1. A father lived with his son, who was an alcoholic. When drunk, the son often became violent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was drunk and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of alcohol or any drug and did not intend to harm his father. At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense.
How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?
(A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case.
(B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evidence is sufficient to raise the defense.
(C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son.
(D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force.
2. A man sued a railroad for personal injuries suffered when his car was struck by a train at an unguarded crossing. A major issue is whether the train sounded its whistle before arriving at the crossing. The railroad has offered the testimony of a resident who has lived near the crossing for 15 years. Although she was not present on the occasion in question, she will testify that, whenever she is home, the train always sounds its whistle before arriving at the crossing. Is the resident’s testimony admissible?
(A) No, due to the resident’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the incident in question.
(B) No, because habit evidence is limited to the conduct of persons, not businesses.
(C) Yes, as evidence of a routine practice.
(D) Yes, as a summary of her present sense impressions.
3. To keep its public school expenditures under control in a time of increasing costs, a state passed a law providing that children who have not lived in the state for at least one year cannot attend public schools in the state. Which of the following statements about this law is most accurate as a matter of constitutional law?
(A) The one-year residence requirement is valid because it does not affect any fundamental right or suspect class.
(B) State durational residence requirements that are established for publicly funded services are constitutional because they relate to government operations reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
(C) Because publicly funded education is a fundamental constitutional right, a state may not deny it to any class of persons who reside in that state.
(D) State durational residence requirements established for this kind of publicly funded service solely for the purpose of reducing state expenditures violate the privileges or immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. A man has four German shepherd dogs that he has trained for guard duty and that he holds for breeding purposes. The man has “Beware of Dogs” signs clearly posted around a fenced-in yard where he keeps the dogs. The man’s next-door neighbor frequently walks past the man’s house and knows about the dogs’ ferocity. One summer day, the neighbor entered the man’s fenced-in yard to retrieve a snow shovel that the man had borrowed during the past winter. The neighbor was attacked by one of the dogs and was severely injured.
In a suit against the man, is the neighbor likely to prevail?
(A) No, because the neighbor knew that the man had dangerous dogs in the yard.
(B) No, because the neighbor was trespassing when he entered the man’s property.
(C) Yes, because the neighbor was an invitee for the purpose of retrieving the shovel.
(D) Yes, because the man was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.
5. A woman from State A filed an action against a retailer in a state court in State B. The complaint alleged that the retailer had not delivered $100,000 worth of goods for which the woman had paid. Twenty days after being served, the retailer, which is incorporated in State C and has its principal place of business in State B, filed a notice of removal in a federal district court
in State B.
Was the action properly removed?
(A) No, because the notice of removal was not timely filed.
(B) No, because the retailer is a citizen of State B.
(C) Yes, because the parties are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 is in controversy.
(D) Yes, because the retailer is a citizen of both State B and State C.
6. A man owned a house where he lived with his family. The man was convicted of selling large quantities of an illegal drug from his house. Acting under a state law authorizing the
destruction of buildings that are used for illegal activity, the city destroyed the man’s house. The man’s family then rented an apartment and demanded that the city pay the rent for that temporary residence. The family relied on a state law providing that any person who was dispossessed of his or her place of residence because of the actions of city officials was entitled to replacement housing at the city’s expense until permanent substitute housing could be found. When the city refused to pay the rent for the apartment, the man’s family sued the city in a state trial court claiming a right to such payment under both the state law and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The highest state court ruled for the family. Although the court decided that the family had no right to payment under the state law, it held that the Fourteenth Amendment entitled the family to payment of the rent for the temporary apartment. In its opinion, the highest state court indicated that in several of its decisions it had found cities liable for compensation in similar situations on the basis of the due process clause of the state constitution. But the highest state court declined to base its holding on the state constitution because that issue had not been properly raised in the case.
The city then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the merits of this case?
(A) Yes, because the highest state court based its decision wholly on federal law grounds.
(B) Yes, because the federal and state law issues in this case are so intertwined that a resolution of the federal law issues is necessary to facilitate a proper determination of the state law issues.
(C) No, because the decision of the highest state court renders the case moot.
(D) No, because independent state law grounds could have been used to justify the result in this case.
7. A sporting goods shop contracted with a publisher to buy, for sale in its store, 1,200 posters featuring a professional golfer. During production, the image of the golfer was inadvertently reversed and the right-handed golfer appeared to be left-handed. When the posters were delivered on the date provided in the contract, the sporting goods shop noticed the discrepancy, which had no provable significant impact on the effectiveness of the poster. In the opinion of the shop management, however, the posters did not look as good as they had in the catalog from which the shop had ordered them. Is the sporting goods shop legally entitled to reject the posters?
(A) No, because the nonconformity does not materially alter the value of the posters to the sporting goods shop.
(B) No, because the publisher must be given an opportunity to cure the nonconformity before the sporting goods shop can reject the posters.
(C) Yes, because the posters do not conform to the contract.
(D) Yes, because the publisher has breached an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
8. A woman borrowed $800,000 from a bank and gave the bank a note for that amount secured by a mortgage on her farm. Several years later, at a time when the woman still owed the bank $750,000 on the mortgage loan, she sold the farm to a man for $900,000. The man paid the woman $150,000 in cash and specifically assumed the mortgage note. The bank received notice of this transaction and elected not to exercise the optional due-on-sale clause in the mortgage. Without informing the man, the bank later released the woman from any further personal liability on the note. After he had owned the farm for a number of years, the man defaulted on the loan. The bank properly accelerated the loan, and the farm was eventually sold at a foreclosure sale for $500,000. Because there was still $600,000 owing on the
note, the bank sued the man for the $100,000 deficiency.
Is the man liable to the bank for the deficiency?
(A) No, because the woman would have still been primarily liable for payment, but the bank had released her from personal liability.
(B) No, because the bank’s release of the woman from personal liability also released the man.
(C) Yes, because the bank’s release of the woman constituted a clogging of the equity of redemption.
(D) Yes, because the man’s personal liability on the note was not affected by the bank’s release of the woman.
9. A young man suggested to his friend that they steal a largescreen TV from a neighbor’s house. The friend was angry with the young man and decided to use the opportunity to get even
with him by having him arrested. The friend said he would help, and that night, he drove the young man to the neighbor’s house. The young man broke in while the friend remained outside. The friend called the police on his cell phone and then drove away. Police officers arrived at the scene just as the young man was carrying the TV out the back door. The jurisdiction defines crimes as at common law. Of what crime, if any, can the friend properly be convicted?
(A) No crime.
(B) Conspiracy.
(C) Burglary.
(D) Conspiracy and larceny
10. A 50-year-old nurse who had been fired from his job at a hospital told his attorney, “I was fired because of my age, and I want to sue the hospital.” Based on this information, the attorney filed an age discrimination complaint against the hospital in federal court. As it turned out, the hospital had hired a 52-year-old man as the nurse’s replacement, a fact that rendered an age discrimination claim unavailable. The hospital responded to the complaint by filing a motion for sanctions against the nurse’s attorney. Is the court likely to grant the hospital’s motion?
(A) No, because sanctions are not proper against the attorney of a represented party.
(B) No, because the hospital failed to give the attorney the chance to withdraw the complaint in advance of filing the motion with the court.
(C) Yes, because the nurse’s attorney failed to conduct a reasonable pre-filing inquiry.
(D) Yes, because the nurse’s complaint contained legal contentions that were not warranted by existing law based on the facts in this case.
Warning: Undefined variable $in_same_cat in /www/wwwroot/mtexam.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/EXP.GKFEED.COM/function.php on line 27
Warning: Undefined variable $excluded_categories in /www/wwwroot/mtexam.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/EXP.GKFEED.COM/function.php on line 27