\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Bar Exam MBE Question Thread

A state statute prohibits aliens from owning land and makes ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
Racy ruddy mood
  02/18/18
Incorrect. There is no impairment unless the law is retroact...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
C
Exciting public bath hairy legs
  02/18/18
Incorrect. Restraint here does not rise to the level of a co...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A. Intermediate scrutiny based on alienage?
dashing bawdyhouse roast beef
  02/18/18
A is the credited response. A person who challenges the cons...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
jfc libs
ebony self-absorbed location
  02/18/18
lmao
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
...
Big chest-beating azn
  02/18/18
repeal the 14th
Drab Razzmatazz Jewess
  02/18/18
A
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
cr
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
Mind-boggling violent karate church
  02/18/18
...
Exciting public bath hairy legs
  02/18/18
A brother and a sister purchased land under a deed that conv...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
dashing bawdyhouse roast beef
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A. Title theory mortgage would destroy tenancy.
seedy fragrant half-breed
  02/18/18
A is the credited response
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
Mind-boggling violent karate church
  02/18/18
The owner of a parcel of land received the following letter ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
D
dashing bawdyhouse roast beef
  02/18/18
cr
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
Four years ago the owner of a shopping center leased a store...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
cr
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A father lived with his son, who was addicted to crack cocai...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
cr
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liability ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
D. Manufacturer is jointly liable under products liability s...
dashing bawdyhouse roast beef
  02/18/18
Correct. Under Federal Rule 14(a)(1), a defendant may serve ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
180 I love the law
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
180000000
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
180
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
Reading that makes my head hurt.
bearded ratface cumskin
  02/18/18
No penalty for guessing.
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
lol JFC now the mbe is globalist propaganda?
french factory reset button police squad
  02/18/18
yes
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A wholesaler brought a federal diversity action against a la...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
D, grounds for mistrial
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Correct. Stock ownership, or having worked for or having a s...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B 10th amendment issue but could possibly be the 5th amendme...
shivering chapel
  02/18/18
After being fired, a woman sued her former employer in feder...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
should be D but irl it's A.
shivering chapel
  02/18/18
both incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
lol i've done shitloads of these cases. calling someone a li...
shivering chapel
  02/18/18
...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Correct. The standard for summary judgment is whether there ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
180
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
O shi
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
D
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
LMAO, I would fail the shit out of the bar now.
Opaque charismatic goal in life
  02/18/18
...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A man brought a federal diversity action against his insuran...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
thinking most simply, b
shivering chapel
  02/18/18
Correct. Because a motion for judgment as a matter of law ta...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
B
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B, issue preclusion, if truck driver was not negligent, then...
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
B (defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel)
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
A student at a private university sued the university in fed...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
b
shivering chapel
  02/18/18
Love ur posting but I find it hard to believe you’re a trial...
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Incorrect. An appellate court applies the clearly erroneous ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Correct. A determination as to whether evidence is irrelevan...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
Thirty years ago, Settlor entered into an irrevocable trust ...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A condominium development consists of two buildings, one wit...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
:(
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
A
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
The president of a pharmaceutical firm received a report fro...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
D
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A defendant is on trial for bribing a government procurement...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
C
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
dashing bawdyhouse roast beef
  02/18/18
A general contractor about to bid on a construction job with...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
C
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
A
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B. Good faith dealing is UCC flame, so that is out. Also, th...
dashing bawdyhouse roast beef
  02/18/18
An attempt was made to hijack a commercial airliner while it...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
D
vigorous know-it-all space
  02/18/18
D
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
A manufacturer of electric motors formerly produced motors t...
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
B
Plum parlor generalized bond
  02/18/18
Incorrect
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
C
Poppy Internal Respiration Resort
  02/18/18
Correct
Cocky den black woman
  02/18/18
...
Poppy Internal Respiration Resort
  02/18/18


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:46 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A state statute prohibits aliens from owning land and makes it illegal to sell land to aliens. A landowner who entered into a contract to sell property to an alien brought an action to challenge the statute. The alien, however, did not participate in the action.

What is the landowner's strongest constitutional argument against the validity of the statute?

A) The statute denies the equal protection of the laws to aliens.

B) The statute unconstitutionally impairs the landowner's contract for the sale of land to a buyer.

C) The statute is a direct restraint on the alienation of the landowner's real property.

D) The statute denies the landowner a property right without due process of law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430861)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:49 PM
Author: Racy ruddy mood

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430883)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:01 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect. There is no impairment unless the law is retroactive.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430956)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:55 PM
Author: Exciting public bath hairy legs

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430918)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:02 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect. Restraint here does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430964)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:08 PM
Author: dashing bawdyhouse roast beef

A. Intermediate scrutiny based on alienage?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431003)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:19 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A is the credited response. A person who challenges the constitutionality of a governmental action must have standing. Generally a claimant must have suffered a direct impairment of his constitutional rights. However, a plaintiff may assert a third party's rights where the plaintiff has suffered an injury and the injury adversely affects his relationship with third parties, resulting in an indirect violation of their rights. Here, the state statute causes injury to the seller by prohibiting him from contracting to sell land to an alien buyer. Such an injury would adversely affect the seller's relationship with aliens by prohibiting him from selling land to them, and would thus indirectly violate their right of equal protection. Consequently, the seller may assert the equal protection rights of aliens.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431047)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:21 PM
Author: ebony self-absorbed location

jfc libs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431054)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:28 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431090)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:37 PM
Author: Big chest-beating azn



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431134)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:16 PM
Author: Drab Razzmatazz Jewess

repeal the 14th

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431371)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:08 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431329)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:12 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431348)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 7:28 PM
Author: Mind-boggling violent karate church

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35433149)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:50 PM
Author: Exciting public bath hairy legs



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430886)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:52 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A brother and a sister purchased land under a deed that conveyed title to them as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute in the jurisdiction.

The purchase price was $50,000, of which the sister paid $10,000 and the brother paid $40,000. The sister later mortgaged her interest in the land. The brother then died testate, leaving his entire estate to a cousin. The sister later paid off her mortgage debt, and the mortgage was released.

At the present time, who owns the land?

(A) The answer depends on whether the jurisdiction follows the lien theory or the title theory of mortgages.

(B) Title is entirely in the sister as the surviving joint tenant.

(C) Title is in the sister and the cousin as equal tenants in common.

(D) Title is in the sister and the cousin as tenants in common, with the sister having a 20% interest and the cousin having an 80% interest.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430904)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:10 PM
Author: dashing bawdyhouse roast beef

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431010)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:20 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431051)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:24 PM
Author: seedy fragrant half-breed

A. Title theory mortgage would destroy tenancy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431070)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:29 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A is the credited response

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431093)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 7:29 PM
Author: Mind-boggling violent karate church

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35433159)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:53 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

The owner of a parcel of land received the following letter from a buyer: “I will pay you $2,200 an acre for [the parcel].” The owner’s letter of reply stated, “I accept your offer.” Unknown to the owner, the buyer had intended to offer only $2,000 per acre but had mistakenly typed “$2,200.” As both parties knew, comparable land in the vicinity had been selling at prices between $2,000 and $2,400 per acre.

Which of the following states the probable legal consequences of the correspondence between the parties?

(A) There is no contract, because the parties attached materially different meanings to the price term.

(B) There is no enforceable contract, because the buyer is entitled to rescission due to a mutual mistake as to a basic assumption.

(C) There is a contract formed at a price of $2,000 per acre, as the buyer intended.

(D) There is a contract formed at a price of $2,200 per acre, regardless of the buyer’s true intention.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430906)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:26 PM
Author: dashing bawdyhouse roast beef

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431082)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:38 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431137)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:53 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Four years ago the owner of a shopping center leased a store in the center for a 10-year term to a pharmacist for use as a drugstore. The pharmacist established and operated a drugstore at the leased premises. The lease included provisions that described the shopping center by metes and bounds; identified the entrances, parking areas, signs, and other common facilities of the shopping center; and set out a covenant that the owner would not lease any part of the shopping center to another drugstore.

Last year the owner purchased a parcel of land immediately adjacent to the shopping center. That parcel was improved with a building that, at the time of the owner’s purchase and for ten years earlier, was occupied in part by a food supermarket and in part by a discount drugstore, under leases which the prior owner assigned to the owner.

The owner reconstructed the common facilities of both shopping centers to integrate them and combine them so that, to the public, the two centers appeared as a larger single development.

The pharmacist learned that the lease of the discount drugstore was about to expire and that the owner planned to enter into a new lease of the same space with the discount drugstore.

The pharmacist protested the proposed new lease, but the owner declared his intention to go forward with it. The pharmacist brought an appropriate action to enjoin the new lease to the discount drugstore as a violation of the covenant in the pharmacist’s lease.

If the court finds for the owner, what will be the likely reason?

(A) The covenant in the pharmacist’s lease can be fairly construed as to apply only to the original shopping center premises.

(B) A covenant cannot restrict the use of land not owned by the covenantor when the covenant was created.

(C) A covenant that attempts to restrict competition is invalid as against public policy even if it runs with the land.

(D) The drugstore use on the adjacent parcel was in existence when the owner and the pharmacist first entered into the lease.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430908)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:47 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431182)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:49 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431194)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:54 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A father lived with his son, who was addicted to crack cocaine. Under its influence, the son often became vio- lent and physically abused his father. As a result, the father always lived in fear. One night, the father heard his son on the front stoop making loud obscene remarks. The father was certain that his son was under the influence of crack and was terrified that he would be physically beaten again. In his fear, he bolted the front door and took out a revolver. When the son discovered that the door was bolted, he kicked it down. As the son burst through the front door, his father shot him four times in the chest, killing him. In fact, the son was not under the influence of crack or any drug and did not intend to harm his father.

At trial, the father presented the above facts and asked the judge to instruct the jury on self-defense. How should the judge instruct the jury with respect to self-defense?

(A) Give the self-defense instruction, because it expresses the defense’s theory of the case.

(B) Give the self-defense instruction, because the evidence was sufficient to raise the defense.

(C) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father was not in imminent danger from his son.

(D) Deny the self-defense instruction, because the father used excessive force.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430914)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:34 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431115)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:39 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431140)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 12:59 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A consumer from State A filed a $100,000 products liability action in federal court against a manufacturer incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. The con- sumer claimed that a flaw in the manufacturer’s product had resulted in severe injuries to the consumer. In its answer, the manufacturer asserted a third-party complaint against the product designer, also incorporated and with its principal place of business in State B. Believing that the consumer had sued the wrong defendant, the manufacturer claimed both that the designer was solely responsible for the flaw that had led to the consumer’s injuries and that the manufacturer was not at fault.

The designer is aware that the manufacturer did not follow all of the designer’s specifications when making the product.

Which of the following arguments is most likely to achieve the designer’s goal of dismissal of the third-party complaint?

(A) The court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over

the third-party complaint, because both the manufacturer

and the designer are citizens of State B.

(B) The manufacturer failed to obtain the court’s leave to file

the third-party complaint.

(C) The manufacturer’s failure to follow the designer’s speci-

fications caused the flaw that resulted in the consumer’s

injuries.

(D) The manufacturer’s third-party complaint failed to state a

proper third-party claim.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430942)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:25 PM
Author: dashing bawdyhouse roast beef

D. Manufacturer is jointly liable under products liability so trying to shift blame fails as matter of law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431078)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:41 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Correct. Under Federal Rule 14(a)(1), a defendant may serve a third-party claim only on a nonparty “who is or may be liable to it for all or part of the claim against it.” This means that the basis of the claim must be derivative liability (e.g., indemnification or contribution). In order to satisfy the Rule, the manufacturer cannot simply allege that the consumer sued the wrong defendant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431150)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:50 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

180 I love the law

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431205)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:50 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

180000000

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431211)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:18 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431384)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:01 PM
Author: bearded ratface cumskin

Reading that makes my head hurt.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430962)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:04 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

No penalty for guessing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35430974)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:23 PM
Author: french factory reset button police squad

lol JFC now the mbe is globalist propaganda?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431064)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:42 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431154)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:42 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A wholesaler brought a federal diversity action against a large pharmaceutical company for breach of contract. During jury selection, one potential juror stated that five years earlier he had been an employee of the company and still owned sev- eral hundred shares of its stock. In response to questioning from the judge, the potential juror stated that he could fairly consider the evidence in the case.

The wholesaler’s attorney has asked the judge to strike the potential juror for cause.

Should the judge strike the potential juror for cause?

(A) No, because the potential juror said that he could fairly

consider the evidence in the case.

(B) No, because the wholesaler’s attorney could use a

peremptory challenge to strike the potential juror.

(C) Yes, because other potential jurors still remain available

for the jury panel.

(D) Yes, because the potential juror is presumed to be

biased because of his relationship to the company.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431153)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:52 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

D, grounds for mistrial

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431220)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:57 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Correct. Stock ownership, or having worked for or having a spouse who works or worked for one of the litigants, has been found to create a presumption of bias that merits striking a potential juror for cause.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431250)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:44 PM
Author: shivering chapel

B 10th amendment issue but could possibly be the 5th amendment taking if aliens were everywhere else and at the time of purchase. like a 5th am/detrimental reliance suit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431162)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:45 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

After being fired, a woman sued her former employer in federal court, alleging that her supervisor had discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. The woman’s complaint included a lengthy description of what the supervisor had said and done over the years, quoting his telephone calls and emails to her and her own emails to the supervisor’s manager asking for help.

The employer moved for summary judgment, alleging that the woman was a pathological liar who had filed the action and included fictitious documents in revenge for having been fired. Because the woman’s attorney was at a lengthy out-of-state trial when the summary-judgment motion was filed, he failed to respond to it. The court therefore granted the motion in a one-line order and entered final judgment. The woman has appealed.

Is the appellate court likely to uphold the trial court’s ruling?

(A) No, because the complaint’s allegations were detailed

and specific.

(B) No, because the employer moved for summary judgment

on the basis that the woman was not credible, creating a

factual dispute.

(C) Yes, because the woman’s failure to respond to the

summary-judgment motion means that there was no sworn affidavit to support her allegations and supporting documents.

(D) Yes, because the woman’s failure to respond to the summary-judgment motion was a default giving sufficient basis to grant the motion.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431169)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:48 PM
Author: shivering chapel

should be D but irl it's A.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431188)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:50 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

both incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431207)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:51 PM
Author: shivering chapel

lol i've done shitloads of these cases. calling someone a liar versus their facts without a settlement goes to trial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431218)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:56 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431245)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:54 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431230)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:55 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Correct. The standard for summary judgment is whether there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By challenging the woman’s credibility in its motion, the employer disputed all the facts and evidence she had laid out in her complaint. Therefore, the motion did not meet the standard for summary judgment, and the trial court should be reversed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431239)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:58 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

180

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431262)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:03 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

O shi

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431301)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:03 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431292)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:51 PM
Author: Opaque charismatic goal in life

LMAO, I would fail the shit out of the bar now.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431215)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:56 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431243)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:58 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A man brought a federal diversity action against his insurance company, alleging that the company had breached its duty under his insurance policy by refusing to pay for his medical expenses resulting from a mountain-biking accident.

At the jury trial, the man presented evidence that he had paid all premiums on the insurance policy and that the policy cov- ered personal-injury-related medical expenses arising from accidents. After he rested his case, the company presented evidence that a provision of the policy excluded payment for injury-related expenses resulting from an insured’s “unduly risky” behavior. The company also presented a witness who testified that the accident had occurred in an area where posted signs warned bikers not to enter. The man did not cross-examine the witness.

After resting its case, the company moved for judgment as a matter of law.

Should the court grant the motion?

(A) 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.

(B) No, because whether the man’s behavior was unduly

risky is a question of fact for the jury to resolve.

(C) Yes, because the company’s uncontradicted evidence of the man’s unduly risky behavior means that no reasonable jury could find that the policy covers his injuries.

(D) Yes, because the man waived his right to rebut the company’s evidence by not addressing the “unduly risky”

policy provision in his case-in-chief.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431266)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:59 PM
Author: shivering chapel

thinking most simply, b

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431277)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:00 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Correct. Because a motion for judgment as a matter of law takes the case away from the jury, it can be granted only if the court determines that the evidence is legally insufficient to allow the jury to decide the case. The jury here must determine the meaning of the warning signs and whether the signs alone establish that the man’s behavior was unduly risky. A reasonable jury might conclude that the warning signs were designed to keep bik- ers out of the area for reasons other than risk, given no additional evidence as to why the signs were posted or of other events in which harm occurred to those ignoring the signs.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431282)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:01 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431285)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:04 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431308)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:58 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A motorcyclist was involved in a collision with a truck. The motorcyclist sued the truck driver in state court for damage to the motorcycle. The jury returned a verdict for the truck driver, and the court entered judgment. The motorcyclist then sued the company that employed the driver and owned the truck in federal court for personal-injury damages, and the company moved to dismiss based on the state-court judgment.

If the court grants the company’s motion, what is the likely explanation?

(A) Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars the motorcyclist’s

action against the company.

(B) Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) establishes the

company’s lack of negligence.

(C) The motorcyclist violated the doctrine of election of

remedies.

(D) The state-court judgment is the law of the case.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431270)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:06 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

B, issue preclusion, if truck driver was not negligent, then it’s not possible for the employer to have been negligent in hiring him

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431322)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:06 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

B

(defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431325)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 1:59 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A student at a private university sued the university in fed- eral court for negligence after he fell from scaffolding in a university-owned theater building. At trial, after briefing from both parties, the court permitted the jury to hear testimony that there had been several previous accidents in the same building. The jury found for the student, and the university appealed. One of the university’s arguments on appeal is that the testimony about the previous accidents should have been excluded as irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

Which standard of review applies to this argument?

(A) Abuse of discretion.

(B) Clearly erroneous.

(C) De novo.

(D) Harmless error.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431273)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:01 PM
Author: shivering chapel

b

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431287)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:08 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

Love ur posting but I find it hard to believe you’re a trial lawyer

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431330)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:13 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect. An appellate court applies the clearly erroneous standard when reviewing findings of fact made by the trial court in a bench trial. Therefore, the standard does not apply to judicial rulings on the admissibility of evidence in a jury trial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431355)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:07 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431326)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:13 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Correct. A determination as to whether evidence is irrelevant or highly prejudicial and should be excluded is within the trial court’s discretion because it requires an understanding of the entire case and the factual context in which the evidence is being offered. Therefore, it is reviewed on appeal using an abuse-of-discretion standard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431361)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:09 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431335)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:05 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Thirty years ago, Settlor entered into an irrevocable trust agreement with Trustee. Pursuant to the terms of this trust, all trust income was payable to Settlor’s Husband, and upon Husband’s death, all trust assets were to be distributed to “Settlor’s children.” The trust also provided that Husband’s income interest would terminate if Husband remarried after Settlor’s death.

When the trust was created, Settlor and Husband had three children. Five years later, Settlor and Husband had a fourth child.

Ten years later, Settlor died.

This year, when the trust principal was worth $750,000, Husband wrote to his four children. Husband noted that he was about to retire and wanted cash to buy a retirement home. He asked the children to agree to terminate the trust and to direct Trustee to distribute $250,000 of trust principal to Husband and the remaining $500,000, in equal shares, to the four children. All four children agreed to Husband’s proposal. Husband and the four children then wrote Trustee the following letter:

We, the only beneficiaries of the trust, direct you to terminate the trust and distribute $250,000 of trust assets to Husband and the remainder, in equal shares, to Settlor’s four children.

Trustee’s response stated:

I cannot make the requested distribution to you for the following reasons:

(1) The trust is irrevocable and cannot be terminated.

(2) Even if the trust were terminable, termination would require the consent of all beneficiaries. This is not obtainable because, if a child of Settlor predeceases Husband, one or more of Settlor’s future grandchildren might be entitled to trust assets at Husband’s death.

(3) Even if the trust were terminable, only the three children living when the trust was created have a beneficial interest in the trust; therefore no distribution of trust principal can be made to Settlor’s youngest child.

(4) The actuarial value of Husband’s interest is only $150,000. Therefore, even if the trust were terminable, any distribution of trust principal to Husband in excess of that amount would be a breach of trust.

Is Trustee correct? Explain.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431318)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:08 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A condominium development consists of two buildings, one with balconies attached to each unit, and one with no balconies. For safety concerns, the condominium association amended the covenants and restrictions to prohibit future sales of balcony units to families with minor children. The amendment did not affect families with children already living in balcony units. The amendment was promptly recorded. The condominium association had a valid covenant providing that all sales had to be approved by the association.

Subsequent to the effective date of the amendment, the owner of a balcony unit contracted to sell it to a family with minor children. Before the closing, the association told the buyers that because they had minor children, they could not buy the unit. The association further told the buyers that numerous units were available in the building without balconies.

After receiving this notification, the buyers complained to a fair housing agency, claiming that the amendment was unenforceable because it violated federal fair housing laws.

Is there reasonable cause to believe that a violation has occurred?

(A) No, because families with children are allowed to purchase units in the building without balconies.

(B) No, because the amendment is based on legitimate safety issues.

(C) Yes, because families with children are already living in units with balconies.

(D) Yes, because families with children cannot be segregated within the condominium development.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431332)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:19 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431389)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:38 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431527)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:40 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

:(

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431540)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:46 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431572)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:55 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431639)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:09 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

The president of a pharmaceutical firm received a report from his testing bureau that a manufactured lot of the firm’s anti-cancer prescription medication was well below strength. Concerned about being able to fulfill contractual commitments, the president instructed his staff to deliver the defective lot. A cancer patient who had been maintained on the drug died shortly after beginning to take the defective pills. Medical evidence established that the patient would have lived longer had the drug been at full strength, but would have died before long in any event.

The president was convicted of murder. On appeal, he argues that his conviction should be reversed. Should the conviction be reversed?

(A) No, because the intentional delivery of adulterated or mislabeled drugs gives rise to strict criminal liability.

(B) No, because the jury could have found that the president’s conduct was sufficiently reckless to constitute murder.

(C) Yes, because distribution of the defective lot was only a regulatory offense.

(D) Yes, because the cancer, not the president’s conduct, was the proximate cause of death of the patient.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431333)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:12 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431352)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:55 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431642)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:09 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A defendant is on trial for bribing a government procurement officer by providing free vacation facilities. When the defendant was questioned by an FBI investigator about the vacation arrangements, the defendant stated that his invitation to the procurement officer to spend his vacation in the defendant’s mountain cabin was as a friend, unrelated to his government office. The defendant also told the FBI investigator that he would reveal

some “hot” information on a large-scale fraud in exchange for the investigator’s promise to “stop worrying about a little vacation.”

Is the investigator’s testimony about the defendant’s offer to give information admissible?

(A) Yes, because the defendant’s offer was a statement of a party-opponent.

(B) Yes, as a matter observed and reported by the investigator pursuant to a duty imposed by law.

(C) No, because the defendant made the offer in a negotiation for settlement of a criminal investigation.

(D) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431334)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:13 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431359)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 3:10 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431749)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 6:32 PM
Author: dashing bawdyhouse roast beef

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35432911)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:10 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A general contractor about to bid on a construction job with an owner invited a carpenter to bid on the carpentry work along with several others. The carpenter agreed to bid if the contractor would agree to give the carpenter the job provided that the carpenter’s bid was lowest and the contractor was awarded the main contract. The contractor so agreed. The carpenter, expending time and money in preparing his bid, submitted the lowest carpentry bid of $100,000. The contractor used the carpenter’s bid in calculating his own bid, which was successful.

Which of the following best supports the carpenter’s position that the contractor is obligated to award the carpentry subcontract to the carpenter?

(A) The carpenter incurred an economic detriment in preparing his bid.

(B) The carpenter gave consideration for the contractor’s conditional promise to award the carpentry subcontract to him.

(C) The contractor has an obligation to the owner to subcontract with the carpenter because the carpenter’s bid was used in calculating the contractor’s bid, and the carpenter is a third-party intended beneficiary of that obligation.

(D) The contractor has an implied duty to deal fairly and in good faith with all bidders whose bids the contractor used in calculating his main bid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431338)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:17 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431376)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 3:12 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431768)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:17 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431377)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 3:12 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431770)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 11:30 PM
Author: dashing bawdyhouse roast beef

B. Good faith dealing is UCC flame, so that is out. Also, there really isn't anything here beyond basic contract formation. You had offer, acceptance, consideration, so you have a valid contract.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35434489)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:10 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

An attempt was made to hijack a commercial airliner while it was in flight from San Francisco to New Orleans. Within minutes, however, the hijacker was seized and the plane proceeded to its destination. Upon the plane’s arrival, television stations broadcast pictures of the passengers as they disembarked. Among the passengers pictured on television was a businessman who was supposed to be in Chicago on company business. The disclosure that the businessman was in New Orleans and not in Chicago at the time resulted in the loss of his position with his company and great humiliation and embarrassment for him.

If the businessman asserts a claim against the television stations for broadcasting his picture as he disem- barked, is he likely to prevail?

(A) Yes, because the businessman’s location was revealed against his wishes.

(B) Yes, because publication of the television pictures caused the businessman pecuniary loss.

(C) No, because the humiliation and embarrassment did not result in physical harm to the businessman.

(D) No, because the scene shown on television was newsworthy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431340)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:15 PM
Author: vigorous know-it-all space

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431368)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:17 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431380)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:10 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

A manufacturer of electric motors formerly produced motors that utilized as a coolant a chemical substance that was later discovered to be highly toxic. During its manufacturing operations, the manufacturer negligently allowed quantities of this substance to leak into the soil. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered that the premises, now owned by an appliance repair shop, be decontaminated. This order, and the subse- quent cleanup efforts, received a high level of attention in the local media.

An employee of the appliance repair shop has sued the manufacturer in negligence for damages for emotional distress. The employee claims to have suffered the distress as a consequence of learning that she has been exposed for five years, while employed by the appliance repair shop at the premises affected by the EPA order, to the toxic contamination that has existed there. Her complaint does not allege that her emotional distress is severe, that the manufacturer’s conduct was extreme and outrageous, or that she has suffered any physical consequences.

In that action the manufacturer has filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

What is the manufacturer’s best argument in support of that motion?

(A) The repair shop employee’s emotional distress is not alleged to be severe.

(B) The complaint does not allege that the manufacturer’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.

(C) The complaint does not allege that the repair shop employee suffered any physical consequences.

(D) The repair shop employee’s proper remedy is in a claim against the repair shop, the occupier of the premises during the period of her alleged exposure.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431341)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 2:23 PM
Author: Plum parlor generalized bond

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431414)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 3:13 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Incorrect

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431781)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 3:41 PM
Author: Poppy Internal Respiration Resort

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35431943)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 6:11 PM
Author: Cocky den black woman

Correct

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35432805)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 18th, 2018 3:56 PM
Author: Poppy Internal Respiration Resort



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3896712&forum_id=2#35432045)