Blog

A motorcyclist, a taxi driver, and a bus driver got into a three-vehicle accident. The motorcyclist sued the other drivers for personal injuries arising from the accident. In turn, and in the same case, the bus driver asserted a claim against the taxi driver for injuries arising out of that accident, and the taxi driver asserted a claim against the motorcyclist.What are the bus driver’s and the taxi driver’s claims called?

The City of Great Newport has been experiencing business and population decline affecting its tax base for a number of years.  Currently the City is separated by three rivers and is divided into North, Central and South City areas of about 1500 lots each.  The North side is a mixture of 3 uses, I-1 industrial, R-2 Multi unit residential and S-1 schools.  The Central area is mostly older homes, some vacant, and vacant lots without any zoning designations and a few properties from the early 1900’s, one of which is a train station with historical ties and architecture.  The South City area is R-1 large homes residential and fairly affluent.  The City of Great Newport was approached some years ago by a private developer offering to create a privately-owned mixed-use community in the Central City area, if it were permitted to buy 500 lots together to develop into a work, shop and play mixed use development Condo Development which would have Residential, Business and Shopping Components.  Studies project it would create up to 300 new jobs and infuse the community with a revised tax base of up to 12 million dollars a year.  The city has passed a redevelopment plan for its Central City area by way of use of its Eminent domain powers to acquire 500 lots, most of which are vacant in the central city area to stimulate its weak economy.  The City through eminent domain would pay just value to the property owners and then would sell the entire 500 lot parcel to the Private Developer under the redevelopment plan.   During the period of redevelopment, the City also designated the Train Terminal in the Central City area as a historical landmark for the common good and denied the owners application to make additions and alterations, even though they were otherwise allowed under applicable zoning. The owner of the Train Terminal, Transportation, LLC, is threatening to sue for damages for the designation as they say the value is reduced as they were going to add and expand to include shops and a whole modernization level on top of the station which is now denied.  You are the City Attorney and the City informs you three lot owners in the Central City area have sued challenging the use as not a public use.  They claim the eminent domain taking violates the 5th and 14th amendments and the takings clause as not a “public use.”  What would be your legal arguments for defending the City?  What case law or arguments could you reference and who would likely win?  How would you defend a challenge to the designation of the Train Station as a protected landmark, as not a taking?

George Sheetz (Plaintiff) wanted to build a small, prefabricated home on his residential parcel of land. To obtain a permit, though, he had to pay a substantial fee of $23,420 to mitigate local traffic congestion. El Dorado County, California (Defendant) is a rural jurisdiction that lies east of Sacramento and extends to the Nevada border. In recent decades, the County has experienced significant population growth, and with it an increase in new development. To account for the new demand on public services, the County’s Board of Supervisors adopted a planning document, which it calls the General Plan, to address issues ranging from wastewater collection to land-use restrictions. The Board of Supervisors is a legislative body under state law, and the adoption of its General Plan is a legislative act. To address traffic congestion, the General Plan requires developers to pay a traffic impact fee as a condition of receiving a building permit. Defendant uses proceeds from these fees to fund improvements to its road system. The fee amount is determined by a rate schedule, which takes into account the type of development (commercial, residential, and so on) and its location within the County. The amount is not based on the cost specifically attributable to the particular project on which the fee is imposed. Sheetz sought relief in state court. He claimed, among other things, that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. The trial court rejected Plaintiff’s claim and ruled that fees imposed on a broad class of property owners through legislative action are determined by the discretion of the state legislature. Plaintiff appealed, claiming Defendant failed to follow applicable law by imposing the impact fees per the above General Plan. Please discuss the accepted legal arguments likely to be raised by Plaintiff on appeal and the facts, if any, which support his contentions.

Buyer and Seller entered into a written agreement by which Seller would sell to Buyer an income producing commercial building for $5 million. The terms of the agreement included a $500,000 down payment by Buyer and Buyer would finance the remainder of the purchase price through a lender of her choice. Prior to the close of the sale: 1) Seller was to cooperate with making all the books and records of the building available for Buyer’s due diligence as well as all tenant files and lease agreements; and 2) Buyer would re-negotiate the expiring parking contract and sign a new contract with a nearby parking garage. Time was made expressly of the essence in the agreement. Buyer and Seller executed the escrow instructions and Buyer deposited the down payment. Escrow was scheduled to close on June 1st and Buyer would have immediate possession of the building before the close of business on that date. Buyer procured a mortgage loan commitment from Bank to finance the balance of the purchase price ($4,500,000) plus closing costs ($225,000) for 20 years at an annual interest rate of 5.98%. The commitment expired on June 30th. By the last week of May, Seller had failed to make its books and records and tenant files available to Buyer. And Buyer had not yet executed a renewed contract with the parking garage owner. Buyer was unable to communicate with Seller until June 15th at which time Seller expressed his reticence about closing the deal while continuing to deny access to the documents which would facilitate Buyer’s due diligence. By July 1st the Seller had taken no further action to close the sale and had stopped responding to Buyer’s requests for cooperation or performance. On July 15th Buyer brought action in state court to compel Seller to perform the agreement and close the sale. On that date, Buyer obtained a new mortgage loan commitment from Bank at an annual rate of 6.75%. Over the term of the new loan, the interest expense would be $511,279 higher than with the original loan. To what equitable remedies, if any, is Buyer entitled? What defenses, if any, could Seller interpose? Discuss fully.

A and B, neighboring landowners, decide that they will mutually restrict their lots to single family residential use. They sign an agreement wherein each promises on behalf of himself, his heirs, and assigns, that his lot will be used for single family residential purposes only. This agreement is promptly and properly recorded. B sells his lot to C. C builds an apartment house on her lot. A sues C for damages. What is the likely result?

Peter Pedestrian was injured in an auto accident caused by Drake Driver. Peter’s injuries included a broken nose and a broken toe. Not sure of the strength of his case, Peter sued Drake only for the injuries to his nose. Peter was awarded $15,000 in damages. Encouraged by this success, Peter now wishes to sue Drake for the injuries to his toe.May Peter sue Drake again?

In IBM, a centralized IT service center provides infrastructure and support services to multiple business units. Rather than offering these services for free, the IT center charges each unit based on usage and the costs incurred, such as the number of servers used, help desk tickets submitted, or cloud storage consumed. This creates an internal pricing mechanism that enhances cost transparency and encourages more efficient resource utilization. As a result, business units can better manage their budgets, while the service center operates more like an internal vendor, accountable for cost, quality, and performance. Select all statements that are not true about this chargeback model.

Grassroots, an environmental group, wishing to stop the issuance by a federal agency of mining permit to Carter Coal, commences an action in federal court against the federal agency, seeking, among other things, a permanent injunction barring the issuance of the permit to Carter Coal.If Carter Coal seeks to join the litigation as a matter of right, must the federal court grant the motion?

On March 1, 2005, Gates Rubber Company Sales Division, Inc. (Plaintiff) leased from Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. (Louis Lesser), three acres of land located on Randolph Street in the City of Commerce, California. The written lease provided for a term of 20 years, from March 1, 2005, through December 31, 2025. The lease was a “triple net lease,” which required Plaintiff to pay the taxes, insurance, utilities and other costs involved in maintaining the property. The lease granted Plaintiff four successive five-year options to extend the term. The lease made no reference to an option agreement for the purchase of the property, a written agreement which had been entered into by the same parties on the same date as the original lease. Neither the lease nor the written option agreement ever was recorded. The written option agreement entered into by Plaintiff and Louis Lesser provided that Gates Sales Division had the right to purchase the property for $721,029 during the sixth year of the lease term, and a second option to purchase the property for $550,687 during the 20th year of the lease term. At the time they entered into the aforementioned lease and option agreements on March 18, 2005, Plaintiff and Louis Lesser additionally executed a short-form lease. This short form did not contain all the material terms of the lease but merely designated Louis Lesser as lessor and Plaintiff as lessee, identified the property and specified the length of the term, stated that the consideration was one dollar plus other valuable consideration, recited that Plaintiff had leased the premises from Louis Lesser “upon and subject to the terms, covenants, conditions and agreements more particularly set forth in a certain lease between Lessor and Lessee bearing even date herewith,” and stated the referenced lease was the sole agreement of lease between the parties. This document made no reference to the agreement providing an option to purchase. The short form lease was recorded on September 6, 2005. Plaintiff entered into possession of the premises on April 15, 2005, and has occupied the property continuously since that date. During this period of possession, Plaintiff has operated a warehouse and distribution center on the property for its rubber products. On December 27, 2008, Louis Lesser sold and conveyed the property to Charles Ulman (Defendant). The escrow agreement and recorded grant deed from Lesser to Defendant did not contain any reference to the option to purchase. Benton Cole was a real estate agent who represented Defendant during the purchase of the property. Prior to the purchase, he provided him with a written description of the property, including the lease and options to renew, but this document did not contain any reference to the option to purchase. The preliminary title report and eventual policy of insurance prepared for Defendant by the title insurance company referred to the short-form lease and to the unrecorded lease, but not to the option agreement for the purchase of the property. The escrow instructions and grant deed for the conveyance did not refer to the option agreement. The grant deed was recorded on January 2, 2009. On August 29, 2025, Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing of Plaintiff’s exercise of the option to purchase the property and deliver to him the down payment required by the agreement. On September 15, 2025, Defendant returned Plaintiff’s check uncashed and notified Plaintiff that he would not comply with the option agreement or convey the property to Plaintiff, asserting there was no evidence Defendant was aware of the option when he purchased the property. On November 1, 2025, Plaintiff commenced the present action, seeking specific performance of the option agreement, declaratory relief, and in the alternative money damages. Please identify and discuss the legal defense(s) expected to be raised at trial and discuss the facts which support or refute those defenses.

Lucy, a landowner in fee simple, signed a promissory note for $10,000 to A1 Bank, and secured the note by a mortgage of her land to A1 Bank. The mortgage was duly recorded. Lucy then sold the property to Alex who assumed and agreed to pay the mortgage to A1 Bank on the land. Alex did not make payments on the mortgage note to A1 Bank. A1 Bank, following appropriate statutory procedures, foreclosed the mortgage and gave notice to both Lucy and Alex that it intended to sue for any deficiency. At the foreclosure sale, the property sold for $6,000. A1 Bank now sues both Lucy and Alex for $5,000, which is the remaining amount of the unpaid principal and interest on the note plus costs of foreclosure.Against which party will A1 Bank be successful in obtaining a judgment?