Category: Uncategorized

Which of the following explanations accurately explains positive dromotropic effect?

A landowner and his neighbor purchased adjoining undeveloped lots. After both built homes on their respective lots, the landowner suggested to the neighbor that a common driveway be built where the two lots joined. The neighbor agreed. The landowner and the neighbor split the cost of constructing the driveway and entered into a written agreement to equally share the costs of its upkeep and maintenance. The agreement was recorded in the county recorder’s office. Two years later, the neighbor built a new driveway located entirely on his lot. The common driveway, which the landowner continued to use but which the neighbor no longer used, began to deteriorate. The landowner asked the neighbor for money to maintain the common driveway, but the neighbor refused to contribute. Three years later, the neighbor conveyed his lot to a friend. The friend entered into possession and used only the driveway built by the neighbor. By this time, the common driveway had deteriorated badly and contained numerous potholes. The landowner asked the friend to pay half of what it would take to repair the common driveway. The friend refused. The landowner repaired the driveway and sued the friend for 50% of the cost of repairs. Will the landowner prevail?

Which term describe drugs used therapeutically that mimic the catecholamines epinephrine, norepinephrine, and dopamine?

Mountain Enterprises, Inc. (“Mountain”) developed a 250-lot subdivision on wild forest land that it owned.  As the final step before lot sales began, Mountain recorded a “Declaration of Restrictions” (“Declaration”) in the chain of title of all 250 lots.  The Declaration provided, in part:  “Because the subdivision is in a remote area, medical care for injuries may not be readily available. Accordingly, the owners of the said lots hereby covenant and agree that at all times each owner shall hold a current certification in first aid proficiency issued by the American Red Cross.”  The Declaration also established a homeowner’s association, which was given the power to enforce the restrictions in the Declaration.  Mountain later sold Lot No. 109 to Carla, who built a small vacation cabin on the property.  Five years later, Carla died intestate; all of her property passed to her nephew Harry by intestate succession.  Harry thereafter used the cabin happily until one day when his neighbor Lisa mentioned the first aid restriction.  Harry responded:  “I’m going to ignore it.”  The homeowner’s association then sued Harry for damages on the theory that the restriction was a real covenant.  What is the most likely reason that Harry will win the lawsuit?

Alma, Baker, Charlie, and Diana each owned a home located on Bluebird Lane; they were the only homes located on the lane.  They entered into the following agreement:  “We, the undersigned, owning fee simple absolute in our respective properties, hereby covenant and agree on behalf of ourselves and our successors, heirs, and assigns, that the homes on our properties will always be painted blue.”  The agreement contained legal descriptions of each parcel, complied with the Statute of Frauds, was signed by each owner and was recorded.  All four homes were then painted blue.  Alma later sold her home to Nancy, while Diana sold her home to Gus.  After Gus painted his house brown, Nancy sued him for damages on the theory that the agreement was a real covenant.  Which of the following is most likely?

Layne and Helena were neighbors. Helena decided to demolish her existing house and build a new two-story dwelling. Helena was required to replace her old sewage line with a new underground sewage line because of the increased size of the house. The topography of Helena’s lot made it very expensive and inconvenient to connect the new sewage line to the public system to the east of Helena’s lot. However, it was very economical and convenient to run the line under a portion of Layne’s parcel and connect with the public system to the west. Helena and Layne talked and orally agreed that Helena could install her sewage line under Layne’s property. Twenty-five years have passed. Layne recently sent Helena a letter directing her “to make other arrangements” and stop the encroachment across his parcel. In most jurisdictions, can Helena continue to use the sewer line across Layne’s parcel?

Mary owned a two-acre parcel of forest land where she planned to build a vacation cabin.  But her land was entirely landlocked, without any legal access to a public road.  The south side of Mary’s land adjoined a 2,000-acre tract of forest land owned by a timber company, which in turn adjoined a public road.  When Mary asked the company president whether she could cross through the company’s land to travel to and from her land, he replied:  “Why not?”  Over the next six months, Mary spent $67,000 to build her cabin.  Although Mary and her building contractor regularly crossed the company’s land throughout the construction process, no one from the company saw this.  One week after the cabin was finished, Mary discovered that the company had built a fence around its tract.  When she complained, the company president asserted that she had “no right to use our land.”  Mary then sued the company for a declaratory judgment that she held an irrevocable license to cross the company land.  Who will win the lawsuit?

Sally owned a large lot located on a busy city street.  She operated a steak restaurant in a building on the west half of the lot; the east half was undeveloped.  Sally decided to sell the east half but wanted to avoid competition with her restaurant.  Accordingly, when Sally sold the east half to Boyd, she inserted the following language in the deed with Boyd’s consent:  “The parties wish to ensure that the property will not be used for a purpose that competes with seller’s existing restaurant on adjacent land.  Accordingly, buyer covenants that a restaurant will never be operated on the property.”  Boyd promptly recorded his deed.  He then entered into a written lease whereby he leased his new property to the Red Ox Steak Company (“Red Ox”), a national steak restaurant chain, for a 75-year term.  Red Ox established a steak restaurant on the land.  Sally sued Red Ox for damages on the theory that the restriction was a real covenant.   Who will win the lawsuit?

A retiree purchased a rustic cabin on a small plot of land near the center of a landowner’s large parcel of land. The deed to the land, which the landowner delivered to the retiree for fair consideration, did not specifically grant an easement over the landowner’s property to reach the public highway bordering her land. There were two means of access to the cabin from the public roads: a driveway from the county road on the south, and a private road from the highway on the east. The landowner told the retiree that he could use the private road from the highway. Twice during his first two years at the cabin, the retiree took the driveway from the county road instead; at all other times he used the private road. At the end of his second year at the cabin, the retiree began reading tarot cards to supplement his retirement income. He had a steady stream of clients coming to his home at all hours of the day and night. Most of the clients came in on the driveway from the county road, which ran close to the landowner’s home. The landowner objected, and told the retiree that neither he nor his clients had any right to use that driveway and that they must use the private road from the highway. The retiree refused, and he and his clients continued to use the driveway from the county road for three years. Finally, the landowner began blocking off the driveway from the county road. The retiree brought suit to enjoin this practice. The prescriptive period in this jurisdiction is five years. Who will most likely prevail?

For many years, a landowner owned a parcel of land bordered on the west by a public road, and his neighbor owned a parcel of land located immediately to the east of that parcel. The neighbor had an easement to cross the west parcel to enter the public road bordering it. Because the neighbor’s east parcel is surrounded by swampland on the north, south, and east, the only route of ingress to and egress from that parcel over dry land passed through the west parcel. Subsequently, the neighbor sold the east parcel to the landowner, who proceeded to use both lots as a common tract. Last year, the landowner sold the east parcel to his friend. Does the friend have an easement over the landowner’s west parcel? Responses