likely to prevail?

Yes, because inquiring into an applicant's association with a subversive organization to deny bar admission violates the First Amendment

A federal statute imposes an excise tax of $100 on each new computer sold in the United States. It also appropriates the entire proceeds of that tax to a special fund, which is required to be used to purchase licenses for computer software that will be made available for use, free of charge, to any resident of the United States. Is this statute constitutional?

Yes, because it is a reasonable exercise of Congress's powers to tax and spend for the general welfare

A valid treaty between the United States and a foreign country provides for the elimination of all tariff barriers between the two countries. It authorizes the president of either country to issue a proclamation nullifying any state or local laws in that country that have the effect of impeding imports from the other country. The foreign country uses the metric system of measurement, and thus all goods produced there and exported to the United States are packaged in metric sizes, such as liters and kilograms. A law of a state in the United States requires all goods sold in that state to be packaged in traditional American sizes, such as quarts or pounds. Because the state law substantially impedes imports from the foreign country, the President of the United States has issued a proclamation nullifying the state law pursuant to the treaty. Is the President's proclamation valid?

Yes, because it is authorized by a valid treaty of the United States and is not prohibited by any provision of the Constitution and, therefore, is the supreme law of the land

In order to reduce the federal deficit, Congress enacted a statute imposing a five percent national retail sales tax. The tax was levied upon all retail sales in the United States and applied equally to the sales of all kinds of goods. Is this tax constitutional as applied to retail sales of newspapers?

Yes, because it is within Congress's power to tax

A private university is owned and operated by a religious organization. The university is accredited by the department of education of the state in which it is located. This accreditation certifies that the university meets prescribed educational standards. Because it is accredited, the university qualifies for state funding for certain of its operating expenses. Under this funding program, 25 percent of the university's total operating budget comes from state funds. A professor at the university was a part-time columnist for the local newspaper. In one of her published columns, the professor argued that "religion has become a negative force in society." The university subsequently discharged the professor, giving as its sole reason for the dismissal her authorship and publication of this column. The professor sued the university, claiming only that her discharge violated her constitutional right to freedom of speech. The university moved to dismiss the professor's lawsuit on the ground that the U.S. Constitution does not provide the professor with a cause of action in this case. Should the court grant the university's motion to dismiss?

Yes, because the action of the university in discharging the professor is not attributable to the state for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment

A condominium consists of 25 units located within a single building. In order to protect aging electrical and plumbing systems located in the common areas within the building, the board of the condominium association has adopted a reasonable rule that prohibits an owner of a condominium unit from installing or replacing a washer or dryer in the unit. The declaration that created the condominium is silent with regard to the matter. An owner wants to replace an existing combination washer/dryer appliance in her condominium unit. Can the association enforce this rule against the owner?

Yes, because the board adopted the rule to protect the building's electrical and plumbing systems

A mother subdivided a vacant land that she owned into three lots. She kept one lot for herself, conveyed another to her daughter, and conveyed the remaining lot to her son. Each conveyance was by a deed of gift containing a covenant specifying that only one single-story home could be constructed on the conveyed lot in order to preserve views of a nearby lake from the mother's lot. The deeds were promptly recorded. The mother then constructed a large three-story house on her lot. Several years later, the son conveyed his vacant lot to a purchaser using a warranty deed that made no mention of the covenant in the previous deed from the mother. The purchaser promptly recorded her deed. When the purchaser later began constructing a three-story house similar to the mother's, the mother sued to enjoin the construction. Should the court grant the injunction?

Yes, because the burden of the covenant runs with the land even if the purchaser had no actual notice of the covenant

A man borrowed money from a bank and executed a promissory note for the amount secured by a mortgage on an office building that he owned. Several years later, the man sold the building. As specified in the contract of sale, the deed to the buyer provided that the buyer agreed "to assume the existing mortgage debt" on the building. Subsequently, the buyer defaulted on the mortgage loan to the bank, and appropriate foreclosure proceedings were initiated. The foreclosure sale resulted in a deficiency. There is no applicable statute. Is the buyer liable for the deficiency?

Yes, because the buyer assumed the mortgage and therefore became personally liable for the mortgage loan and any deficiency

In a written and signed agreement, a woman, for a fee, granted her neighbor the right to access his property by way of a driveway he was to construct across her property. The neighbor, who could access his property via other reasonable means, had sought the access right because it was more convenient. The neighbor did not record the agreement. Due to financial concerns, the neighbor did not construct the driveway, but he intended to do so in the future. Six months later, the woman sold her property to a buyer. The buyer did not record her deed from the woman. The buyer had no knowledge of the neighbor's right of access across the property she had purchased. Yesterday, a year after the sale, the neighbor informed the buyer that he plans to construct the driveway next week. The jurisdiction has a notice recording act. If the buyer sues to prevent the neighbor from constructing the driveway, will the buyer be successful?

Yes, because the buyer lacked notice of the neighbor's right to construct a driveway on her property

A real estate developer owned a 100-acre tract of land. Six years ago, the real estate developer leased a one-acre lot located in the northeasterly corner of the tract for a term of 30 years to a fast-food company. The fast-food company intended to, and did, construct a fast-food restaurant on the one-acre lot. The lease provided that: The fast-food company was to maintain the lot and improvements thereon, to maintain full insurance coverage on the lot, and to pay all taxes assessed against the lot. The real estate developer was to maintain the access roads and the parking lot areas platted on those portions of the tract that adjoined the lot and to permit the company's customers to use them in common with the customers of the other commercial users of the remainder of the tract. The fast-food company was to pay its share of the expenses for the off-site improvements according to a stated formula. Five years ago, the real estate developer sold the one-acre lot to an investor; the conveyance was made subject to the lease to the fast-food company. However, the investor did not assume the obligations of the lease and the real estate developer retained the remainder of the 100-acre tract of land. Since that conveyance five years ago, the fast-food company has paid rent to the investor. However, the fast-food company refused to pay its formula share of the off-site improvement costs as provided in the lease. The real estate developer brought an appropriate action against the fast-food company to recover such costs. Is the real estate developer likely to prevail?

Yes, because the conveyance of the one-acre lot to the investor did not terminate the real estate developer's right to enforce the covenant to contribute

A husband and wife acquired land as common law joint tenants with right of survivorship. One year later, without his wife's knowledge, the husband executed a will devising his interest in the land to his best friend. The husband subsequently died. Is the wife now the sole owner of the land?

Yes, because the devise to the friend did not sever the joint tenancy

A woman owned land that abutted a public highway to the south. A neighbor owned the land immediately to the north. The neighbor's predecessor had received an easement from the woman's predecessor in title to cross the woman's land for access to the public highway. This access was desired even though the neighbor and his predecessor had other access to public roads. The easement was in writing and properly recorded. Recently, the woman erected a large solar collector on a portion of her land subject to the easement, even though the woman has other power resources. The location was essential to acquire the maximum sunlight. However, by erecting the collector there, the woman effectively cut off the neighbor's ability to use the easement. The local zoning code permits the use of solar collectors. The neighbor immediately sued to compel the woman to remove the solar collector. Must the solar collector be removed?

Yes, because the easement remains valid

State A sent three of its employees to a city located in State B to consult with a chemical laboratory there about matters of state business. While in the course of their employment, the three State A employees negligently released into local State B waterways some of the chemical samples they had received from the laboratory in State B. Persons in State B injured by the release of the chemicals sued the three State A employees and State A in a State B court for the damages they suffered. After a trial in which all of the defendants admitted jurisdiction of the State B court and fully participated, the plaintiffs received a judgment against all of the defendants for $5 million, which became final. Subsequently, the plaintiffs sought to enforce their State B court judgment by commencing a proper proceeding in an appropriate State A court. In that enforcement proceeding, State A argued, as it had done unsuccessfully in the earlier action in the State B court, that its liability is limited by a State A law to $100,000 in any tort case. Because the three individual employees of State A are able to pay only $50,000 of the judgment, the only way the plaintiffs can fully satisfy their State B court judgment is from the funds of State A. Can the plaintiffs recover the full balance of their State B court judgment from State A in the enforcement proceeding they filed in the State A court?

Yes, because the final judgment of the State B court is entitled to full faith and credit in the State A courts

An individual who enjoyed paragliding lived next to a large parcel of undeveloped land. The individual secured oral permission from the owner of the undeveloped land to access a bluff on the land from which the individual could launch his paraglider. For 12 years, the individual crossed the owner's land with his paraglider to launch himself off the bluff, until a workplace injury permanently prevented him from doing so. A year after his injury, the individual sold his residence. Although the individual told the purchaser about the right to access the bluff, neither the contract nor the deed made mention of it. Prior to this sale, the owner of the undeveloped land had sold it to a developer. The developer has since told the purchaser of the residence that she can no longer access the bluff. The applicable jurisdiction requires that a use of a servient estate extend for at least 10 years before the user has a right to the use by prescription. Can the developer legally prevent the purchaser of the residence from accessing the bluff?

Yes, because the individual's access to the bluff was with the oral permission of the owner of the land

A buyer purchased a commercial building and financed the purchase by executing both a negotiable promissory note and a mortgage to the bank to secure repayment of the loan. The mortgage was promptly recorded. Six months later, the bank assigned only the promissory note to an investor. The assignment made no express reference to the mortgage and was not recorded in the public land records. The bank immediately sent the buyer a notice of the assignment, which provided the address of the investor and explained that the bank was no longer servicing the loan. The buyer made timely payments to the investor for two years but then defaulted on the loan. After the buyer failed to cure the default, the investor accelerated the debt and commenced a foreclosure action. The buyer's defense in the foreclosure action is that the investor is not the mortgagee and therefore has no right to foreclose. Does the investor have the right to foreclose?

Yes, because the investor became the owner of both the note and the mortgage by virtue of the assignment of the note to him

A number of psychotherapists routinely send mailings to victims of car accidents informing the victims of the possibility of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as the result of the accidents, and offering psychotherapy services. Although PTSD is a possible result of a car accident, it is not common. Many accident victims in a particular state who received the mailings complained that the mailings were disturbing and an invasion of their privacy. These victims also reported that as a result of the mailings, their regard for psychotherapists and for psychotherapy as a form of treatment had diminished. In response, the state enacted a law prohibiting any licensed psychotherapist from sending mailings that raised the concern of PTSD to any car accident victim in the state until 30 days after the accident. The state justified the law as an effort to address the victims' complaints as well as to protect the reputation of psychotherapy as a form of treatment. Is this law constitutional?

Yes, because the law protects the privacy of accident victims and the public regard for psychotherapy without being substantially more restrictive than necessary

A builder sold a new house to a buyer for use as the buyer's residence. The buyer paid 10% of the purchase price and financed the rest by executing a promissory note and purchase-money mortgage to the builder. A year later, the buyer missed several mortgage payments to the builder and became unable to make payments. During that year, property values in the neighborhood declined substantially. The builder suggested that the buyer deed the house back to the builder to settle all claims and avoid the costs and other disadvantages of foreclosure. The buyer deeded the house back to the builder. Does the builder now own fee simple title to the house?

Yes, because the transaction was reasonable and fair under the circumstances

A carpenter decided to start a business with his friend. In order to fund the business, the carpenter took out a loan from a local bank. The carpenter signed a 30-year promissory note to the bank and secured the note with a mortgage on his cabin, which served as his primary residence. The mortgage included a due-on-sale clause and was promptly recorded by the bank. After running a successful business together for 10 years, the carpenter wanted to reward his friend for all of his hard work. As a result, the carpenter conveyed the cabin by quitclaim deed as a gift to the friend. When the bank received notice that the cabin had been transferred to the friend, the bank demanded full payment of the remaining mortgage debt. When neither the carpenter nor the friend made the required payment, the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Will the bank likely prevail?

Yes, because the transfer of the mortgaged property triggered the due-on-sale clause

A federal statute provides states with funds to establish a disability benefits program. The statute requires a participating state to disburse the benefits to eligible applicants within one month after an application is approved. A commissioner of a State A agency that established a disability benefits program pursuant to the federal statute issued a regulation that delayed the disbursement of benefits until six months after an application is approved. Hundreds of residents of State A whose disability benefits were delayed because of the regulation have filed a class action against the commissioner in federal district court, arguing that the regulation violates the federal statute. The residents seek retroactive damages for the payment of the withheld benefits to be paid by the state treasury and an injunction to compel payment of future benefits. The commissioner has moved to dismiss the action and alleges that the requested relief is a violation of the Eleventh Amendment. Should the federal court hear the merits of the residents' suit?

Yes, but only on the request for the injunction to compel payment of future benefits

A newly married couple, anxious to start a life together, decided to build a new home. They financed the home by executing a 15-year promissory note and purchase-money mortgage to the bank. The mortgage, which contained a power-of-sale clause, was promptly recorded. Seven years later, the couple legally separated. Neither could afford the mortgage payments on their individual salary, so they abandoned the home and stopped making mortgage payments. After the couple missed two payments, the bank decided to initiate a foreclosure proceeding. The jurisdiction follows the title theory of mortgages and allows for nonjudicial foreclosures. Which of the following actions poses the most financial risk to the bank?

Leasing the home to a tenant

Congress enacted a statute that authorized the construction of a monument commemorating the role of the United States in liberating a particular foreign nation during World War II. Another statute appropriated $3 million for the construction. When the United States became involved in a bitter trade dispute with the foreign nation, the President announced that he was canceling the monument's construction and that he would not spend the appropriated funds. Although the actual reason for the President's decision was the trade dispute, the announcement stated that the reason was an unexpected rise in the federal deficit. Assume that no other statutes apply. Is the President's decision constitutional?

No, because the President is obligated to spend funds in accordance with congressional directions

An individual devised a wooded parcel of land to her two children, a daughter and a son, with the daughter being given a 75 percent interest in the land and the son a 25 percent interest. The daughter intends to harvest timber from the land without seeking permission from her brother, whom she knows would object to altering the parcel from its natural state. How much of the timber on the land is the daughter entitled to harvest?

Seventy-five percent, because the daughter is only entitled to the share of natural resources that corresponds with her ownership interest in the land

Congress enacted a statute that requires all males between the ages of 18 and 30 to register with the Selective Service Agency, which is responsible for drafting individuals to serve in the armed forces in the event of war. Males who fail to register are not eligible to receive federal student aid for college. An 18-year-old male refused to register and was denied federal student aid pursuant to the statute. The student challenged the federal statute in federal court, arguing that the statute discriminated on the basis of sex and age. Is the statute constitutional?

Yes, because Congress has broad power to raise and regulate the armed forces

Under the authority of a federal voting rights statute, some states drew congressional districts in a manner calculated to increase the likelihood that members of historically disadvantaged minority racial groups would be elected. The U.S. Supreme Court declared these districts to be unconstitutional, as improper racial gerrymanders. In response to this ruling, Congress passed a new statute that explicitly denies the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all future cases challenging the constitutionality of action taken under the authority of the federal voting rights statute. Which of the following is the most persuasive argument for the constitutionality of the new statute restricting the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction?

Article III of the Constitution explicitly states that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is subject to such exceptions and regulations as Congress shall make

Congress amended the federal bankruptcy statute to allow states to exempt a debtor's home from judgment creditors, so long as the debtor had established permanent residency in the state at least two years before entry of the judgment. The two-year residency requirement was intended to prevent debtors from defrauding creditors by moving to a state solely to take advantage of a favorable home-exemption law. A state's law prohibited the execution of a judgment against a debtor's home. After the federal amendment, the state amended its law "to conform with the federal bankruptcy amendments," making the debtor's home exemption unavailable to any person who had established permanent residency in the state less than two years before entry of the judgment. Following these amendments, a man moved to the state and purchased a home. Six months later, a creditor obtained a judgment against the man for negligently causing a car accident. The creditor now seeks to execute the judgment against the man's home, but the man has responded that he is entitled to the generally applicable debtor's home exemption under state law. Which of the following is the man's best argument?

Congress lacks the power to authorize the states to enact such restrictions based off the length of a person's residence within a state

A man contracted with a moving company to ship household goods from the man's old home in State A to his new home in State B. A federal statute provides that all liability of an interstate mover to a shipper for loss of or damage to the shipper's goods in transit is governed exclusively by the contract between them. The statute also requires the mover to offer a shipper at least two contracts with different levels of liability. In full compliance with that federal statute, the moving company offered the man a choice between two shipping agreements that provided different levels of liability on the part of the moving company. The more expensive contract provided that the moving company was fully liable in case of loss or damage. The less expensive contract limited the moving company's liability in case of loss or damage to less than full value. The man voluntarily signed the less expensive contract, fixing the moving company's liability at less than the full value of the shipment. The moving company's truck was involved in an accident in State B. The accident was entirely a product of the negligence of the moving company's driver. The man's household goods were destroyed. In accordance with the contract, the moving company reimbursed the man for less than the full value of the goods. The man then brought suit against the moving company under the tort law of State B claiming that he was entitled to be reimbursed for the full value of the destroyed goods. The moving company filed a motion to dismiss. In this suit, what action should the court take?

Dismiss the case, because the federal statute governing the liability of interstate carriers is the supreme law of the land and preempts state tort law

Which of the following acts by the United States Senate would be constitutionally IMPROPER?

The Senate appoints a commission to adjudicate finally a boundary dispute between the two states

A nephew and a niece inherited vacant land. The nephew soon discovered that the land was subject to a mortgage held by a local bank, which required monthly payments for the next 10 years. Without telling the niece or seeking her permission, the nephew paid the monthly mortgage payments for one year. The nephew then demanded immediate payment from the niece for half of the mortgage payments he had made. The niece refused. If the nephew sues the niece for contribution, who will likely prevail?

The nephew, because without his payments, the bank could have foreclosed the mortgage and they could have lost the land

A professional motorcycle rider put on a performance in a privately owned stadium during which he leaped his motorcycle over 21 automobiles. Spectators were charged $5 each to view the jump and were prohibited from using cameras. However, the local television station filmed the whole event from within the stadium without the rider's knowledge or consent and showed the film in its entirety on the evening newscast that day. The rider thereafter brought suit to recover damages from the station for the admittedly unauthorized filming and broadcasting of the performance. The television station raised only constitutional defenses. How should the court rule on the rider's suit?

Find the station liable, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not deprive an entertainer of the commercial value of his or her performances

A state statute provided state monetary grants to private dance, theater, and opera groups located in that state. The statute required recipients of such grants to use the granted monies for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of appropriate facilities for the public performance of their performing arts. The last section of the statute conditioned the award of each such grant on the recipient's agreement to refrain from all kinds of political lobbying calculated to secure additional tax support for the performing arts. Which of the following provides the strongest constitutional basis to attack the validity of the last section of the statute?

First and Fourteenth Amendments

A boutique sued a dressmaker in federal court for breach of contract. The boutique's complaint alleged that the dressmaker violated the contract between the parties by delivering the wrong dresses. The dressmaker immediately filed an answer, in which he admitted to delivering the wrong dresses. The answer also contained an affirmative defense that the boutique failed to file its complaint within the applicable statute of limitations. The dressmaker wants the court to decide the case based solely on the information contained in the complaint and answer. Which motion will best accomplish the dressmaker's goal?

A motion for judgment on the pleadings

A building with 40 residential units is owned by a corporation and operated as a cooperative. Each resident is a shareholder in the corporation as well as its tenant pursuant to a lease that is subject to the mortgage on the building. Each tenant is assessed an annual fee to cover part of the corporation's taxes, maintenance expenses, and mortgage obligation. Through poor management by the corporation's board of directors, the corporation failed to raise sufficient funds to pay the mortgage obligation. The bank that holds the mortgage on the building has begun foreclosure proceedings. A resident of the building who paid the annual assessment fee and is not a member of the board of directors has sought a declaratory judgment that a buyer at the foreclosure sale takes the building subject to her lease. The applicable jurisdiction has not adopted a statute that addresses this situation. How should the court rule?

Against the resident, because the lease is subject to the mortgage on the building

Assume that Congress passed and the President signed the following statute: "The appellate jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court shall not extend to any case involving the constitutionality of any state statute limiting the circumstances in which a person may obtain contraception, or involving the constitutionality of this statute." What is the strongest argument against the constitutionality of this statute?

Congress may not exercise its authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in a way that seriously interferes with the establishment of a supreme and uniform body of federal constitutional law

A homeowner brought a federal diversity action against a manufacturer of gas grills, asserting products liability claims and seeking damages for injuries she had suffered when her grill exploded as she was lighting it. The manufacturer timely demanded a jury trial, and the court informed the parties that it would seat a seven-person jury. The parties agreed to a non-unanimous jury verdict. The jury returned a verdict for the homeowner. The manufacturer asked the court to poll the jury, and the poll revealed a 4 to 3 vote in favor of the homeowner. The manufacturer objected to the verdict and has moved for a new trial. How should the court proceed?

Deny a new trial, because the manufacturer agreed to a non-unanimous verdict

A farmer from State A purchased farmland from a woman who lives in State B. Prior to the purchase, a private land inspector from State B tested the soil and concluded that it was adequate for farming operations. Upon taking possession of the land, however, the farmer realized that the woman had polluted the soil to such an extent that he could not maintain farming operations. The farmer sued the woman in federal court under a federal environmental statute for $300,000. The farmer also joined the inspector to this suit to recover $50,000 for the inspector's negligent inspection of the land. The inspector filed a motion to dismiss the farmer's claim against him for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. How will the court likely rule on the inspector's motion?

Deny the motion, because although there is no federal-question or diversity jurisdiction over the farmer's claim against the inspector, there is supplemental jurisdiction over this claim

After being fired, an executive from State A sued her former employer in state court in State B for $100,000 in damages. The executive's complaint alleged that her former employer, a citizen of State B, violated a federal statute that prohibits gender discrimination in the workplace. The employer timely filed a notice of removal in the federal court in State B and delivered copies to the state court in State B and the executive. Twenty-two days later, the executive filed a motion to remand. How will the federal court likely rule on the executive's motion to remand?

Deny the motion, because the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case

During an interview, a company's chief executive officer (CEO) made a prepared statement denying that the company was in merger talks with one of its competitors. After the interview aired, the company's stock price dropped, and an investor sold his stock in the company at a great loss. Two weeks later, the company announced that it was merging with its competitor. The investor filed a lawsuit against the company in an appropriate federal court based on misrepresentation. After the parties held their initial planning conference, the investor requested that the company produce all documents and data related to the CEO's prepared statement and the subsequent announcement of the merger. In response, the company carefully screened its records and produced approximately three million documents, including electronically stored information. It also produced a privilege log of documents withheld. After production, the company realized that it had inadvertently produced 102 potentially privileged documents. The company immediately notified the investor of the inadvertent disclosure, provided a basis for its privilege claim, and asked that the documents be immediately returned. The investor, who disputed the company's privilege claim, immediately isolated the documents from the rest of the production but refused to return them. The investor has presented the documents and the parties' privilege arguments to the court for a determination of the privilege claim. A hearing was scheduled to be held in 15 days. In response, the company promptly moved for an injunction that would require the investor to immediately return the documents to the company and destroy any copies in his possession before the hearing. How should the court rule on the company's motion?

Deny the motion, because the investor promptly sequestered the documents and presented the information to the court

A tire company is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Asia. The company assembles all its tires in Asia and sells them throughout the world. The company purchases tire valves from a manufacturer incorporated and headquartered in Europe. All of the valves are manufactured in Europe and sold exclusively to tire companies in Asia. The manufacturer was aware that tires with its valves were sold in State A, but it never contemplated that its sales to the company would subject it to suit there. A tire assembled by the company exploded when a motorcyclist from State A was driving on a road in State A. The motorcyclist sued the company in a federal court in State A to recover $225,000 in medical expenses and property damage. The motorcyclist alleged that the valve in the tire was defective and caused the accident. The company impleaded the manufacturer for indemnification. The motorcyclist settled his claim with the company, which left the company's indemnity claim against the manufacturer. In its answer, the manufacturer moved to dismiss the indemnity claim for lack of personal jurisdiction. State A has a long-arm statute that gives its courts personal jurisdiction to the full extent allowed under the U.S. Constitution. How will the federal court likely rule on the manufacturer's motion to dismiss?

Grant the motion, because the manufacturer did not purposefully avail itself of State A and exercising jurisdiction would offend notions of fair play and substantial justice

City police officers shot and killed a woman's friend as he attempted to escape arrest for an armed robbery he had committed. The woman brought suit in federal district court against the city police department and the police officers involved, seeking only a judgment declaring unconstitutional the state statute under which the police acted. That newly enacted statute authorized the police to use deadly force when necessary to apprehend a person who has committed a felony. In her suit, the woman alleged that the police would not have killed her friend if the use of deadly force had not been authorized by the statute. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the woman's suit. How should the federal district court rule on this motion?

Grant the motion, because the suit does not present a case or controversy

A businessman owned a hotel, subject to a mortgage securing a debt he owed to a bank. The businessman later acquired a nearby parking garage, financing part of the purchase price with a loan from a financing company, secured by a mortgage on the parking garage. Two years thereafter, the businessman defaulted on the loan owed to the bank, which caused the full amount of that loan to become immediately due and payable. The bank decided not to foreclose the mortgage on the hotel at that time, but instead properly sued for the full amount of the defaulted loan. The bank obtained and properly filed a judgment for that amount. A statute of the jurisdiction provides: "Any judgment properly filed shall, for 10 years from filing, be a lien on the real property then owned or subsequently acquired by any person against whom the judgment is rendered." There is no other applicable statute, except the statute providing for judicial foreclosure of mortgages, which places no restrictions on deficiency judgments. Shortly thereafter, the bank brought an appropriate action for judicial foreclosure of its mortgage on the hotel and of its judgment lien on the parking garage. The financing company was joined as a party defendant and appropriately sued for foreclosure of its mortgage on the parking garage, which was also in default. All procedures were properly followed, and the confirmed foreclosure sales resulted in the following: The net proceeds of the sale of the hotel to a third party were $200,000 less than the bank's mortgage balance. The net proceeds of the sale of the parking garage to a fourth party were $200,000 more than the financing company's mortgage balance. How should the $200,000 surplus arising from the sale of the parking garage be distributed?

It should be paid to the bank

A corporation has been the subject of several news reports charging that the pollution emitted by its factory endangers the health of hundreds of residents in a subdivision. The corporation filed an action in federal court against the residents to obtain a declaratory judgment that it complied with environmental regulations and is not responsible for any subsequent harm. A federal statute authorizes this suit. The state in which the federal court is located permits service of process by mail or by publishing notice of the suit in a newspaper. The corporation obtained the name and address of each resident in the subdivision from the county tax assessor. To avoid the expense of mailing service to each resident individually, the corporation published notice of the suit in the subdivision's community newspaper pursuant to the state's procedural rules. Did the corporation properly serve the residents with process?

No, because service by publication was unreasonable since the corporation knew the name and address of each resident

A homeowner brought a diversity action against a mining company in federal court for negligence, claiming that the company's negligent mining practices caused extensive damage to her property. Forty-five days before trial, the homeowner sent the company the evidence that she plans to use at trial, including a witness whose testimony she intends to present by deposition. The homeowner also attached a transcript of the pertinent depositions. Twenty-one days later, the company objected to the use of the deposition testimony on the ground that it is inadmissible hearsay. Should the court hear the merits of the company's objection?

No, because the company failed to object within 14 days after the homeowner disclosed the deposition testimony she intended to use at trial

A pedestrian was struck in a crosswalk by a truck and severely injured. The pedestrian brought a federal diversity action against the driver of the truck, alleging the following in the complaint: "On January 15, 2019, on Broad Street in City A, located in State B, the defendant negligently drove a motor vehicle, striking the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff was physically injured, lost wages or income, suffered physical and mental pain, and incurred medical expenses of $100,000." The truck driver has moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim, arguing that the complaint lacks sufficient detail. Is the court likely to grant the motion?

No, because the complaint alleges facts showing plausible entitlement to relief

After being fired, a woman sued her former employer in federal court, alleging that her supervisor had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. The woman's complaint included a lengthy description of what the supervisor had said and done over the years, quoting his telephone calls and emails to her and her own emails to the supervisor's manager asking for help. The employer moved for summary judgment, alleging that the woman was a pathological liar who had filed the action and included fictitious documents in revenge for having been fired. Because the woman's attorney was at a lengthy out-of-state trial when the summary judgment motion was filed, he failed to respond to it. The court therefore granted the motion in a one-line order and entered final judgment. The woman has appealed. Is the appellate court likely to uphold the trial court's ruling?

No, because the employer moved for summary judgment on the basis that the woman was not credible, creating a factual dispute

The police searched a woman's home without probable cause or a warrant. Based on the evidence discovered during the search, the woman was charged with first-degree murder in state court. At trial, the woman objected to the admission of the evidence on the grounds that the police unconstitutionally searched her home and seized the evidence. After a hearing on the issue, the court overruled the woman's objection and admitted the evidence. Immediately after this ruling, the woman filed a complaint in federal court to enjoin the state court from proceeding with her prosecution because the police violated her constitutional rights. Should the federal court hear the woman's claim?

No, because the federal court must abstain from hearing the case

A driver from State A was texting and driving when she hit a pedestrian from State B in a crosswalk in State B. The pedestrian suffered multiple injuries and sued the driver for gross negligence in a federal district court in State B. In his complaint, the pedestrian sought compensatory damages of $75,000 for lost wages and medical expenses, $10,000 for attorney's fees, and $100,000 for punitive damages. At the conclusion of trial, the jury awarded the pedestrian $35,000 for lost wages and medical expenses and $30,000 for punitive damages. The driver immediately moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the amount in controversy was insufficient to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. State B permits the recovery of punitive damages but not attorney's fees in a gross negligence action. Should the court grant the driver's motion?

No, because the total amount in controversy was $175,000

A company incorporated in State A and with its principal place of business in State B sued its former employee from State C in a federal district court in State A for allegedly embezzling $80,000. During a deposition of the employee in State B, the company's attorney asked the employee whether he stole the money. The employee's attorney objected and directed the employee not to answer to preserve his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The company's attorney thinks this privilege does not apply because she believes that the statute of limitations has run on any criminal proceedings that could be brought against the employee for his conduct. How should the company's attorney proceed?

Proceed with the deposition and then file a motion with the federal court in State A to compel the employee to answer

A football team entered into a 10-year lease with a city for use of the city's athletic stadium. Five years into the lease, the team threatened to leave the stadium and move to another city. The city sued the team in federal court, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the team from breaching its lease and leaving. In its answer, the team included a counterclaim seeking $10 million in damages for losses caused by the city's alleged failure to properly maintain the stadium, as the lease required. The team demanded a jury trial on the counterclaim. The city moved to try its claim for a permanent injunction before the trial on the team's counterclaim. The team objected and moved that the jury trial of its counterclaim be held before the trial of the city's injunction claim. How should the court rule on the parties' motions?

The court should first hold a jury trial of the team's counterclaim, and then a non injury trial of the issues remaining in the city's claim

A woman owned two adjacent parcels, Lot 1 and Lot 2. Lot 1 fronts on a poor unpaved public road, while Lot 2 fronts a paved major highway. Fifteen years ago, the woman conveyed Lot 1 to her son "together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Lot 2 to [the major highway]." At that time, Lot 1 was improved with a 10-unit motel. Ten years ago, the woman died. Her will devised Lot 2 "to my son for life, remainder to my daughter." Five years ago, the son executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Lot 1 and Lot 2 to his friend in fee simple. The friend then enlarged the motel to 12 units. Six months ago, the son died and the daughter took possession of Lot 2. She brought an appropriate action to enjoin the friend from using the right-of-way. In this action, who should prevail?

The friend, because he has the easement granted by the woman to the son

A city had a severe traffic problem on its streets. As a result, it enacted an ordinance prohibiting all sales to the public of food or other items by persons selling directly from trucks, cars, or other vehicles located on city streets. The ordinance included an inseverable grandfather provision exempting from its prohibition vendors who, for 20 years or more, have continuously sold food or other items from such vehicles located on the city's streets. An ice cream truck is the only food vendor that qualifies for this exemption. A frozen yogurt vendor is similar to the ice cream truck, but the yogurt vendor has only been selling to the public directly from trucks located on the city's streets for the past ten years. The yogurt vendor has filed suit in an appropriate federal district court to enjoin enforcement of this ordinance on the ground that it denies the yogurt vendor equal protection of the laws. How is the court likely to rule?

The ordinance is constitutional, because its validity is governed by the rational basis test, and courts consistently defer to the objectives embodied in such legislation if they are even plausibly justifiable

A state statute requires all workers' compensation actions filed in state court to be decided by a judge. A woman brought a workers' compensation action in state court against her employer for injuries she sustained at work. The woman demanded a jury trial, but the court denied her request pursuant to the state statute. Is the state statute likely constitutional?

Yes

A patient sued a hospital for medical negligence, claiming that a nurse employed by the hospital failed to administer critical medication prescribed by the patient's treating physician during the patient's hospitalization. At trial, to prove the nurse's failure to administer the prescribed medication, the patient has called the medical records librarian, who has authenticated the hospital's record of the patient's treatment, which contains no entry showing that the medication in question was administered. Is the hospital record admissible?

Yes, because it is within the hearsay exception covering the absence of entries in business records

A prominent investment advisor sued a former client for slander. In his complaint, the investment advisor alleged that the client publicly accused him of being a con artist. The client timely filed an answer whereby she admitted to making the statement but also asserted that the statement was true. At trial, the client offers evidence that the investment advisor had knowingly managed a fraudulent investment fund commonly referred to as a Ponzi scheme. Is evidence of the investment advisor's management of the fraudulent investment fund admissible?

Yes, because specific instances of conduct may be proved when character is directly an issue

An artist from State A filed a federal diversity suit in State B against an art collector from State B for conversion. The complaint alleges that the collector stole a painting from the artist 50 years ago and requests a jury trial on this issue. The statute of limitations for conversion, measured from the time the plaintiff learns that the defendant possesses the property at issue, is 25 years in State A and 10 years in State B. During discovery, the collector deposed the artist. At her deposition, the artist stated that she knew that the collector had purchased the painting 20 years ago at an auction, but she did not try to recover the painting at that time because she did not want the hassle of a court case to distract her from creating art. However, due to her advancing age, she now seeks to reclaim her painting. The collector immediately moved for summary judgment. The collector stipulated to all of the facts alleged by the artist at her deposition and attached a transcript of her deposition testimony to the motion. The artist did not respond. Is the federal court likely to grant the collector's motion?

Yes, because the collector is entitled to judgment as a matter of law

A plaintiff domiciled in State A brought a wrongful death action in a federal court in State A against a State B parent corporation and one of its foreign subsidiaries. The plaintiff alleged that a tire manufactured by the subsidiary in Europe had caused his wife's death in an automobile accident in Europe. The parent corporation does significant business throughout the United States, including in State A. The subsidiary conducts no business and has no employees or bank accounts in State A. The subsidiary manufactures its tires for the European market, but 2% of its tires are distributed in State A by the parent corporation. The subsidiary has moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Should the court grant the subsidiary's motion?

Yes, because the subsidiary lacks continuous, systematic, and substantial contacts with State A

A company from State A filed a federal diversity action against its distributor, seeking $750,000 in damages. The company demanded a jury trial, and 10 jurors were selected to hear the case. After closing arguments, the judge instructed the jury. The jury deliberated for three days until the foreman sent a note to the judge informing her that the jury could not reach a decision. The judge brought the jury back into the courtroom and instructed the jurors on their duty to carefully and deliberately consider the evidence to reach a decision. The jury returned a verdict the next day in which nine jurors found in favor of the company for the full amount sought. The judge agreed with the jury and entered a final judgment in accordance with the verdict. The distributor has timely filed a motion for a new trial. Should the court grant the distributor's motion?

Yes, because the verdict was not unanimous