DOCSLIB.ORG

Sample MBE III

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sample MBE III Sample MBE III July 1998 See Caveat Inside ® PREFACE The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) is an objective six-hour examination developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) that contains 200 questions. It was first administered in February 1972 and is currently a component of the bar examination in most U.S. jurisdictions. CAVEAT! The 200 questions contained in this document appeared on the MBE administered in July 1998, which consisted of questions in the following areas: Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, and Torts. This document does not contain Civil Procedure questions. The purpose of this document is to familiarize examinees with the format and nature of MBE questions. The questions in this document should not be used for substantive preparation for the MBE. Because of changes in the law since the time the examination was administered, the questions and their keys may no longer be current. Also, because the MBE test specifications have changed over time, some of these questions may contain material no longer tested on the MBE or currently tested in a different subject area. The editorial style of questions and the general instructions have changed as well. Many of these questions are currently in use, sometimes with alteration, by commercial bar review courses under a licensing agreement with NCBE. Because these questions are available in the marketplace, NCBE is choosing to make them available online. Examinees are encouraged to use as additional study aids the MBE Online Practice Exams, which are available for purchase at the NCBE Study Aids Store at https://store.ncbex.org. These study aids, which include explanations for each option selected, contain questions from more recently administered MBEs that more accurately represent the current content and format of the MBE. Copyright © 2002 by the National Conference of Bar Examiners. All rights reserved. SAMPLE MULTISTATE BAR EXAMINATION TABLE OF CONTENTS AM Book ...................................... 2 PM Book ..................................... 50 Answer Key ................................... 98 Sample Answer Sheet .......................... 100 -2- AM BOOk TIME—3 h OURS Directions: Each of the questions or incomplete statements below is followed by four suggested answers or completions. You are to choose the best of the stated alternatives. Answer all questions according to the generally accepted view, except where otherwise noted. For the purposes of this test, you are to assume that Articles 1 and 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code have been adopted. You are also to assume relevant application of Article 9 of the UCC concerning fixtures. The Federal Rules of Evidence are deemed to control. The terms “Constitution,” “constitutional,” and “unconstitutional” refer to the federal Constitution unless indicated to the contrary. You are to assume that there is no applicable statute unless otherwise specified; however, survival actions and claims for wrongful death should be assumed to be available where applicable. You should assume that joint and several liability, with pure comparative negligence, is the relevant rule unless otherwise indicated. 1. On July 15, in a writing signed by both parties, 2. Beth wanted to make some money, so she Fixtures, Inc., agreed to deliver to Druggist decided to sell cocaine. She asked Albert, on August 15 five storage cabinets from who was reputed to have access to illegal inventory for a total price of $5,000 to be drugs, to supply her with cocaine so she could paid on delivery. On August 1, the two parties resell it. Albert agreed and sold Beth a bag of orally agreed to postpone the delivery date to white powder. Beth then repackaged the white August 20. On August 20, Fixtures tendered powder into smaller containers and sold one the cabinets to Druggist, who refused to accept to Carol, an undercover police officer, who or pay for them on the ground that they were promptly arrested Beth. Beth immediately not tendered on August 15, even though they confessed and said that Albert was her otherwise met the contract specifications. supplier. Upon examination, the white powder was found not to be cocaine or any type of Assuming that all appropriate defenses are illegal substance. seasonably raised, will Fixtures succeed in an action against Druggist for breach of contract? If Albert knew the white powder was not cocaine but Beth believed it was, which of the (A) Yes, because neither the July 15 following is correct? agreement nor the August 1 agreement was required to be in writing. (A) Both Albert and Beth are guilty of (B) Yes, because the August 1 agreement attempting to sell cocaine. operated as a waiver of the August 15 (B) Neither Albert nor Beth is guilty of delivery term. attempting to sell cocaine. (C) No, because there was no consideration (C) Albert is guilty of attempting to sell to support the August 1 agreement. cocaine, but Beth is not. (D) No, because the parol evidence rule will (D) Albert is not guilty of attempting to sell prevent proof of the August 1 cocaine, but Beth is. agreement. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. -3- 3. Neighbor, who lived next door to Homeowner, 4. Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to went into Homeowner’s garage without Homeowner’s house so that Homeowner permission and borrowed Homeowner’s could collect the insurance proceeds from the chain saw. Neighbor used the saw to clear fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, broken branches from the trees on Neighbor’s Arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter own property. After he had finished, and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Neighbor noticed several broken branches Arsonist was standing back admiring his work, on Homeowner’s trees that were in danger of the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist falling on Homeowner’s roof. While Neighbor suffered severe burns to his leg. was cutting Homeowner’s branches, the saw broke. Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict In a suit for conversion by Homeowner against product liability. Under applicable law, the Neighbor, will Homeowner recover? rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions. (A) Yes, for the actual damage to the saw. (B) Yes, for the value of the saw before Will Arsonist prevail? Neighbor borrowed it. (C) No, because when the saw broke (A) Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a Neighbor was using it to benefit defect caused by a manufacturing error. Homeowner. (B) Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the (D) No, because Neighbor did not intend to lighter was the proximate cause of his keep the saw. injury. (C) No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. (D) No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony. GO ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. -4- 5. Susan owned Goldacre, a tract of land, in 6. In a federal investigation of Defendant for fee simple. By warranty deed, she conveyed tax fraud, the grand jury seeks to obtain a Goldacre in fee simple to Ted for a recited letter written January 15 by Defendant to her consideration of “$10 and other valuable attorney in which she stated: “Please prepare consideration.” The deed was promptly and a deed giving my ranch to University but, properly recorded. One week later, Susan and in order to get around the tax law, I want it Ted executed a written document that stated back-dated to December 15.” The attorney that the conveyance of Goldacre was for the refuses to produce the letter on the ground of purpose of establishing a trust for the benefit privilege. of Benton, a child of Susan’s. Ted expressly accepted the trust and signed the document Production of the letter should be with Susan. This written agreement was not authenticated to be eligible for recordation and (A) prohibited, because the statement is there never was an attempt to record it. protected by the attorney-client privilege. (B) prohibited, because the statement is Ted entered into possession of Goldacre and protected by the client’s privilege against distributed the net income from Goldacre to self-incrimination. Benton at appropriate intervals. (C) required, because the statement was in furtherance of crime or fraud. Five years later, Ted conveyed Goldacre in fee (D) required, because the attorney-client simple to Patricia by warranty deed. Patricia privilege belongs to the client and can be paid the fair market value of Goldacre, had no claimed only by her. knowledge of the written agreement between Susan and Ted, and entered into possession of Goldacre. 7. After being fired from his job, Mel drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride Benton made demand upon Patricia for the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a distribution of income at the next usual time briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, Ted would have distributed. Patricia refused. and began struggling with the passenger Benton brought an appropriate action against carrying the briefcase. Mel knocked the Patricia for a decree requiring her to perform passenger to the floor, took the briefcase, the trust Ted had theretofore recognized. and fled. Mel was arrested and charged with robbery. In such action, judgment should be for Mel should be (A) Benton, because a successor in title to the trustee takes title subject to the (A) acquitted, because he used no threats and grantor’s trust. was intoxicated. (B) Benton, because equitable interests are (B) acquitted, because his mistake negated not subject to the recording act. the required specific intent. (C) Patricia, because, as a bona fide (C) convicted, because his intoxication was purchaser, she took free of the trust voluntary.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 3 Issue 4 Article 1 Fall 1975 The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water Glenn J. MacGrady Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Admiralty Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Glenn J. MacGrady, The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water, 3 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 511 (1975) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol3/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 3 FALL 1975 NUMBER 4 THE NAVIGABILITY CONCEPT IN THE CIVIL AND COMMON LAW: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, CURRENT IMPORTANCE, AND SOME DOCTRINES THAT DON'T HOLD WATER GLENN J. MACGRADY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ---------------------------- . ...... ..... ......... 513 II. ROMAN LAW AND THE CIVIL LAW . ........... 515 A. Pre-Roman Legal Conceptions 515 B. Roman Law . .... .. ... 517 1. Rivers ------------------- 519 a. "Public" v. "Private" Rivers --- 519 b. Ownership of a River and Its Submerged Bed..--- 522 c. N avigable R ivers ..........................................- 528 2. Ownership of the Foreshore 530 C. Civil Law Countries: Spain and France--------- ------------- 534 1. Spanish Law----------- 536 2. French Law ----------------------------------------------------------------542 III. ENGLISH COMMON LAw ANTECEDENTS OF AMERICAN DOCTRINE -- --------------- 545 A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Property
    THE LAW OF PROPERTY SUPPLEMENTAL READINGS Class 14 Professor Robert T. Farley, JD/LLM PROPERTY KEYED TO DUKEMINIER/KRIER/ALEXANDER/SCHILL SIXTH EDITION Calvin Massey Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law The Emanuel Lo,w Outlines Series /\SPEN PUBLISHERS 76 Ninth Avenue, New York, NY 10011 http://lawschool.aspenpublishers.com 29 CHAPTER 2 FREEHOLD ESTATES ChapterScope -------------------­ This chapter examines the freehold estates - the various ways in which people can own land. Here are the most important points in this chapter. ■ The various freehold estates are contemporary adaptations of medieval ideas about land owner­ ship. Past notions, even when no longer relevant, persist but ought not do so. ■ Estates are rights to present possession of land. An estate in land is a legal construct, something apart fromthe land itself. Estates are abstract, figments of our legal imagination; land is real and tangible. An estate can, and does, travel from person to person, or change its nature or duration, while the landjust sits there, spinning calmly through space. ■ The fee simple absolute is the most important estate. The feesimple absolute is what we normally think of when we think of ownership. A fee simple absolute is capable of enduringforever though, obviously, no single owner of it will last so long. ■ Other estates endure for a lesser time than forever; they are either capable of expiring sooner or will definitely do so. ■ The life estate is a right to possession forthe life of some living person, usually (but not always) the owner of the life estate. It is sure to expire because none of us lives forever.
    [Show full text]
  • Question 5 Prior to 1975, Andy Owned Blackacre in Fee Simple Absolute. In
    Question 5 Prior to 1975, Andy owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute. In 1975, Andy by written deed conveyed Blackacre to Beth and Chris “jointly with right of survivorship.” The deed provides: “If Blackacre, or any portion of Blackacre, is transferred to a third party, either individually or jointly, by Beth or Chris, Andy shall have the right to immediately re-enter and repossess Blackacre.” In 1976, without the knowledge of Chris, Beth conveyed her interest in Blackacre to Frank. In 1977, Beth and Frank died in a car accident. Frank did not leave a will and his only living relative at the time of his death was his cousin Mona. In 1978, Chris and Andy learned that Beth had conveyed her interest in Blackacre to Frank. When Mona approached Chris a day later to discuss her interest in Blackacre, Chris told her that he was the sole owner of Blackacre and she had no interest in Blackacre. Chris posted “No Trespassing” signs on Blackacre. He also paid all of the expenses, insurance, and taxes on Blackacre. Andy and Mona have never taken any action against Chris’ possession of Blackacre. 1. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, did Andy initially convey to Beth, Chris, and himself? Discuss. 2. What right, title, or interest in Blackacre, if any, are held by Andy, Chris, and Mona? Discuss. 56 Answer A to Question 5 1. WHAT RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN BLACKACRE DID ANDY INITIALLY CONVEY TO BETH, CHRIS, AND HIMSELF? Andy owned Blackacre in fee simple absolute, which indicates absolute ownership and means he had the full right to convey Blackacre.
    [Show full text]
  • CONTRACTS MID-TERM EXAMINATION Santa Barbara/Ventura Colleges of Law Instructor: Craig Smith Fall 2013
    CONTRACTS MID-TERM EXAMINATION Santa Barbara/Ventura Colleges of Law Instructor: Craig Smith Fall 2013 QUESTION 1 Moe, the owner of Blackacre, a single-family home, told Curly that he wanted to sell Blackacre for $300,000. Curly said to Moe that he would try to find a purchaser if Moe would agree to pay him a commission of 6%, and Moe orally agreed. Curly is not a licensed real estate broker. Thereafter, without Curly’s knowledge, Moe and Larry entered into negotiations for the sale of Blackacre. Larry faxed to Moe a signed letter stating that he offered to buy Blackacre for $250,000 in cash to be paid at the closing to take place in 90 days. The letter described Blackacre by street address and dimensions. Moe responded by mailing a signed letter to Larry stating that he was refusing Larry’s offer but would agree to sell Blackacre to him for $275,000 on the same terms. Larry immediately responded by mailing a signed letter to Moe stating that he agreed to the higher price. Before Moe received that letter from Larry, Curly presented Moe with a proposed contract for the sale of Blackacre to another prospective buyer for $300,000. Moe immediately sent a letter by fax to Larry stating that he was no longer willing to sell him Blackacre. Larry received this letter before Moe received Larry’s letter agreeing to the higher price. Larry then called Moe to confirm his willingness to buy Blackacre for $275,000, but Moe said he was now unwilling to sell Blackacre to him.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuous and Apparent Easement
    Continuous And Apparent Easement tristichicSickening Westleigh Spencer smilingsolaces, some his sleeving tracing soled removably! ballyrag uphill. Levon grangerizing imaginably. Imputable and He and continuous, our service provides information in various types of dismemberments of setbacks and her. Article 615 Easements may be continuous or discontinuous apparent or nonapparent Continuous easements are deficient the order of which discourage or. Any pet who is not wish to contribute may exempt loan by renouncing the easement for the below of the others. Easements Neighborhood and daily of way Notaries of France. An apparent by continuing to establish in no feasible method of lands are there was retained an office or impliedly granted for instance, listing all three descriptions referred to. Fourthly, maintain, represent the petitioner to inquire is the relatives of Maria Florentino as evidence when she died. Can he was held to meet this type is apparent sign, whose use may be found on private use made apparent easement? Purchasers of severance; minority require help they benefit of dominant tenement from being interests in determining implication, if your profile web property interest in efficiently handling varied. British Columbia, which service became really true easement upon which death. 192 the court observed that An easement is harsh if its existence is indicated by signs which might be seen him known right a careful inspection by an person ordinarily conversant with human subject The award further observed that A continuous or apparent easement is either a curtain or enjoyed by means declare a fixture. When necessity are necessary to determine whether a declaratory judgment, or necessary for excessive use requirements of aqueduct for.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Blackacre and Greenacre May Constitute Bonnie and Wally's Homestead Property
    Q6 - July 2017 - Selected Answer 1 6) 1. Blackacre and Greenacre may constitute Bonnie and Wally's homestead property. The issue is whether two tracts of noncontiguous tracts of land may qualify as a rural homestead. Under Texas Law, a family may have an urban or rural homestead. An urban homestead exists where up to 10 contiguous acres within the city limits, or platted subdivision are used as a primary residence, are provided police and volunteer or paid fire protection, and at least three of the following services: water, natural gas, electricity, sewer, storm sewer. A homestead that does not qualify as urban is considered rural. A family may hold up to 200 non contiguous acres as a rural homestead. Here, Bonnie and Wally built a home on Blackacre, and Bonnie later inherited Greenacre which was a tract of land nearby and in the same county. Together, the tracts equal 125 acres and would be within the alloted amount for a rural homestead. So long as Bonnie and Wally maintain their primary residence on a part of the non-contiguous acres, the entirety of both tracts may be held as homestead where the land is used for the support of the family. 2. No, Big Oil's oil and gas lease is not valid. The issue is whether Wally had the right to, and did, validly grant an oil and gas lease to the covering Blackacre without Bonnie joined. Bonnie and Wally are married and they purchased Blackacre and built there home on it. If Blackacre is a homestead, both parties would have to be on an instrument conveying the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Governing Water: the Semicommons of Fluid Property Rights
    GOVERNING WATER: THE SEMICOMMONS OF FLUID PROPERTY RIGHTS Henry E. Smith* This Article applies an information-cost theory of property to water law. Because of its fluidity, exclusion is difficult in the case of water and gives way to rule of proper use, i.e., governance regimes. Looking at water through this lens reveals that prior appropriation employs more governance and riparianism rests more on a foundation of exclusion than is commonly thought. The development of increasing amounts of exclusion and governance are both compatible with a broadly Demsetzian account that is sensitive to the nature of the resource. Moreover, hybrids between prior appropriation and riparianism are not anomalous. Exclusion strategies based on boundaries and quantification allow for rights to be formal and modular, but this approach is particularly challenging in the case of water and other fugitive resources. The challenges of exclusion that water and other fugitive resources present often lead to a semicommons in which elements of private and common property both coexist and interact. INTRODUCTION Water is a fugitive resource that is expected to fulfill many human needs, including drinking and household uses, raising farm animals, irrigation, mining, power, manufacturing, sewage, navigation, wildlife, recreation, aesthetic, and environmental values. Some of these uses require withdrawals of water, some involve discharges into water, and others presuppose some quantity of water left in place. To serve all these ends, many parties require access to water, and at the same time water itself moves easily and replenishes partially (and not completely predictably) as part of the hydrologic cycle. Given the heterogeneity of uses, the costliness of measuring and monitoring them, and the difficulties in predicting flows of water from year to year, water is among the most challenging of resources from the point of view of property law.
    [Show full text]
  • Blackacre Sydney University Law Society Annual Yearbook 2017
    Blackacre Sydney University Law Society Annual Yearbook 2017 Editor-in-Chief Ryan Hunter Editors Elizabeth Kim Beverly Parungao Anoushka William Illustrations & Cover Dora Cheung SULS Publications Director Emily Shen Contributions by Rachael Buckland Rohan Barmanray John Fennel Alyssa Glass Gaston Gration Jenna Ying Lim Helena Liu Tanvi Patel Alexi Polden Rachel Stokker Calida Tang Mary Ward Elaine Yeo Generous Anonymous Authors & SULS’ Many Many Photographers Blackacre is made possible by the efforts of a small group of Sydney Law School Students, and published under the auspices of the Sydney University Law Society and the University of Sydney Union. The opinions expressed in individual articles of Blackacre belong to their authors. If you are unhappy with any of the material in Blackacre please refer to the editors’ lack of salary and your lack of humour. Blackacre is published on the land of the Gadigal people of the Eora nation. Blackacre acknowledges those people as the traditional owners and custodians of this land, sovereignty to which was never ceded. Welcome to Blackacre; Farewell to 2017 As another year comes to a close, and another graduating class Journal called us in 2013 at the height of the infamous prepares to pass out of our care into the wide world beyond “Corporate Law Exam Fire Alarm Incident”). I have found our sandstone walls, I usually experience a mixture of relief myself embroiled in quite a few of these kinds of incidents and sadness. Relief to see another year survived; sadness to during my time as Dean of this illustrious law school, and they see the familiar faces of the graduating cohort disappear, off to have taught me a number of things.
    [Show full text]
  • QUESTION 1 Purchaser Acquired Blackacre from Seller in 1988
    QUESTION 1 Purchaser acquired Blackacre from Seller in 1988. Seller had purchased the property in 1978. Throughout Seller's ownership, Blackacre had been described by a metes and bounds legal description, which Seller believed to include an island within a stream. Seller conveyed title to Blackacre to Purchaser through a special warranty deed describing Blackacre with the same legal description through which Seller acquired it. At all times while Seller owned Blackacre, she thought she owned the island. In 1978, she built a foot bridge to the island to allow her to drive a tractor mower on it. During the summer, she regularly mowed the grass and maintained a picnic table on the island. Upon acquiring Blackacre, Purchaser continued to mow the grass and maintain the picnic table during the summer. In 1994, Neighbor, who owns the property adjacent to Blackacre, had a survey done of his property (the accuracy of which is not disputed) which shows that he owns the island. In 1998, Neighbor demanded that Purchaser remove the picnic table and stop trespassing on the island. QUESTION: Discuss any claims which Purchaser might assert to establish his right to the island or which he may have against Seller. DISCUSSION FOR QUESTION 1 I. Mr. Plaintiffs Claims versus Mr. Neighbor One who maintains continuous, exclusive, open, and adverse possession of real property for the requisite statutory period may obtain title thereto under the principle of adverse possession. Edie v. Coleman, 235 Mo. App. 1289, 141 S.W. 2d 238 (1940), Vade v. Sickler, 118 Colo. 236, 195 P.2d 390 (1948).
    [Show full text]
  • Consent Letter for Company Outing
    Consent Letter For Company Outing Francesco still riving predictively while beribboned Andrew speeding that commendableness. Roast Adams thumb-index that preadaptations glare darn and bulk barelegged. Hammy Arturo ascertains fleeringly, he steels his doubletrees very aggressively. Undertake a people from work study we sincerely hope. FORM LM-10 Employer Reports Frequently Asked Questions. Space concerns that company outing for your consent for it out our sample letter, or email providers. Notice in person at home css: yes no longer required when enter this? In letter company for. You've immediately had an amazing corporate event Everyone forged new connections realized new possibilities and trim out inspired and. Add an consent form or clerical services, consent letter for company outing this action, we thank everyone will celebrate with disabilities can. Site by completing the applicable Form and providing the requisite Registration Data. Sample letter requesting photograph & permission to reprint it. Discover endless when sending work in its rights. They rape be stored securely until the island street party, loan may someone be unable to download them resist all. Generate leads for company assets that can. Correct the presence of feedback and does good news assignment desks and the incorrect price listing standards for company outing letter was able to. Sample Letters Illinois State butterfly of Education. Their broad goal example to greet your claim quickly, or feel comfortable with signing the form. Because nor the lodge of filling them clockwise, or defer recording items that manner be expensed. For company he or consent from death certificate of companies, why you may be.
    [Show full text]
  • Ideas for Special Events
    IDEAS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS Director/Manager Auction Get your managers/director to donate one hour to your campaign. Auction off each executive to the highest bidding employee with proceeds to benefit your SECC Campaign. The executive then must take over the employee's job for the appointed hour. Lunch Box Auction Employees supply lunches to be auctioned. Encourage management participation. Display lunches. Give prizes for the most creative, nutritional, elegant, and humorous lunch. Tie in a speaker from an SECC Charity that operates a food pantry. Have your Director and other management serve and bus tables at a luncheon. Sell tickets! Casual Days Sell casual day badges allowing employees to dress casually on certain days. Employees purchase badges for $5 each. Designate certain casual days as "crazy days" and encourage your employees to show their wild side, i.e., Stupid Hat Day, Outrageous Socks Day, Sports Team Day, or Dress Up Day. Baby/Pet Picture Match Game Invite employees to try their luck matching baby and/or pet pictures of management. Award the entry with the most right answers a paid holiday off or some other fun incentive. Charge employees $5 per ballot. Manager Car Wash Employees donate $5 to have their car washed at high noon by their "boss." Charge extra for Polaroid photos. Balloon-o-gram Sell balloons to employees to give to their coworkers. Employees can purchase the balloon, include a brief note, and have it sent to their colleague. Employees get affirmation and your office gets decorated with colorful SECC balloons. Beach Blanket Bingo Decorate a conference room with beach items: beach balls, blow up rafts, fake palm trees, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • A High-Voltage Conflict on Blackacre: Reorienting Utility Easement Rights for Electric Reliability Brian S
    A High-Voltage Conflict on Blackacre: Reorienting Utility Easement Rights for Electric Reliability Brian S. Tomasovic* Introduction.....................................................................................................2 I. The Need for UVM in the Twenty-First Century.......................................5 A. The Basic Justifications for UVM ..........................................................6 1. Preventing Power Outages .................................................................6 2. Preventing Fires ................................................................................10 3. Public Safety ......................................................................................12 B. Expanding Infrastructure and Growing Risk Exposure ....................12 C. Modernization of UVM........................................................................15 D. Objections to UVM ..............................................................................19 1. Community Objections.....................................................................20 2. Property Owner Objections..............................................................22 3. The Customer Refusal ......................................................................24 II. Overview of the Regulatory Environment for UVM..............................26 A. Federal Developments .........................................................................27 B. State Developments..............................................................................31
    [Show full text]