Blog

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?

A recent law school graduate was offered a job as an aide by a state legislator. The legislator told the graduate that before she could begin working, she had to take the following loyalty oath: “I swear to uphold our state and federal Constitutions; to show respect for the state and federal flags; and to oppose the overthrow of the government by violent, illegal, or unconstitutional means.” The graduate told the legislator that the oath is unconstitutional and refused to take the oath.  Is the graduate correct?

A buyer bought a home from a real estate developer for $700,000. The buyer paid $100,000 of the purchase price herself. The buyer’s employer provided $100,000 of the purchase price by giving the buyer a loan and taking a mortgage. The developer loaned $500,000 to the buyer to finance the remainder of the purchase price, and in return took a mortgage on the property. One week later, a bank obtained a judgment against the buyer for a delinquent credit card balance. The bank properly recorded its judgment as a lien against the property. Another month after that, the buyer incurred some extraordinary medical expenses, and asked the employer for another $100,000, which the employer provided and added onto the principal balance the buyer owed on the loan. Finally, six months later, the buyer asked the developer to change the terms of the loan, so that the buyer would have more time to pay. The developer and the buyer agreed that the buyer could have an additional five years to pay the balance of the loan in exchange for an increase in the principal of the loan. Shortly thereafter, the buyer lost his job and defaulted on all of his payments. The employer brought an action to foreclose its mortgage. All mortgages and liens were promptly and properly recorded.  Regarding the distribution of the proceeds of an eventual sheriff’s sale of the property, which of the following statements is true?

A vineyard and a wine distributor enter into a valid written agreement whereby the vineyard is to supply the wine distributor with all of the distributor’s requirements of wine for a period of five years. The agreement contains a clause prohibiting assignment of the contract. Nonetheless, a few months after the agreement is entered into, the vineyard assigned its rights under the contract to one of its creditors. The vineyard continued to supply the distributor with wine, and the distributor paid the creditor. After one year, the wine distributor decides that it wishes to purchase its wines from a different vineyard and notifies the vineyard that it is terminating its contract.  If the creditor of the vineyard sues the distributor, is it likely to prevail?

A corporation manufactured a patented automatic potato peeler. Subsequently, that corporation’s biggest rival manufactured a similar potato peeler. Both are corporations of the same state. The state has a unique statute authorizing quadruple damages for unfair business competition relating to potatoes; however, there is considerable debate whether the law is constitutional under the state constitution. The corporation holding the patent sued its rival in federal court, alleging that the rival corporation violated its patent and the unfair business law. Shortly after the pretrial meeting of the parties required under the Federal Rules, the two companies reached a settlement of the patent infringement claim.  May the court dismiss the remaining claim?