FREE Juris Doctor Questions and Questions
A man and a woman own neighboring pieces of land. The man wants to build an in-ground pool in his backyard. Fearing that if not properly maintained the pool could cause damage to her yard and attract unwanted plants and animals, the woman makes the man promise to have the pool cleaned and maintained by someone qualified once every two weeks while in use. This promise was reduced in writing and contained the following clause: “It is our intent that this agreement will bind our successors unless an agreement is reached between the owners at that time.” The man and the woman had this written agreement added into the deeds of both pieces of property.
One year later, the man granted his land to his son, and the woman granted her land to her daughter. There were no discussions about the pool maintenance promise. Two months later, the daughter noticed that the pool was in disrepair as no one had cleaned it since the son moved in, although he had been using it. The daughter filed for an injunction demanding that the son resume cleaning his pool.
Who will succeed?
"The difference between a servitude and a covenant is the remedy sought. If the plaintiff wants money damages, he will sue in equity under a theory of a breach of a real covenant. If the plaintiff wants something like an injunction that forces the other party to comply, he will sue in equity under a theory of an equitable servitude. In the event that the land is transferred, covenants and equitable servitudes may also be transferred. If the legal theory is a covenant, we require both vertical and horizontal privity, intent, notice, that the condition must touch and concern the land, and that it must all be present for the burden to run. We need all of these conditions, with the exception of horizontal privity, for the benefit of a covenant to operate. We just need intent, notice, and that the condition must touch and concern the land for an equitable servitude to run with the land. This is an equitable servitude situation since the daughter is asking for an order to compel the son to clean his pool. Since the son is a grantee of the property, we require intent, notice, as well as the touch and care factors, in order to hold the son to the commitment made between the man and the woman. The fact that there is a particular written phrase in the agreement that expressly states the intention for the promise to run gives us clear proof that there was intent. Additionally, because the commitment was included in the deed, we have notice. This is appropriate record notice. The need for good pool maintenance affects and is a worry for the land since it increases the pool's utility, usability, and value. As a result, the conditions are fully satisfied, and the equitable servitude will follow the land."
A soccer player brought a battery action against a player on the opposing soccer team. The soccer player presented evidence that the opposing player kicked the soccer player in the shin when the soccer player was trying to score a goal. The opposing player presented evidence that he was merely trying to get the ball from the soccer player and the kick to the shin was an accident. Further, the opposing player testified that the game was “played rough” in their city, and the soccer player consented to being kicked regardless. The opposing player also presented a witness who testified that several players are injured over the course of a typical soccer game in that city and that games have been played that way for several years in that particular area. The soccer player did not cross-examine the witness.
The opposing player made a motion for judgment as a matter of law after resting its case. Should the motion be granted by the court?
Should the court allow the motion for judgment as a matter of law in this case? Only when the court finds that the nonmoving party lacks sufficient evidence to adequately support its position is judgment as a matter of law appropriate. The jury in this instance could decide that the kick was accidental or that the victim impliedly agreed to be kicked. It might also conclude that the man did not agree and that the kick was deliberate. As a result, judgment as a matter of law is not appropriate because the nonmoving party is supported by enough evidence.
A woman and a piano teacher entered into a contract whereby the teacher would give the woman piano lessons once a week for three months, and the woman would pay the teacher an hourly rate. The contract contained the following provision: “The parties agree that neither will assign the contract.
The sister of the piano instructor needed money. The piano teacher and the sister came to a written arrangement whereby the piano teacher assigned the sister the right to collect the money from the woman.
Which of the following statements is accurate?
Parties may agree in their contract to forbid delegation or assignment. The contract's language must be carefully considered. When a contract just states that a party "cannot assign the contract," this is interpreted as only forbidding the delegation of duties. The contract would have to expressly forbid the assignment of rights in order to do so. A party may assign its rights if the contract expressly permits such a transfer; such an assignment is lawful. Therefore, the consent of the other party is not required. When a contract's rights have been delegated, the assignee may bring legal action against the original party if that party breaches its obligations.
A local man entered his favorite fast food outlet with the intention of buying lunch. The tenant accidentally knocked into another customer as he entered the establishment, spilling some of the customer's drink on the ground. No employees of the restaurant saw the crash. Then the resident placed his food order. Approximately a minute later, another customer came, slid on the slippery floor, and fell, breaking his wrist, requiring surgery. The customer sued the restaurant in tort, claiming that it had failed to take reasonable precautions to keep customers safe.
Will the customer be successful in pursuing his claim?
A person who enters a location that is open to the public or enters a location with the intent of bringing the owner of the location some sort of financial or business gain is said to be an invitee. Owners of premises are required to take reasonable precautions to keep visitors safe from hazards that they are aware of or ought to be aware of. Invitees have a responsibility to reasonably assess the premises for hazardous circumstances.
Given that he visited the property to provide the owner a financial gain, the consumer in the situation at hand is unmistakably an invited guest. As a result, the restaurant had a responsibility to reasonably investigate the premises and to warn of any dangers or make them safe. But in this instance, there is no evidence to suggest that the restaurant acted unreasonable. Only one minute had passed since the incident, therefore it would not have been unusual for the restaurant to have been unaware of it at that point. Furthermore, according to the facts, no personnel saw the crash. As no duty was broken, the restaurant is therefore not responsible.
A city passed a law forbidding the posting of any flyers with only business advertisements on utility poles adjacent to public footpaths. The regulation was created to stop litter on public sidewalks and roadways. Other types of flyers, however, were still permitted to be posted on utility poles along public walkways by the city. The ordinance required the removal of about 50 of the 500 fliers from the utility poles since they were entirely commercial promotions.
The ordinance is it legal?
Only communication that is legal and not deceptive qualifies as protected commercial speech. It is not, however, as well protected as other forms of expression. If the state can demonstrate the following, it may be regulated: (i) a significant public interest; (ii) the statute directly advances this interest; and (iii) the act is closely tailored to this goal (i.e., it is a ""reasonable fit""""). We refer to this as ""intermediate scrutiny.""
Since there is no evidence to the contrary, the speech in this instance seems to be both legal and truthful. There is a """"strong government interest"""" in preventing litter, and the law does advance that goal. It is not, though, specifically customized. Since 450 of the 500 flyers would still be up if only 50 of them were taken down, this does not really """"fit reasonably"""" with the stated ultimate purpose of reducing litter.
A State A resident man and a State B resident woman were in a car accident in State B. The man filed a lawsuit against the woman in federal court in State A alleging the woman was negligent. The man decided to serve the woman at her parents’ house, which is a few miles from the woman’s house but located just across the border in State A. The man knew the woman visited her parents occasionally, but she was not present when service was made.
The woman’s parents accepted service of process and notified her of the lawsuit. The woman timely filed an answer denying the allegations against her. A few weeks later, the woman filed a motion to dismiss the case. State A’s rules of civil procedure are identical to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
What is the most likely justification for the dismissal if the motion is correctly granted?
"Any moment along the legal procedure, a motion claiming a lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be brought up. The four types of federal subject matter jurisdiction are as follows:
i. The claim must be based on a federal statute or a state statute that poses a significant federal question.
ii. Complete diversity is required (neither plaintiff or defendant may be residents in the same state), and the sum in dispute must be greater than $75,000;
iii. In addition, a state claim may be added to a federal lawsuit if it is based on the same operative fact as the federal claims; and
iv. Legislative: A few acts name particular federal courts as the court with original jurisdiction.
In contrast, the initial answer or first responsive pleading must present an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction or insufficient service of process.
Police made an arrest after discovering that the suspect fit the robber's description provided by the owner of the jewelry business. The man was lined up beside other men. There was no lawyer there. The robbery victim was asked to be selected from a lineup by the owner of the jewelry business. The proprietor immediately recognized the man as the jewelry store thief. The individual was then accused of robbing someone.
The individual stood around 5'8"" tall, weighed 170 pounds, and had short brown hair. The man said that the people in the lineup did not sufficiently like him and did not fit the jewelry store owner's description.
What is the man's strongest defense against the identification being suppressed?
The claim that a pre-charge line-up is unlawful under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is one of the strongest justifications against it. The defendant has a strong case for the identification to be excluded under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause if a lineup is overly suggestive and increases the risk that the suspect will be mistakenly identified.