Blog

Activation of ________ neurons in the subfornical organ (SFO) promote water intake

Delbert owned an operated a jewelry store in a historic downtown area.  The jewelry store had highly polished hardwood floors.  One rainy day, Pablo entered the store and slipped and fell on the wet floor just inside the door to the jewelry store.  As a result of the fall, Pablo struck his back of his head on the hardwood floor.  The paramedics were called and transported Pablo to the local hospital.  After being admitted through the emergency room, Pablo was examined by doctors and prescribed a pain medication as he continued to complain of severe head pain.  Several hours later, however, Pablo’s headache was getting worse.  The doctors therefore decided to order a series of skull x-rays in an attempt to rule out a skull fracture.  Pablo was taken to radiology on a gurney for the x-rays.  A radiology technician named Sam came in to take the x-rays.  As Sam was attempting to position the gurney for the x-rays, Sam accidentally pulled the wrong lever on the gurney and dumped Pablo on to the floor of the x-ray room injuring Pablo’s left arm. Later, an independent witness was identified who is available to testify that the highly polished floors of the jewelry store were very slippery when wet, that it had been raining for hours prior to Pablo’s arrival at the jewelry store, that the floors inside the jewelry store were wet, and that Delbert had not dried the floors, placed any mats on the floor, and had not placed any warning signs or cones in the area where Pablo fell. Discuss fully a claim of negligence by Pablo against Delbert for the injuries to his head and left shoulder.  Remember to raise any distinctions between common law and modern law.

Brandon entered into a private sale with Seth to purchase his home for $300,000. The date for closing was not expressly stated in the written agreement, but Brandon knew Seth had taken a new job in another state, which was scheduled to begin three months from the date of the sales contract. After the sales contract was drafted, both parties reviewed the specific terms. Seth then handed the contract back to Brandon without signing it. Brandon did sign the document, then he set it aside. For the next ten weeks, Seth did not hear from Brandon. Seth attempted unsuccessfully to reach Brandon by phone on several occasions.The following week, Seth was approached by a third party who offered to pay him $350,000 for the house. Seth accepted the offer and sold the house.Brandon called Seth two days later, saying he was ready to deliver a cashier’s check for $300,000 and close the sale. When Seth informed him that the house had already been sold, Brandon brought suit against Seth for breach of contract.Will Brandon prevail in this action?

Lucy and Nora, her neighbor, owned adjoining tracts of land. No public road abutted Nora’s land, so Lucy granted Nora an express easement over the north twenty-five feet of Lucy’s land. However, the following month the county extended the public road to Nora’s land, and Nora ceased using the easement for ingress and egress.Twenty years later, Nora conveyed the easement to her friend, who owned the land adjoining the other side of Lucy. The following year, Nora conveyed her land to Lucy. None of the parties has used the easement since the public road was extended. The jurisdiction has a fifteen-year statute of limitations for acquiring property interests by adverse possession.Was the easement extinguished?

Derrick owned a thirty-acre tract of farmland. As required by law, Derrick filed a plat with the county planning board, but did not record it. The plat divided the parcel into eighty-seven one-third-acre residential lots. A one-acre strip on the eastern edge of the parcel that abutted a busy highway was set aside for commercial development. The plat restricted each lot to a single residence and banned all “non-conforming detracting structures or appurtenances,” including “free-standing flagpoles more than six feet in height, television antennas and receiving equipment of excessive size and obtrusiveness, and windmills.” The restrictive clause was put into the deeds of all the residential lots in the subdivision, except for the deeds to lots 23, 24, and 25. This oversight was due to an error by Derrick’s secretary. All the other lots had deeds stating that the restriction applied “to the grantee and his or her heirs and assigns.”Harriett purchased lot 24 and duly recorded her deed in the office of the county recorder of deeds. Derrick’s salesperson had orally informed Harriett of the general restrictions applicable to lots in the subdivision. A year later, a sports bar purchased the one-acre commercial strip and installed a large satellite dish. Two years later, Harriett sold her property to Betty. Harriett never mentioned any of the restrictions to Betty. Betty put a satellite dish on top of her house. Her dish was not as large as the bar’s dish, but it was obviously bigger than any of her neighbors’ modest antennas. The owners of fifteen lots in the subdivision sue Betty, demanding that she remove the dish.If the court finds for Betty, what is the likely reason?

Alan and Bill were neighbors. Alan owned Whiteacre; Bill owned Blackacre. Whiteacre and Blackacre were adjacent. Alan and Bill covenanted with each other not to construct buildings taller than two stories on Whiteacre and Blackacre. Bill then sold Blackacre to Charlie without telling Charlie of the agreement about the lands with Alan. Charlie built a three-story house on Blackacre. Can Alan enforce the covenant against Charlie?

Luke, a landowner, sustained injuries in a boating accident that required an extended hospital stay. During his absence, Tony, a trespasser, entered into a contract with Ace, an accountant, to purchase Luke’s land. Tony forged Luke’s signature on a quitclaim deed, which Ace promptly and properly recorded. Two months later, Ace received notice that he was being transferred, so he conveyed the land to Bob, a buyer, by a general warranty deed. Bob promptly and properly recorded the deed. The following month, Luke returned to his land and ejected Bob. The jurisdiction in which the land is located has the following statute: “No unrecorded conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value without notice unless the conveyance is recorded.”Under which of the following theories is Bob most likely to have a remedy?

Andrea, an architectural historian, bought a house, financing $150,000 of the purchase price with a loan from A1 Bank, secured by a mortgage on the property. A1 Bank recorded its mortgage. Ten years later, Andrea borrowed $5,000 from Frank’s Finance Company, using the house as security. Frank’s Finance Company recorded its mortgage on the property. Five years later, Andrea obtained a $40,000 mortgage from Sue’s Savings and Loan Association to pay for an addition to the house. Sue’s Savings and Loan Association did not record its mortgage. Subsequently, Andrea lost her job and was unable to make payments on either Frank’s Finance Company or Sue’s Savings and Loan Association mortgages. Frank’s Finance Company filed foreclosure of its mortgage and joined Sue’s Savings and Loan Association in the action, and the house was sold to a buyer at the foreclosure sale.After acquiring the property at the sale, what is the buyer’s obligation regarding A1 Bank’s and Sue’s Savings and Loan Association’s mortgages?

All odorant sensory neurons in mammals share a common way of detecting smells via metabotropic/GPCR signalling

Peter was a 35-year old businessman.  Peter was married to Patty and together Peter and Patty had one child; a son named, Paul, who was 10-years old.  Peter was in the business of investing in other businesses.  Peter had contacted Oscar who was the proprietor of Oscar’s Warehouse.  Oscar expressed interest in meeting with Paul to discuss having Peter invest in Oscar’s Warehouse business.  A date was set for a meeting at the location of Oscar’s business. On the date decided upon, Peter went to Oscar’s business to meet with Oscar and to inspect his warehouse operation.  After meeting in Oscar’s office, Oscar and Peter were walking through the warehouse.  Suddenly, a large, heavy pallet fell from a high shelf and landed on Peter.  The pallet had been pushed off of the shelf by David.  David was an employee of Oscar’s who was operating a forklift.  At the time of the accident, David had been sliding another pallet on to the same shelf from which the pallet fell that landed on Peter.  David had been sliding the pallet from the aisle on the opposite side of the shelving using a forklift.  David had not checked to see what else was on the shelf before sliding his load on to the shelf.  David had been hired by Oscar as a forklift operator.  Oscar scheduled David’s hours and paid David on our hourly basis. As a result of the accident, Peter sustained severe internal injuries.  Peter was rushed to a hospital in an ambulance and treated.  However, Peter died one week later due to his injuries.  At the time of his death Peter was the sole financial support for Patty and Paul.  Peter was earning $10,000.00 per week through his investment business.  Peter’s medical bills for the week he was hospitalized were $250,000.00.  Peter’s funeral cost $15,000.00.  Peter had planned to work another 30 years and retire at the age of 65. If Patty and Paul pursue claims for losses due to the death of Peter, who can each pursue claims against, and for what?  Discuss fully.