Author: Anonymous

A large delivery truck collided with a car. At the time of the accident, the driver of the truck said to the car driver, “The accident was my fault; I wasn’t paying any attention. Don’t worry, my company will make it right.” The delivery company had not authorized the truck driver to make that statement. The subsequent investigation of the accident by the delivery company revealed that the truck driver had been drinking on the day of the accident. He was fired. The car driver brings an appropriate action against the delivery company for damages resulting from the accident. The truck driver has disappeared. The car driver now seeks to testify as to what the truck driver said at the time of the accident.  Is the evidence admissible?

A woman was the subject of a murder investigation. The investigation continued for more than two years, with the woman frequently being called in for questioning. Finally, the woman was indicted for the murder. The woman’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss all charges against her, arguing that the excessively long investigatory period violated the woman’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.  Despite the pending motion, the woman decided that she wanted to “get it over with,” and she told the judge that she wished to plead guilty. The judge then explained the charges to the woman and asked her if she understood them. She replied, “Yes.” The judge then asked the woman if she understood that she was not required to plead guilty. She responded in the affirmative. Finally, the judge described the maximum sentence and asked the woman if she understood that she could receive the maximum sentence, which was life imprisonment. She again responded, “Yes,” and maintained that she still wished to plead guilty. The judge accepted the woman’s plea and sentenced her to 30 years’ imprisonment in the state penitentiary. Six months later, the woman filed a motion to set aside the guilty plea. Which of the following provides the best argument that the woman has a constitutional basis for relief?

Suspecting that a husband had slain his wife, police detectives persuaded one of the husband’s colleagues at work to remove a drinking glass from the husband’s office so that it could be used for fingerprint comparisons with a knife found near the body. The fingerprints matched. The prosecutor announced that he would present comparisons and evidence to the grand jury. The husband’s lawyer immediately filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the fingerprint comparisons so as to bar its consideration by the grand jury, contending that the evidence was illegally acquired.  Should the motion be granted?

A vintner divided his vineyard into two parcels, drawing the boundaries so that the single well that had irrigated the entire vineyard fell on the border of the two properties. The vintner then conveyed the eastern parcel to his friend by a deed that contained the following covenant:  If the well located on the boundary of the eastern and western parcels continues to be used for irrigation purposes and becomes in need of repair or replacement, the grantee, his heirs, and assigns and the grantor, his heirs, and assigns each promise to pay one-half of the cost of such repair or replacement. This covenant shall run with the land. The deed from the vintner to the friend was not recorded, and the vintner did not record a copy of the deed with the records for the western parcel.  The friend later sold the eastern parcel to a farmer. The farmer’s deed did not contain the covenant about the well. After 15 years of use by the owners of both the eastern and western parcels, the well began to fail. The farmer took it upon himself to have the well repaired at a cost of $30,000. About two weeks later, the farmer discovered the deed from the vintner to the friend in some old files. By this time, the western parcel had passed to the vintner’s son by inheritance and again to the son’s daughter by inheritance from the now deceased son. The daughter knew nothing of the covenant concerning the well. The farmer presented the daughter with the bill for the well repair with a copy of the vintner/friend deed and a note that said he expected to be reimbursed for $15,000. The daughter refuses to pay, and the farmer sues.  The jurisdiction has a 10-year statute of limitations for acquiring property by adverse possession, and the following recording statute: “Any conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded.” For whom is the court most likely to rule?

A man and woman agreed to burn down a neighbor’s house in retribution for some wrong the neighbor allegedly committed against them. Both the man and woman were arrested shortly after they poured gasoline on the neighbor’s front porch. The man revealed to the police that he participated in the plan to ensure that nothing bad would happen to the neighbor, and that he had made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime, which enabled the police to arrest him and the woman “in the act.” The woman stated that she would not have participated if not for the man’s encouragement.  If the woman is charged with a conspiracy at common law to commit arson, how should she be found?

In its lead editorial in the Sunday edition, a suburban daily newspaper characterized a real estate developer as a “common thief.” The developer promptly filed suit against the newspaper for defamation. During the course of the presentation of the plaintiff’s case, he sought to put a witness on the stand who is prepared to testify that the plaintiff once saved the life of a fellow soldier in combat.  If the newspaper’s lawyer objects, should the court rule that the testimony is admissible?

An attorney came to work on a Saturday. When he signed in, he was advised by the morning security guard employed by the building management that he must be out of the building by 5 p.m., when it closes. However, he stayed past 5 p.m. to complete a brief that had to be filed on Monday morning. At 5:15 p.m., the afternoon security guard set the locks on all the doors of the building and left. Because she was in a hurry, she did not check the sign-in sheet to make sure that everyone had signed out, contrary to mandatory procedures. When the attorney tried to exit 15 minutes later, he discovered that the doors were all locked and could not be opened from the inside. He used his cell phone to call for help, and a supervisor from the building arrived and let him out shortly thereafter.  If the attorney sues the building management for false imprisonment, is he likely to win?

An employee of the United States Department of Labor was instructed by his superior to solicit subscriptions to the Department’s bulletin on a door-to-door basis in the city in which he worked. While doing so, the employee was arrested for violation of a city ordinance that prohibited commercial solicitation of private residences.  What is the employee’s best defense?

When the defendant learned that his former wife, to whom he was paying $1,000 per month in alimony, was dating someone else, the defendant encouraged her to get married “for the sake of the children.” The former wife said that she would consider it, but she also expressed concern that her boyfriend might already be married. The defendant told his former wife that he would have an acquaintance run a computer check on the boyfriend that would reveal whether he was currently married. However, the defendant did not bother with the computer check; instead he called the boyfriend and offered him $5,000 if he would propose to the defendant’s former wife. The defendant then told his former wife that, according to official records, the boyfriend was single. The defendant’s former wife and the boyfriend went through a wedding ceremony shortly thereafter. The boyfriend, however, was already married to someone else, a fact that would have been disclosed by a routine check of official records.  If the defendant is charged with being an accessory to bigamy, a strict liability offense in the jurisdiction, should he be found guilty?

A utility company constructed a building costing approximately $2 million that encroached on a rancher’s property. The rancher is suing the company in federal district court to force the company to remove the office building. In the same action, the rancher is asking for $200,000 in damages incurred because of the trespass. The court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.  Is the company entitled to a jury trial?