Free Juris Doctor Questions and Questions

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.

The ordinance is it legal?

Accepted Answer

No, because there is not a reasonable fit between the law and the outcome desired by the city.

Answer

No, because prohibiting litter is not a compelling government interest.

Answer

Yes, because it is commercial speech and subject to a lesser scrutiny than other kinds of speech.

Answer

Yes, because prohibiting litter is a substantial government interest and the ordinance is necessary to effectuate this interest.

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.

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?

Accepted Answer

The piano teacher’s assignment is valid and the sister will be able to sue the woman if she does not pay.

Answer

The piano teacher’s assignment is valid as long as the woman gave permission for the piano teacher to do so.

Answer

The piano teacher’s assignment is invalid and the piano teacher breached the contract with the woman.

Answer

The piano teacher breached the contract with the woman, but the assignment will still be effective.

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.

Will the customer be successful in pursuing his claim?

Accepted Answer

No, because the restaurant did not breach any duty owed to the customer.

Answer

Yes, because the restaurant is vicariously liable for the torts of its patrons.

Answer

No, because the customer’s true claim is against the resident that caused the drink to spill.

Answer

Yes, because the restaurant breached its duty to inspect the premises and warn of the dangerous condition or make it safe.

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.
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?

Accepted Answer

The man was asking for $75,000 in damages.

Answer

The woman did not have minimum contacts with State A.

Answer

The car accident did not occur in State A.

Answer

The method of service was improper.

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.

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?

Accepted Answer

The lineup violated the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.

Answer

The lineup violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Answer

The lineup violated his Fifth Amendment right to counsel.

Answer

The lineup violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

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.

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because whether the kick was an accident and whether the soccer player consented to it are questions of fact for the jury.

Answer

Yes, because the judge can, as a matter of law, decide cases when the judge believes the evidence substantially favors one party.

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.

Answer

Yes, because the soccer player did not cross-examine the witness who testified regarding custom in the city.

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.

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?

Accepted Answer

The daughter, because she sought an injunction.

Answer

The son, because there was no horizontal privity between the man and the woman.

Answer

The son, because there was no horizontal privity between the son and the daughter.

Answer

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.