Professional Law & Jurisprudence

Questions in this quiz

1. 1. One afternoon, a pilot was flying a small airplane when it suddenly ran out of gas. As he was coming in for an emergency landing, the plane crossed into a neighboring state at a very low altitude. At this time, a 9-year-old boy was walking to school when he was struck and injured by an object, which may have fallen from the plane. In federal court, a negligence suit was brought against the pilot by the father of the boy for his son. Accompanied by his father, the boy had visited an attorney for preliminary discussions regarding the case. However, the father did not retain the attorney to represent his son in the lawsuit. Instead, the father hired another lawyer to handle the case. At trial, the pilot's attorney calls the consulting attorney to testify what the boy had said to him regarding his physical condition during the consultation that the attorney had had with the boy and his father. The attorney's testimony is
   1. admissible, because the attorney-client privilege was waived by the filing of the lawsuit.
   2. admissible, because there is no privilege of confidentiality when a person other than the client is present at the attorney-client consultation.
   3. inadmissible, because the attorney-client privilege prevents such a breach of confidential communications.
   4. inadmissible, because it was a statement of physical condition not made for the purpose of obtaining medical treatment.
2. 2. A state statute provides: "Whenever a person knows or should know that he (or she) is being arrested by a police officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon in resisting arrest. " Violation of the statute is made punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. One morning, there was a bank robbery in the state. That afternoon, a police officer arrested a suspect who he believed was involved in the crime. However, the police officer and the suspect have given different accounts concerning what happened next. According to the police officer, after the suspect was apprehended, he resisted arrest and hit the police officer in the mouth with his fist. The police officer, who was momentarily stunned, pulled out his nightstick and struck the suspect over the head with it. On the other hand, the suspect claimed that after he was arrested, he cursed at the policeman, whereupon the police officer began hitting the suspect with his nightstick. To avoid being hit again, the suspect hit the police officer with his fist, knocking him down. The suspect was charged with assault. The suspect should be found
   1. not guilty, if the arrest was unlawful without probable cause and the jury believes the suspect's account.
   2. not guilty, if the arrest was lawful, provided that the jury believes the suspect's account.
   3. guilty, if the arrest was lawful, regardless which account the jury believes.
   4. guilty, if the arrest was unlawful, regardless which account the jury believes.
3. 3. A taxpayer was notified by the government that her individual income tax was underpaid by $1,012. 69. The taxpayer retained an attorney to represent her in contesting the assessment. During the preparation of his client's case, the attorney suggested that it might be a good idea if the taxpayer hired an accountant to organize her records and prepare a financial statement for the year in question. Following the attorney's advice, the taxpayer consulted an accountant, an old family friend, who prepared a financial statement, which the attorney referred to at trial. During the trial, the attorney representing the government called the accountant to testif' about statements that the taxpayer made to him. The accountant's proposed testimony is
   1. inadmissible, because it would violate the attorney-client privilege.
   2. inadmissible, because it would violate the taxpayer's privilege against self-incrimination.
   3. inadmissible as violative of the work-product rule.
   4. admissible as an admission.
4. 4. A resident announced his candidacy for state representative. A law in the state requires new political entrants (regardless of party affiliation) to obtain three times the number of signatures as other candidates who have run for office previously. The resident, however, failed to obtain the necessary number of authenticating signatures to have his name placed on the ballot. The resident filed a complaint in federal district court alleging the unconstitutionality of the authenticating requirement. Which of the following, if established, is the state's strongest argument for sustaining the validity of the authenticating requirement?
   1. The resident's petition contained a large number of false signatures.
   2. A similar authenticating statute was held to be constitutional in another state the previous year.
   3. The authenticating requirement was necessary to further a compelling state interest.
   4. Two other candidates had successfully petitioned to have their names included on the ballot.
5. 5. A defendant was angry at his friend for marrying the defendant's former girlfriend. As the friend was painting his house one afternoon, the defendant fired a shot from his gun at him. Although the shot missed the friend, the bullet struck and killed the friend's daughter. The defendant is subsequently charged with the first-degree murder of the daughter. The relevant statutes in effect in this jurisdiction are as follows:Section 169: Murder in the first degree is the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Section 170: Malice is expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention to take away the life of another. Which of the following, if established, would provide the defendant with his best defense?
   1. He intended to kill the friend and not the daughter.
   2. He intended only to wound the friend.
   3. He was unaware of the elements of malice.
   4. The killing was the result of negligence in missing the friend.
6. 6. The accused made a confession to the police, but his defense attorney needs to find out if the confession is admissible. In which of the following situations would a confession be inadmissible?
   1. The defendant's statement was involuntary.
   2. The defendant's statement was voluntary.
   3. The defendant was not in custody when the statement was made.
   4. The statement was not made in response to a known police interrogation.
7. 7. A devastating earthquake struck a foreign country. The earthquake destroyed hundreds of homes and buildings. Thousands of residents were killed, injured, and left homeless by the earthquake. The leader of the foreign country sought the assistance of the United States in providing emergency aid. The President initially wanted to send troops from a west coast military base but learned that they were out on training maneuvers. As a result, the President issued an executive order directing members of a federal agency under the supervision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, to travel to the foreign country to engage in emergency rescue operations. This federal agency's main function is to patrol the borders to prevent illegal aliens from entering the United States. A member of this federal agency refused to comply with the executive order and assist in the relief effort. He claimed that participating in such operations in a foreign country is beyond the scope of his job responsibilities. He brought suit in federal court challenging the validity of the President's executive order. Assuming the member of the federal agency has adequate standing, the court should rule the executive order
   1. valid, because as commander-in-chief, the President has unfettered authority to require federal employees to participate in an international relief effort.
   2. valid, because employees of an executive agency can be required to perform such emergency functions.
   3. invalid, because the executive order is beyond the scope of presidential power absent congressional authorization.
   4. invalid, because the director of the INS, not the President, has the power to issue directives to federal agencies under its supervision.
8. 8. Which of the following is not a warrantless search exception?
   1. Cold pursuit
   2. Incident to a lawful arrest
   3. Plain view
   4. Stop and frisk
9. 9. A grocery store purchased a large mirror to hang on a wall in the store. Along with the mirror itself, the manufacturer provided brackets and bolts to be used for hanging the mirror. The grocery store paid a local carpenter to come in and hang the mirror. A few days after the carpenter installed the mirror, the mirror suddenly fell from the wall because of a defect in the brackets. It struck a shopper on the head, causing serious injuries to him. If the shopper asserts a claim against the carpenter based on strict liability in tort, the plaintiff will
   1. prevail, because the brackets were defective when installed.
   2. prevail, because it would be abnormally dangerous to maintain such a large mirror on the wall of a retail outlet.
   3. not prevail, because the carpenter was not engaged in the sale of the mirror.
   4. not prevail, because the carpenter had no relationship of privily with the plaintiff.
10. 10. A man who was separated but never divorced from his first wife, married another woman and lived with her as husband and wife. The man and his purported second wife bought a home together as tenants by the entirety. They lived there together for a few years, when the man was accused and convicted of killing his purported wife. He was given a life sentence. The decedent's estate brought a quiet title action to declare the property forfeited to the decedent on the basis that a murderer cannot benefit from his crime. The trial court awarded the property to the estate. The man appealed from his prison cell. Under the common law, will the appellate court affirm the trial court's decision and strip the man of all ownership rights in the home?
    1. Yes, because a murderer cannot reap the benefits of his ill-doing.
    2. Yes, because the murderer was also a bigamist who could not take good title to the property in the first place, thus putting full title in the decedent from the date of purchase.
    3. No, the court will as a policy matter recognize the murderer's pre-slaying right to one-half of the property as a tenant in common.
    4. No, there is no rule of law that gives the victim or her estate any additional rights in the property that she had before the homicide.
11. 11. Bill, a single man, owned pasture land in Deerwoods, Florida, which he leased to a tenant. He also owned a condominium in Miami, which he held for investment. In his will, he devised the pasture land to his son Tommy and the condominium to his daughter Julie. All other assets would pass equally to Tommy and Julie. Bill met Kathy and married her after she executed a valid prenuptial agreement relinquishing all rights she might otherwise enjoy by marrying Bill. On their Miami honeymoon they drove by the condominium and Kathy declared she'd love to live there. Bill was so happy with Kathy that after the honeymoon he signed and delivered to Kathy a deed conveying the condominium to himself and Kathy as an estate by the entirety and made plans to live in the condominium as soon as the tenant vacated. Bill died the next day. How are the foregoing assets distributed?
    1. Kathy gets the condominium regardless of the prenuptial agreement, Tommy takes the pasture land and Tommy and Julie split the rest of the estate.
    2. Due to Kathy's prenuptial agreement, Tommy receives the pasture land, Julie gets the condominium and Tommy and Julie split the rest of the estate.
    3. Kathy gets the condominium, but because Bill had originally indicated his intent to devise equally to his children, Tommy and Julie will split the remaining estate.
    4. Regardless of the prenuptial agreement, Kathy is a pretermitted spouse. Since Bill leaves surviving lineal descendants who are not Kathy's, Kathy receives 50% of the estate, Tommy gets the pasture land, and Tommy and Julie split the residue of the estate.
12. 12. For many years, persons engaged in real estate transactions in a state have utilized installment land contracts. The so-called installment land contract has been popular as a substitute for the mortgage or deed of trust. Under such a contract, the seller agrees to accept, and the buyer agrees to pay, the purchase price in installments over a stipulated period of time. The vendor retains legal title as security for the payment of the purchase price; and the vendee has equitable title under the doctrine of equitable conversion. The most important characteristic of the installment land contract, however, is the forfeiture clause, which provides that if the vendee is in default for 30 days, the vendor may, at his option, declare a forfeiture of the contract, in which case all payments made shall be forfeited as "liquidated" damages and the buyer shall become a tenant at will of the seller. Over the years, many sellers of property under such installment land contracts have declared forfeitures in situations where the prospective buyers were delinquent in their payments, even when the buyer was late with a single payment after nearly all the other payments had been made. In order to remedy this inequitable situation, the state legislature enacted a statute requiring any seller attempting to declare a forfeiture of an installment land contract to do so by instituting a formal foreclosure action in the courts. The new law also provided that prior to the commencement of such a foreclosure action, the seller under such an arrangement must give the buyer a 60-day grace period to make up any delinquent installment payment with interest. The new law expressly applied both to installment land contracts entered into subsequent to its enactment and to installment land contracts already in existence at the time of its enactment. Is this new state statute likely to be held constitutional?
    1. Yes, because it is a reasonable regulation of the procedure to be followed in such cases and does not substantially diminish the underlying obligations of the buyer.
    2. Yes, because the authority to enact laws regulating real estate sales transactions occurring within the boundaries of individual states is reserved exclusively to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
    3. No, because application of the law to installment land contracts entered into prior to its enactment is a violation of the obligation of contracts.
    4. No, because application of the law to installment land contracts entered into before or after its enactment is a deprivation of a proprietary interest without due process of the law.
13. 13. A man placed the following advertisement in his local newspaper:"Public Auction Sale . . . without reserve December 7, 10:00 a. m. 110 Walnut St. , City, StateEntire furnishings of home must go: antiques, piano, pool table, appliances, tables, stereo system, etc. "On the morning of December 7, a group of approximately 20 people showed up at the man's home. The first item the man put up for bid was an antique Baldwin grand piano. The man announced that the bidding would be "without reserve" and said, "What's the opening bid on this beautiful Baldwin grand piano?" A woman opened the bidding with $100. The man then commented, "This piano is worth at least $5,000. What other bids am I offered?" When the man did not receive any other bids, he informed the woman that he would not accept $100 and was removing the piano from the sale. If the woman asserts an action against the man for breach of contract, the woman will most likely
    1. prevail, because goods put up at an auction "without reserve" may not be withdrawn.
    2. prevail, because whether or not the auction is "without reserve," goods cannot be withdrawn after the auctioneer calls for bids.
    3. not prevail, because at an auction "without reserve," the auctioneer may withdraw goods until he announces completion of the sale.
    4. not prevail, because at an auction "without reserve," the auctioneer invites offers, which he may accept or reject.
14. 14. A defendant offers into evidence his computer business records to show his good faith monitoring of the accounts in his business. The defendant testifies that he kept the records on a regular business basis €“ but did not explain the records in any other way. The government objected to the records as being hearsay and not authenticated. What will the court decide regarding the admissibility of the computer business records?
    1. The court will allow the records because they were kept in the ordinary course of business.
    2. The court will require a greater foundation to establish the reliability of the records.
    3. The court will dismiss the hearsay objection because the defendant, who is the declarant, is available in court.
    4. The court will allow the records because they are the product of a reliable computer process of data collection.
15. 15. A regulation prevents persons with a drug arrest and conviction and/or those undergoing current treatment for drug abuse from working in certain state run facilities for the safety of the general public. One employee of the department of treasury brought an action claiming a denial of equal protection and due process by taking away his right to a job. It is claimed that the prohibition is necessary to protect the public from potential problems that could arise. Which test of constitutional validity would be likely applied to this regulation?
    1. Strict scrutiny, since drug users are a special class of persons often discriminated against by the public.
    2. Intermediate scrutiny, because, like gender, this can be a sensitive area where discrimination is common.
    3. The rational basis test, because discrimination is generally favored with drug users or even those getting treatment.
    4. The rational basis test, because the regulation need only be related to a legitimate state interest to be valid.
16. 16. A man was driving while drunk. He was speeding down a center city street, veering from lane to lane, when he lost control of his car while going over a slick puddle of water. Without realizing it, he drove his car onto the sidewalk and killed two persons. What common law crime most appropriately fits the man's situation?
    1. Felony murder in that he killed someone while committing the felony of driving under the influence.
    2. Voluntary manslaughter because it was an intentional killing done while acting recklessly or impulsively.
    3. Involuntary manslaughter in that it was a killing committed while engaging in reckless activity but without the intent to kill.
    4. First degree murder because the act of driving under the influence is legally presumed to involve premeditation and specific intent.
17. 17. The authorities arrested a man without a warrant and held him imprisoned for 14 days without a determination of probable cause. He finally saw a public defender who filed a motion to dismiss alleging an unconstitutional detention in violation of due process. The prosecution countered that the state's rules allowed for detention without a probable cause hearing for up to 30 days, and that the procedure was constitutional. Will the court most likely decide that this detention is unconstitutional?
    1. No, because the Supreme Court has ruled that detentions can properly last up to 30 days without a probable cause determination.
    2. No, because each case must be decided on its own facts and there may be many good reasons why the state has not yet provided a probable cause determination.
    3. Yes, because when the state arrests someone without a warrant it must provide a prompt probable cause determination.
    4. No, because it is constitutional to hold someone for up to 15 days without a probable cause determination.
18. 18. A man owned land along the south side of a highway. To the south of the man's land was a lot owned by a woman who lived on it in a house. Five years ago the man conveyed a right-of-way easement over his land to the woman because it provided a more direct route between her house and the highway. The easement was evidenced by a clearly marked path. The document granting the easement was promptly recorded. Three years ago, the woman conveyed her house to the man. The man never took actual possession of the house. Two years ago, the man conveyed the house to a purchaser by a warranty deed. Two months after the purchaser moved into the house, a neighbor informed him about the easement. He then began using the path that had been marked on the man's land. When the man noticed the purchaser using the path, he erected a barricade on his land that effectively prevented the purchaser from using the path. The purchaser has sued the man, claiming that he has an easement over the man's land. Who is likely to prevail?
    1. The man, because the easement was extinguished.
    2. The man, because the purchaser did not have actual notice of the easement at the time of acquisition.
    3. The purchaser, because he purchased the house by warranty deed.
    4. The purchaser, because the easement was of public record when he acquired the house.
19. 19. Which statement best explains the purpose of Hart's distinction between 'being obliged' and 'having an obligation'?
    1. It demonstrates the difference between the internal and the external aspect of a rule.
    2. It refutes the natural lawyer' view of the role of morality in law.
    3. It explains the nature of power-conferring rules.
    4. It illuminates the concept of a rule.
20. 20. Maine's famous aphorism that 'the movement of progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract' is often misunderstood. In what way?
    1. It is misinterpreted as a prediction.
    2. His concept of status is misrepresented.
    3. It is taken literally.
    4. His idea is considered inapplicable to Western legal systems.
21. 21. Which of the following factors contributed significantly to the revival of natural law in the 20th century?
    1. Depression of the 1930
    2. The rise of Fascism
    3. The international recognition of human rights after World War II
    4. The Bolshevik Revolution
22. 22. Which of the following criticisms of Llewellyn's distinction between the grand and formal styles of legal reasoning is the most compelling?
    1. There is no distinction between the two forms of legal reasoning.
    2. Judges are appointed to interpret the law, not to make it.
    3. It is misleading to pigeon-hole judges in this way.
    4. Judicial reasoning is always formal.
23. 23. Which proposition below is the most consistent with what Rawls claims the POP would opt for in respect of 'social primary goods'?
    1. The POP will choose wealth over a compassionate society.
    2. The POP will choose equality over power.
    3. The POP will be unselfish.
    4. The POP will choose to protect the disabled.
24. 24. The ________ School believes that promoting market efficiency should be the central goal of legal decision-making.
    1. Law and Economics
    2. Critical Legal Studies
    3. Historical
    4. Natural Law
25. 25. Which statement below is the least likely to follow logically from Austin's argument that a sanction consists of the smallest chance of incurring the smallest evil?
    1. All commands include some sanction.
    2. The concept of a command contains the likelihood that a sanction will follow failure to obey the command.
    3. Without a sanction the mere expression of a wish is not a command.
    4. A command confers power to change one's legal status.
26. 26. How does Weber solve the 'England problem'?
    1. By denying its existence.
    2. By explaining the difference between the common law and civil law.
    3. By distinguishing certain features of the English legal system that facilitated the development of capitalism.
    4. By recognizing the importance of legitimate domination.
27. 27. Cicero's conception of natural law is 'based on the idea that 'true law is right reason in agreement with Nature.' Reason is a key element because:
    1. It is a sin for humans not to apply reason.
    2. The principles of natural law are discoverable by reason.
    3. Natural law does not apply without good reason.
    4. The law of nature is the basis of all positive law.
28. 28. Catharine MacKinnon argues that since men dominate women, the question is ultimately one of power. Which proposition below is the most inconsistent with this argument?
    1. Women can achieve equality through political pressure.
    2. Equality is impossible because men define women as different.
    3. The idea of 'woman' needs to be redefined.
    4. The world is phallocentric and oppressive.
29. 29. Who was an exponent of “natural law with a variable content”?
    1. John Rawls
    2. Stammler
    3. Jerome Hall
    4. John Finns
30. 30. The ________ School of jurisprudence asserts that the law is a means of achieving and advancing certain sociological goals.
    1. Historical
    2. Analytical
    3. Command
    4. Sociological

… and 20 more questions.