Description of this paper

American Law




American Law;1. Breach of contract action by P against D. P claims D failed to deliver the goods called for in the contract. D asserts the doctrine of impossibility, based on the claim that severe storms caused flooding which destroyed all the goods in D?s warehouse. To prove impossibility, D offers in evidence what appears to be a newspaper published in the town in which D?s business is located, and which is dated a few days before D was supposed to ship P?s order. An article in the paper reports the loss of all the goods in D?s warehouse due to storm-related flooding. P objects on grounds of lack of authentication.;How should the court rule?;The court should overrule the objection;The court should sustain the objection because the newspaper is not the best evidence of whether flooding caused the destruction of the goods in D?s warehouse.;The court should sustain the objection if it finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that this is the newspaper D claims it to be.;The court should sustain the objection if it finds that D has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that this is the newspaper D claims it to be.;None of the above;2. Fritz, a house painter, was charged with stealing three valuable figurines from the home of Valens while painting the interior of that home. At Fritz?s trial, Valens testified that he first noticed that the figurines were missing about an hour after Fritz left his home. He stated that he looked Fritz?s number up in the telephone book and properly dialed the number listed therein. Over objection by Fritz?s attorney, Valens stated that a man answered the phone by saying, ?Fritz speaking.? Valens stated that he then said, ?Fritz, where are the figurines?? and that the person at the other end of the line said, ? I?m sorry. I took them.? The objection by Fritz?s attorney should be;Overruled;Sustained, since Valens did not actually see the person to whom he was speaking.;Sustained since the statement is hearsay.;Sustained, unless independent evidence establishes that Fritz was the person to whom Valens was speaking.;None of the above;3. Negligence action by P against D?s Heating and Cooling for injuries suffered when D allegedly failed to fix P?s heater during a sub-zero cold snap. P, who is elderly and housebound, alleges that she phoned D as soon as the heater failed, that D promised to respond ?within two hours,? that P waited in vain for an entire night, and that D never appeared. While waiting for D, P alleges that she suffered cold-related injuries to her fingers and toes. P testifies that she placed her call to the number for D listed in the phone book, and that a voice answered, ?heating service.? D denies ever receiving the call, and moves to strike P?s testimony for the record.;How should the court rule?;The court should deny D?s motion because there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that the call was actually placed to D.;The court should grant the motion because the party answering the phone did not identify itself as D?s Heating and Cooling;The court should deny the motion if it finds that the call was not placed to D;The court should deny the motion because P has already testified, and it is too late to keep the evidence from the jury.;None of the above;Which of the following is not required to be filed by the defendant in a civil action?;An answer to the plaintiff?s complaint;An admission or denial of every element of the plaintiff?s complaint;Any affirmative defenses;All of the above are required;None of the above are required;Breach of contract action by P against D. P claims the contract, which was reduced to writing, called for D to deliver 200 crates of apples by a certain date. At trial, D wishes to testify that the contract only called for delivery of 100 crates. P makes a best evidence rule objection;How should the court rule?;None of the answers below;The court should overrule the objection because a contract is an agreement brought about by the meeting of two minds, not a writing. The writing is only a memorandum of the agreement, not the contract itself.;The court should overrule the objection because D is not testifying about the contents of the writing, but about her understanding of the agreement. Thus the best evidence rule does not apply.;The court should overrule the objection because the central issue in the case concerns the terms of the agreement, and the jury is entitled to hear D?s interpretation of the terms.;The court should sustain the objection;6. At the trial of an automobile accident case, for the purpose of showing the relationship and directions of the streets involved, the plaintiff offered into evidence a photograph of the intersection where the accident occurred. The plaintiff testified that on the day of the accident the intersection looked exactly as depicted in the photograph, except that on the day of accident some of the trees on the street had small Christmas ornaments on them. Upon objection, should the photograph be admitted in evidence?;A. None of the answers below;B. Yes, but only if the photograph was taken within a reasonable time following the accident.;C. No, unless the photographer who made the photograph testifies to its authenticity.;D. Yes, if the absence of the Christmas tree ornaments did not prevent the photograph from being a fair representation of the intersection at the time of the accident;E. No, not under any circumstances;7. Petersen was sitting in his car at a dead stop waiting for a traffic light to change color, when his vehicle was struck in the rear by a car operated by Dodge, rendering Peterson unconscious. Police were called to the accident scene and as a result of their investigation Dodge was charged with ?operating an unregistered vehicle,? a misdemeanor. The following day, Dodge pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to five days in jail.;Petersen subsequently asserted a claim for damages resulting from Dodge?s negligence. Because of admissions which were made in the pleadings, a hearing was held on the sole questions of whether Dodge was negligent. At the hearing, a transcript of Dodge?s conviction for operating an unregistered vehicle should be;A. Admitted;B. Excluded, because it is not relevant to the question of negligence.;C. Excluded, because it was not the result of a trial.;D. Excluded, because it is hearsay, not within any exception.;E. None of the above;8. Which of the following statements is true regarding witness lists?;A. Their production does not require a discovery request;B. Their production requires a subpoena;C. Their production requires court approval;D. Their production requires the consent of each witness on the list;E. None of the above;9. Which of the following may not be commanded by a subpoena?;A. Testimony;B. The production of documents;C. Seizing of documents;D. All of the above;E. None of the above;10. High Quality Products Inc. files suit against National Software Corporation. Mike is a witness for High Quality. Jim is a witness for National Software. High Quality may direct interrogatories to;A. National Software only;B. Jim only;C. National Software or Jim only;D. National Software, Jim, or Mike;E. None of the above;11. In Ron?s suit against Second National Bank, the discovery phase would include all of the following except;A. Ron?s complaint;B. Ron?s deposition;C. Ron?s request for Second National?s deposition;D. Second National?s replies to Ron?s interrogatories;E. None of the above;12. Darth Vader was on trial for attempting to extort money from Obewon Ben Knobe. Obewon owned a large hardware store in Alderan. The prosecution introduced into evidence Vader?s telephone registry, which showed a call to a particular phone number on the day a demand for $50,000 was telephonically made to Obewon. The prosecution sought to introduce into evidence a properly authenticated copy of the Alderan telephone book. This book contained a listing for Obewon?s store at that number. The evidence is;A. Inadmissible because it is hearsay;B. Inadmissible because it is entirely possible that Vader called Obewon?s store for a business purpose;C. Inadmissible because of the Best Evidence Rule;D. Admissible because it relevant to show that Vader might have been the extortionist;E. None of the above;13.Abusive tactics are fostered by the court system because;A. Attorneys know that lawyers are given only one opportunity to comply with discovery requests;B. Lawyers have an incentive to increase discovery costs as they can bill their clients for more hours worked;C. No penalties exist whatsoever for using abusive tactics;D. None of the above;14. Mary is a 72-year old retired junior high school teacher. She commenced an action against Matthew, a licensed stockbroker, claiming that he had deceived her into investing her life savings by fraudulently claiming that he would greatly enrich her via a series of stock transactions. Mathew has no history of disciplinary actions or lawsuits against him with respect to stock transactions initiated by him. Mathew is generally known as an honest person by his friends, colleagues, and clients.;At trial, Mathew?s counsel attempts to introduce evidence, via the testimony of another stockbroker who works with Mathew, that Mathew ?has an excellent reputation for honesty in the business community.?;If Mary?s attorney objects to the introduction of this evidence, it is most likely that;A. The objection will be overruled because character evidence is admissible in civil cases;B. The objection will be overruled because Mathew?s character is directly in issue in this case;C. The objection will be sustained because the testimony is hearsay;D. The objection will be sustained because evidence of Mathew?s character is not admissible;E. None of the above;15. If a party refuses to answer an interrogatory, the opposing party may file a motion to compel an answer. A motion to compel an answer;A. Will be granted if the moving party shows the answer is necessary to prepare for trial;B. May be denied if the question asked is subject to a timely and valid objection;C. May be denied if the question asked is an invasion of privacy of the other party;D. Will be granted if the opposing party does not file a motion to refuse to respond;E. None of the above;16. Prosecution of Dr. Iaconis for arson. To prove the fire was set intentionally, the prosecution calls Jay Leiner, a police arson investigator who has served in that capacity for ten years after spending several years as a beat officer. Jay Leiner never attended college and had no special schooling in arson investigation, but learned investigative techniques from a senior investigator with whom he worked for two years. From techniques learned through this experience, Leiner spoke with eyewitnesses who saw the fire at various stages, and concluded from that information as well as his own investigation of the fire scene that the fire was set intentionally.;Which of the following objections to Leiner?s testimony is the court likely to sustain, if either?;A. Leiner is not a qualified expert;B. Leiner?s testimony about the cause of the fire should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.;C. The court is likely to sustain both of these objections.;D. The court is likely to rule that it does not matter anyway because Dr. Iaconis is a known arsonist.;E. None of the above;17. Tom worked for a messenger service owned by Dalton. While Tom was driving a Dalton-owned vehicle on business in Miami, he hit and injured Pedro, a pedestrian who resides in Alabama. Pedro brought a diversity action against Dalton in federal court in Florida on a theory of respondeat superior. Personal service was properly made under FRCP 4?(2) on Dalton, a Florida resident. Dalton now wishes to implead Tom as a third-party defendant (if Dalton is held liable to Pedro, Dalton will be entitled to indemnity from Tom). Tom is a resident of Puerto Rico and lives in San Juan, a two-hour flight from Miami. Dalton caused a licensed process server to serve Tom personally at Tom?s house in San Juan. Assume that Florida has no long-arm statute allowing state court jurisdiction over any defendant who cannot be physically found within Florida. Does the Florida federal court have personal jurisdiction over Dalton?s third-party claim against Tom?;A. Yes, because Tom was a third-party defendant who was served within 100 miles of the federal courthouse;B. No, because there is no Florida long-arm statute that would authorize state court jurisdiction over Tom;C. Yes, because service was properly made on Dalton within Florida, the state or district where the federal suit is pending;D. Yes, because Pedro, Dalton and Tom are all citizens of different states;E. None of the above;18. In a contract case, the plaintiff offered a purportedly signed original of the contract, bearing the defendant?s signature. The trial judge can admit it;A. Subject to the introduction of evidence that would support a finding of the genuineness of the signature;B. Only if, in the trial judge?s opinion, the contested signature bears a reasonable resemblance to that of the defendant;C. Only if the trial judge finds that the genuineness of the defendant?s signature is established as a matter of law;D. Only if the plaintiff persuades the court that it is more likely than not that the signature is genuine;E. None of the above;19. Alfred was charged with mail fraud. At trial, the defense called Joanna, who testified that she had known Alfred for 16 years and that he was an honorable, honest human being. On cross-examination, the prosecuting attorney asked Joanna if she had not been caught cheating while playing cards three weeks earlier. Joanna replied that she had not. The prosecuting attorney then offered to have Bill testify that he, Joanna, and four other persons were playing cards three weeks ago, and that Joanna was caught dealing an ace to herself from the bottom of the deck. Bill?s testimony is;A. Admissible because it tends to discredit Joanna;B. Admissible because Joanna had testified as to Alfred?s character for honesty;C. Inadmissible because Joanna has not been the subject of a criminal conviction as a consequence of the card-cheating incident;D. Inadmissible if gambling is a federal crime;E. None of the above;20. The same customer comes into a bank each day and purchases $8,000 worth of travelers? checks. The bank employees suspect that the customer may be engaged in money laundering activity. The bank;A. Cannot report these activities since each transaction is less than $10,000;B. May, but is not required to, file a Suspicious Activity Report;C. Is required to file a Currency Transaction Report since there were multiple accounts;D. Is required to file a Suspicious Activity Report;E. None of the above;21. Which of the following is a step in the money laundering process?;A. Integration;B. Deception;C. Layering;D. A and C;E. None of the above;22. Derek is on trial for burglary in a federal district court. While investigating the crime scene, detectives discovered a piece of cheese left at the scene with teeth marks on it. The prosecution claims that the teeth marks were made by Derek and seeks to offer the testimony of Dr. Jacobs, a dentist who is an expert on dental identification. The prosecution would have Dr. Jacobs testify that there have been tests of the accuracy of such identifications, that the technique has been written up in peer-reviewed forensic journals, that is has a very low false positive rate, and that it is generally accepted by criminalists as a method of identification. Dr. Jacobs? testimony is;A. Admissible because there has been an adequate showing that bite-mark identification is scientifically valid;B. Admissible because there has been an adequate showing that bite-mark identification is generally accepted in the field;C. Inadmissible because the evidence is not relevant to an issue in the case;D. Inadmissible because Dr. Jacobs is not qualified to be treated as an expert;E. None of the above;23. Breach of contract action by P, a construction contractor, against D, a lumber wholesaler. P claims that D failed to make a timely delivery of a load of lumber, causing P to suffer significant anticipated consequential damages. D claims it delivered the lumber on time. P calls W, its custodian of records. P?s attorney shows W a document, which W identifies as a record of the kind prepared by its job foreperson any time building materials are delivered to a construction site. W testifies that P kept the document in the company files, as was customary. The document appears to concern the questioned shipment, and bears a delivery date two weeks after the shipment was due. Evidence shows that the person who dated the document was unaware of any potential dispute between P and D. P offers the document into evidence.;Which of the following statements is correct?;A. The document is hearsay and admissible as a business record.;B. The document is hearsay and admissible under the exception for past recollection recorded.;C. The document is hearsay and does not satisfy the business records exception because W did not have personal knowledge of the accuracy of its contents.;D. The document is not hearsay. It was used solely to refresh the recollection of the witness.;24. The crime of mail fraud requires;A. A scheme to defraud;B. Use of the mail system;C. Both A and B;D. None of the above;25. The main objective in using a nominee is often concealment. Thus, use of a nominee applies mostly to;A. The integration stage.;A. Wire transfers.;B. Establishing a trust or shell corporation.;C. The layering stage.;D. The placement stage.;26. In the initial or placement stage of money laundering, the launderer;A. Engages in a series of conversions or movements of the funds to distance them from their source.;B. Introduces his illegal profits into the financial system.;C. Channels funds through the purchase and sales of investment instruments.;D. Wires the money to an offshore bank account and then has the money wired back to a U.S. account.;E. None of the above.;27. Possession of documents that may help identify an offshore trust or bank account may be a matter of good fortune. Indicators of hidden assets may include the following;A. Withdrawals of substantial amounts of money in cash and issuing checks to unfamiliar parties.;B. Passports indicating trips to tax havens and e-mails to representatives of institutions from offshore havens.;C. Any suspicious activity such as an overseas phone call.;D. A and B.;E. None of the above.;28. An according-to-rule benefit confers;A. Something on the bribe-taker that he or she would have received anyway;B. Are sometimes deemed facilitation or grease payments;C. Something on the bribe-giver that the briber should have received under the rules;D. B and C;E. None of the above;29. The two primary themes of the FCPA are that;A. Bribery is unethical and should not go unpunished;B. If payment is made to an official of a foreign government, whether proper or corrupt, the payment must be reported according to GAAP;C. No entity or person may offer or pay anything of value to a foreign official that would cause the official to misuse power or influence;D. B and C;E. None of the above;30. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor the Federal Rules of Evidence specify a procedure for Daubert challenges. The Supreme Court?s opinions also fail to specify a required procedure. Despite the varied paths a Daubert challenge can take, there are today two typical procedures;A. A challenge to an expert made in conjunction with a motion for summary;judgment or a challenge to an expert made in conjunction with a motion for judgment as a matter of law.;B. A challenge to an expert made in conjunction with a motion for summary judgment or a challenge in the nature of a motion in limine;C. A challenge made to an expert in conjunction with a motion for judgment as a matter of law or a challenge in the nature of a motion in limine.;D. None of the above.;31. Which of the following statements is incorrect?;A. The accounting provisions are broader than the anti-bribery provisions;B. Officers, directors, employees, agents and stockholders of foreign persons are subject to the FCPA if they commit a violation while in the US;C. A foreign citizen who is an agent of a US concern, is subject to the FCPA for acts committed outside the US;D. Under the FCPA, ?corruptly? makes clear that an offer, payment, promise or gift must be intended to induce the recipient to misuse an official position to wrongfully direct business to the payer or obtain a favorable regulation;E. None of the above;32. Federal courts consider various factors when deciding upon the admissibility of expert witness testimony. These factors include;A. Whether or not a theory or technique can be tested.;B. Whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication and what is the technique?s known or potential rate of error.;C. Whether the theory or technique is generally accepted within its scientific community and whether the theory or technique existed prior to litigation.;D. A, B, and C.;E. B and C.;Part II. Brief Fact Scenarios;Please read each of the following fact scenarios and answer the question posed. Please write cogent sentences and avoid the use of bullets. (5 pts each);Sally files a lawsuit against Miami Drugs Inc. in federal court. Sally wishes to conduct discovery by deposition, but is unsure which of the Miami Drug employees has the necessary information and does not know whose name belongs on the notice of deposition. Should Sally file interrogatories to obtain the appropriate employee?s name? Why or why not?;Murdock was injured using a lawnmower produced by Obewon Lawnmower Co. Murdock sues Obewon claiming the firm negligently made the lawnmower. Murdock further claims he has been disabled from doing his job and seeks damages for loss of earning capacity. Obewon sends a request for production of Murdock?s income tax returns for the five years before the injury and two years after the injury. What is the result? Why;Paul was hurt in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Dick. Paul brought a federal diversity suit against Dick on a negligence theory. After commencement of the action, Dick?s lawyer, Ben, conducted an interview with an eyewitness to the accident, Carl. Ben wrote down those aspects of Carl?s account of the accident that seemed most interesting to Ben. Paul?s lawyer, after learning of this interview, submitted to Dick a Rule 34 Request for Production of Documents, requesting ?any notes taken by Ben of any interviews with Carl.? Dick and Ben refused to comply, so Paul made a motion to compel discovery. Should the court grant Paul?s motion to compel production of the notes? If so, why;Lucy sues Chris for nonpayment of a promissory note of $100,000. Chris?s answer contains only this averment: Defendant neither admits nor denies Plaintiff Lucy?s claim, and puts Lucy to her proof at trial. Lucy moves for judgment on the pleadings arguing that Chris has admitted liability. Should the motion be granted? Why or why not?;George brings an action against Som for infringement of a copyright George holds on a book about forensic accounting. The case is tried to a jury. Som moves for judgment as a matter of law at the close of George?s evidence. The motion is denied. Som renews the motion after presenting his own evidence. The motion is denied again. The jury is instructed, deliberates, and returns a verdict for George. May Som now move again for judgment as a matter of law? Why or why not;A small but valuable piece of jewel-encrusted statuary was stolen from an antique shop, and all foot patrol officers in the area were notified by radio to look for the thief. When an officer saw Gator running down the street away from the direction of the antique shop, she became suspicious of him. The officer stopped Gator and asked him his name and his reason for running down the street. When Gator said, ?Just trying to get away from some Seminole fans,? the officer ordered him to raise his hands and then frisked him to see if he was in possession of the stolen statue. She felt a hard object in his pocket and reached inside. The object which she felt turned out to be a handgun for which Gator did not have a permit.;Before Gator?s trial on the charge of unlawfully possessing a concealed weapon, he moved to suppress the use of his handgun. Should his motion be granted? Why or why not?;John is on trial in federal court for conspiring with Susan to defraud Mark. At John?s trial, the prosecutor calls John?s wife to the stand to testify as to a conversation between John and Susan that she heard while married to John. Can John?s wife testify if she so chooses (over John?s objection)? Why or why not?;Olfactory is a dog who searches for drugs for the Miami/Dade Sherriff?s office. His territory is the Miami airport. While checking out luggage, Olfactory barks incessantly to indicate drugs in a particular suitcase. When the suitcase owner, Crack Cocaine, is arrested and tried on drug charges, Olfactory?s handler, Andy, testifies for the prosecution that, ?Olfactory pointed out the presence of cocaine in the luggage.? Is this hearsay? Why or why not?;Part II. Short-Answer Essays. Please read each of the following fact patterns and perform the requested work. No bullets permitted unless the question states otherwise.;A police detective finds a bloody brown left-hand glove, size 11 Isotoner, at a murder scene. A similar glove, for a right hand, is later found at the residence of the victim?s ex-husband, Darth Vader. No left glove is found at Darth?s residence. Darth is charged with the murder. The glove is offered as evidence that Darth is the murderer. Is the glove direct or circumstantial evidence? Why?;Please provide your reasoning.;Three months after Moe, Larry, and Curley rob the Ft. Frauderdale Bank, Curly is stopped on the highway and ticketed for speeding. When the patrolman approaches the car, Curley blurts out, ?The Ft. Frauderdale Bank job was Moe?s and Larry?s idea.? At Moe?s and Larry?s trial, the state seeks to introduce the patrolman?s testimony as to Curly?s statement. Under the FRE, is the statement admissible as an admission by a party opponent? (Hint: What crime did we study that might allow admission). Please explain in detail. (15 pts)


Paper#28776 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $72