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

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.

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 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.

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

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.
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 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.

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 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.

JD - Juris Doctor or a Doctor of Jurisprudence Practice Test

JD - Juris Doctor or a Doctor of Jurisprudence Practice Test

Free Juris Doctor Questions and Questions