July 2015 Practice Exam B

JULY 2015 PRACTICE EXAM B 1. A woman, a California citizen, purchased a 2. Acting on an anonymous phone tips, the police hamburger from a fast food chain in went to a defendant’s apartment, knocked on California. She became violently ill after the door, and demanded to search it for eating the hamburger and filed a lawsuit narcotics. When the defendant refused, the against the fast food chain in federal district police forced the door open and placed him court. The fast food chain was a corporation under arrest. As they were removing him from and a citizen of Florida. The fast food chain the apartment, the defendant offered to give the believed that meat that was supplied by its officers information in exchange for his release. meat supplier was the cause of the woman’s Before he could say anything else, the injury. The meat supplier was a corporation defendant was given Miranda warnings. and a citizen of California. The fast food chain Thereafter, he told the police that he had stored impleaded the meat supplier by serving a third- some heroin in his friend’s apartment and that party complaint and summons on the meat he and his friend had been planning to sell it. supplier. The woman moved to dismiss the fast The heroin was recovered, and the defendant food chain’s third-party complaint and was prosecuted for conspiracy to sell narcotics summons on the meat supplier. How should and for possession of narcotics. the court rule? At his trial, the defendant moved to suppress his (A) The woman’s motion to dismiss should be statements. Will the defendant’s motion to denied because impleading the meat suppress be granted? supplier did not destroy diversity. (B) The woman’s motion to dismiss should be (A) Yes, because the defendant is entitled to denied because a plaintiff can never object know the identity of his accuser, and the to a defendant’s impleading another party. state cannot supply this information. (C) The woman’s motion to dismiss should be (B) Yes, because the police should have given granted because impleading the meat the defendant Miranda warnings prior to supplier destroyed diversity. entry into the apartment, and the warnings (D) The woman’s motion to dismiss should be were ineffectual once the defendant granted because the meat supplier caused offered to give the police information. her injury. (C) Yes, because the defendant was intimidated by the forced entry into the apartment, and since the statements were involuntary and coerced, their use against him would violate due process of law. (D) Yes, because the statements were fruits of an unlawful arrest, and though the Miranda warnings may have been sufficient to protect his rights against self- incrimination, they were not sufficient to purge the taint of the illegal arrest © 2015 Pieper Bar Review. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this exam may be reproduced or retransmitted without the publishers permission. Violators will be prosecuted. JULY 2015 PRACTICE EXAM B 3. A lender met a borrower on the street, 4. In a tort action, the plaintiff testified against the demanded that the borrower pay a debt owed to defendant. The defendant then called a witness, the lender, and threatened to punch the who testified that the plaintiff had a bad borrower in the nose. A fight ensued between reputation for veracity. The defendant next them. A man came upon the scene just as the called the plaintiff’s employer, who testified that lender was about to kick the borrower in the the plaintiff once perpetrated a hoax on the head. Noting that the lender was getting the police. better of the fight, the man pointed a gun at the lender and told him to stop, or he would shoot. Is the employer’s testimony admissible? The lender subsequently asserted a claim against the man based on assault. (A) Yes, because a hoax involves untruthfulness. Will the lender prevail? (B) Yes, provided that the hoax resulted in conviction of the plaintiff. (A) Yes, because the man threatened to use (C) No, because it is merely cumulative deadly force. impeachment. (B) Yes, because the man was not related to the (D) No, because it is extrinsic evidence of a borrower. specific instance of misconduct. (C) No, because it was apparent that the lender was about to inflict serious bodily harm upon the borrower by kicking him in the head. (D) No, because the lender was the original aggressor by threatening the borrower with a battery. © 2015 Pieper Bar Review. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this exam may be reproduced or retransmitted without the publishers permission. Violators will be prosecuted JULY 2015 PRACTICE EXAM B 5. A painter agreed to paint his customer’s house for 6. A man was driving his automobile on a turnpike $2,000. After completion, the customer contended, when the engine suddenly quit and the automobile in good faith, that the porch was not painted slowed down to a stop before the man could steer properly, and refused to pay. the automobile to the shoulder of the road. Consequently, the automobile was rear-ended, In an appropriate action by the painter against the causing injury to the automobile and to the man. customer for breach of contract, which of the following will the court conclude? The man brought a products liability suit in federal district court against the manufacturer of his (A) There was a partial breach of contract because automobile. The complaint alleged, in pertinent the painter had properly and substantially part, that the automobile had been defectively painted the porch. designed and manufactured, without specifying the (B) There was a partial breach of contract whether nature of the defects, and that said defects were the or not the painter had properly or substantially proximate cause of injury to the man and his painted the porch. automobile. (C) There was a total breach of contract if the painter had properly or substantially painted The manufacturer did not make a pre-answer the porch. motion but instead filed and served a timely answer (D) There was a total breach of contract whether or to the man’s complaint. In addition to denying the not the painter had properly or substantially allegations of the man’s complaint, the answer painted the porch. stated, as a defense, that the allegations regarding the automobile’s defects were vague and conclusory and, that because they were central to the man’s products liability claim, the complaint should be dismissed. How should the court rule on a motion by the manufacturer to dismiss the complaint? (A) The motion should be granted, if the court views the allegations regarding the car’s defects to be conclusory, which the court need not accept as true and further finds that there are no factual allegations that plausibly suggest that the man is entitled to relief. (B) The motion should be denied because the “defect” allegations were adequately pleaded. (C) The motion should be denied because the manufacturer should have attacked the sufficiency of the allegations in the man’s complaint through a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (D) The motion should be denied because the manufacturer waived any objection to the sufficiency of the complaint when it responded to the complaint’s allegations by denying them. © 2015 Pieper Bar Review. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this exam may be reproduced or retransmitted without the publishers permission. Violators will be prosecuted JULY 2015 PRACTICE EXAM B 7. On March 1, an uncle delivered a television set 8. A state required all barbers within its borders to to his 17-year-old nephew. At that time, the obtain and post state-issued licenses. The state nephew agreed, in writing, to pay $400 to his refused to grant such licenses to applicants who uncle on July 1, his eighteenth birthday, the did not graduate from a barber school located applicable statutory age of majority. within the state. A group of barbers sued, and their sole argument rested upon an assertion On July 1, when the reasonable value of the that the state-school graduation requirement television set was $250, the nephew sent his was unconstitutional. uncle a signed letter stating, “I’ll pay you $300. That is all the set is worth.” Will the barbers prevail? In an action for money damages by the uncle (A) Yes, because the state-school graduation against his nephew, what is the maximum requirement is an undue burden on amount the court will award? interstate commerce. (B) Yes, because the state-school graduation (A) Nothing. requirement is a violation of the Privileges (B) $250, the reasonable value of the set. and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth (C) $300, the amount the nephew promised to Amendment. pay in his letter of July 1. (C) No, because the state does not know the (D) $400, the original price. quality of out-of-state barber schools. (D) No, because barbering is a privilege and not a right. © 2015 Pieper Bar Review. Printing is for personal, private use only. No part of this exam may be reproduced or retransmitted without the publishers permission. Violators will be prosecuted JULY 2015 PRACTICE EXAM B 9. A bill is pending before Congress to deter 10. In order to work as a substitute teacher at any sexual harassment in the workplace. During school within State A, individuals were required the debates surrounding this bill, an issue arose to obtain and present to their employers state- as to whether juries or judges should determine issued licenses.

Load more