Free Juris Doctor Questions and Questions — Questions and Answers
Question 1: 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. <br> <br> The ordinance is it legal?
- No, because there is not a reasonable fit between the law and the outcome desired by the city. (Correct answer)
- No, because prohibiting litter is not a compelling government interest.
- Yes, because it is commercial speech and subject to a lesser scrutiny than other kinds of speech.
- Yes, because prohibiting litter is a substantial government interest and the ordinance is necessary to effectuate this interest.
Correct answer: No, because there is not a reasonable fit between the law and the outcome desired by the city.
The ordinance aims to reduce litter by prohibiting only commercial flyers on utility poles, yet it permits all other types of flyers, which also contribute to litter. This selective prohibition, removing only 50 out of 500 flyers, demonstrates that the law is not reasonably tailored to achieve its stated goal of preventing litter. For a restriction on commercial speech to be constitutional, there must be a reasonable fit between the government's interest and the means chosen, which is lacking here as the law is underinclusive and ineffective in addressing the overall litter problem.
Question 2: 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. <br> <br> 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. <br> <br> Which of the following statements is accurate?
- The piano teacher’s assignment is valid as long as the woman gave permission for the piano teacher to do so.
- The piano teacher’s assignment is valid and the sister will be able to sue the woman if she does not pay. (Correct answer)
- The piano teacher’s assignment is invalid and the piano teacher breached the contract with the woman.
- The piano teacher breached the contract with the woman, but the assignment will still be effective.
Correct answer: The piano teacher’s assignment is valid and the sister will be able to sue the woman if she does not pay.
The contract provision stating 'neither will assign the contract' is generally interpreted as prohibiting the delegation of duties, not the assignment of rights, unless the language explicitly states that rights are not assignable. The piano teacher assigned the right to collect payment, which is a contractual right, not a duty. Therefore, this assignment of rights is valid despite the general anti-assignment clause, and the sister, as the assignee, can legally enforce the right to collect payment from the woman.
Question 3: 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. <br> <br> Will the customer be successful in pursuing his claim?
- Yes, because the restaurant is vicariously liable for the torts of its patrons.
- No, because the customer’s true claim is against the resident that caused the drink to spill.
- No, because the restaurant did not breach any duty owed to the customer. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the restaurant breached its duty to inspect the premises and warn of the dangerous condition or make it safe.
Correct answer: No, because the restaurant did not breach any duty owed to the customer.
For the restaurant to be liable for negligence, it must have breached a duty to the customer, which typically requires actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. In this scenario, no employees witnessed the spill (no actual notice), and only approximately one minute passed between the spill and the fall. This brief period is generally insufficient for the restaurant to have discovered the spill through reasonable inspection (no constructive notice). Therefore, the restaurant did not breach its duty to maintain safe premises, and the customer's claim will likely fail.
Question 4: 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. <br> 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. <br> <br> What is the most likely justification for the dismissal if the motion is correctly granted?
- The woman did not have minimum contacts with State A.
- The car accident did not occur in State A.
- The method of service was improper.
- The man was asking for $75,000 in damages. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The man was asking for $75,000 in damages.
The woman filed an answer before moving to dismiss, which, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1), typically waives defenses like lack of personal jurisdiction or improper service of process. However, subject matter jurisdiction can never be waived and can be raised at any time. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must *exceed* $75,000. If the man was asking for exactly $75,000, the amount in controversy requirement is not met, meaning the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and the motion to dismiss would be correctly granted on this non-waivable ground.
Question 5: 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. <br> <br> 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. <br> <br> What is the man's strongest defense against the identification being suppressed?
- The lineup violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (Correct answer)
- The lineup violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- The lineup violated his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.
- The lineup violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
Correct answer: The lineup violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
The strongest defense for suppressing the identification is that the lineup violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. A lineup is unconstitutional if it is 'unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identification.' The man's claim that the other individuals in the lineup did not sufficiently resemble him or fit the jewelry store owner's description directly suggests that the lineup was unduly suggestive, making him stand out and increasing the likelihood of a misidentification, thus implicating the fairness and reliability required by due process.
Question 6: 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. <br> <br> 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?
- Yes, because the judge can, as a matter of law, decide cases when the judge believes the evidence substantially favors one party.
- No, because whether the kick was an accident and whether the soccer player consented to it are questions of fact for the jury. (Correct answer)
- No, because a motion for judgment as a matter of law must first be made at the close of the plaintiff’s case-in-chief rather than for the first time at the end of trial.
- Yes, because the soccer player did not cross-examine the witness who testified regarding custom in the city.
Correct answer: No, because whether the kick was an accident and whether the soccer player consented to it are questions of fact for the jury.
A motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) should only be granted if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable jury could find for that party. In this battery case, the defendant claims the kick was an accident, negating the intent element of battery, and also argues the plaintiff consented to rough play. Both the defendant's intent and the plaintiff's consent are disputed factual issues that require a jury to weigh the evidence and assess credibility. Since reasonable jurors could reach different conclusions on these critical facts, the judge cannot properly grant JMOL.
Question 7: 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. <br> <br> 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. <br> <br> Who will succeed?
- The daughter, because she sought an injunction. (Correct answer)
- The son, because there was no horizontal privity between the man and the woman.
- The son, because there was no horizontal privity between the son and the daughter.
- The daughter, because she is an original party to the contract and can enforce it against the other original party or any party in privity.
Correct answer: The daughter, because she sought an injunction.
The agreement between the man and the woman, intended to bind successors and recorded in both deeds, creates an equitable servitude. For an equitable servitude to be enforceable, the requirements are intent, notice, and that the covenant 'touches and concerns' the land. All these elements are met: the intent to bind successors is explicit, recording in the deeds provides notice, and pool maintenance directly relates to the use and enjoyment of the property. Equitable servitudes are typically enforced through injunctive relief, which the daughter is seeking. Therefore, the daughter will succeed in obtaining an injunction because the covenant is a valid equitable servitude enforceable against the son.
Free Juris Doctor Questions and Questions
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?