Question #001
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Returns! T3BE Week 1

A man who believed that his wife was cheating on him with her gym trainer decided to kill the trainer. He loaded his handgun and set off for the trainer’s house. Because he was anxious about committing the crime, the man first stopped at a bar, drank eight shots of hard liquor, and became intoxicated. He then left the bar and went to the trainer's house. When the trainer answered the door, the man shot and killed him, The man then passed out on the trainer's porch.

The man has been charged with murder in a jurisdiction that follows the common law.

Can the man raise an intoxication defense?

A. No, because drinking at the bar was the proximate cause of the killing.
B. No, because the man intended to commit the murder and drank to strengthen his nerve.
C. Yes, because drinking at the bar was a foreseeable intervening cause of the killing.
D. Yes, because the man’s intoxication negated the specific intent required for murder.

Question #002
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Returns! T3BE Week 1

Without a warrant, police officers searched the garbage cans in the alley behind a man's house and discovered chemicals used to make methamphetamine, as well as cooking utensils and containers with the man's fingerprints on them. The alley was a public thoroughfare maintained by the city, and the garbage was picked up once a week by a private sanitation company. The items were found inside the garbage cans in plastic bags that had been tied closed and further secured with tape. The man was charged in federal court with the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Did the search of the garbage cans violate the Fourth Amendment?

A. No, because the man had no reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left in the alley.
B. No, because the probative value of the evidence outweighs the man's modest privacy claims in his garbage.
C. Yes, because the alley was within the curtilage of the man's home and entry without a warrant was unconstitutional.
D. Yes, because there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's secured garbage containers.

Question #003
Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Returns! T3BE Week 1

A doctor who was licensed to practice medicine in a particular state was convicted in state court of improperly distributing specified drugs by writing prescriptions for fictitious persons. Under state law, such an abuse of the prescription-writing privilege requires revocation of a doctor's license. After it received an official notification of the doctor's conviction, the state medical board revoked the doctor's license without affording the doctor any opportunity for a hearing.

The doctor has sued the board in state court to set aside the revocation, alleging deprivation of property without due process of law because the board did not provide an opportunity for a trial-type hearing before revoking the license. The doctor does not deny the conviction or the factual basis for it.

Which of the following is the strongest argument in support of the state medical board?

A. A doctor’s license to practice is a privilege, not a right, and therefore is not property within the meaning of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. Due process requires a balancing of interests, and the state’s interest in preventing drug abuse outweighs the doctor’s interest in the particular procedure followed in the disciplinary proceeding.
C. The adjudicative facts necessary to revoke the doctor's license were determined in the criminal trial, and therefore due process does not require any further trial-type hearing.
D. The licensing board was required to summarily revoke the doctor's license because Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution requires the licensing board to give full faith and credit to the doctor's criminal conviction.

Question #004
T3BE Week 2!

A husband and wife took their 12-year-old son to a political rally in an auditorium to hear a controversial United States senator speak. The speaker was late, and the wife stepped outside the auditorium to smoke a cigarette. While there, she saw a man placing what she believed to be a bomb against the back wall of the auditorium. She went back inside and told her husband what she had seen. Without alerting anyone, they took their son and left. Some 20 minutes later, the bomb exploded, killing 8 persons and injuring 50. In the jurisdiction, murder in the first degree is defined as an intentional homicide committed with premeditation and deliberation; murder in the second degree is defined as all other murder at common law; and manslaughter is defined as either a homicide in the heat of passion arising from adequate provocation or a homicide caused by gross negligence or reckless indifference to consequence.

As to the deaths of the eight persons, what crime, if any, did the wife commit?

A. Manslaughter.
B. Murder in the first degree.
C. Murder in the second degree.
D. No crime.

Question #005
T3BE Week 2!

A nightclub owner applied for a required zoning permit to open a nude-dancing nightclub in the theater district of a city. An organization of influential city residents began an intensive lobbying effort to persuade the city council to deny the owner a permit to operate any type of nude-dancing facility at any time or in any place in the city.

The owner has sued the city in an appropriate federal court, seeking an injunction that would prohibit the city council from considering the organization’s views, on the ground that if the organization is successful in its lobbying efforts, the owner's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights would be violated. The city has moved to dismiss the action.

Should the court dismiss the owner’s action?

A. No, because nude dancing is symbolic speech and is therefore protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
B. No, because the organization does not seek a reasonable time, place, and manner regulation of nude dancing, but instead seeks a total ban on the owner’s opening any type of nude-dancing facility at any time or in any place in the city.
C. Yes, because the action is not ripe.
D. Yes, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not protect obscenity, and nude dancing is obscene.

Question #006
T3BE Week 3! Drugs and Hearsay

Police officers had probable cause to believe that drug dealing was routinely taking place in a particular room at a local motel. The motel manager authorized the officers to enter the room and provided them with a passkey. Without obtaining a warrant, the officers knocked on the room's door, announced their presence, and told the occupants that they would like to speak with them. The officers then heard yelling and repeated flushing of the toilet. They then used passkey and entered the rooms. Where they saw the occupants dumping drugs into the toilet. The occupants of the rooms were charged with drug dealing and have moved to suppress the drugs.

Should the court grant the motion to suppress?

A. No, because exigent circumstances justified the officers' entry.
B. No, because the motel manager consented to the officers' entry.
C. Yes, because exigent circumstances cannot excuse the lack of a warrant.
D. Yes, because the officers cannot benefit from exigent circumstances that they created.

Question #007
T3BE Week 3! Drugs and Hearsay

A defendant was charged with aggravated assault. At trial, the victim testified that the defendant beat her savagely, but she was not asked about anything said during the incident. The prosecutor then called a witness to testify that when the beating stopped, the victim screamed: "I'm dying. Don't let [the defendant] get away with it!"

Is the testimony of the witness concerning the victim's statement admissible?

A. No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
B. No, because the victim was not asked about the statement.
C. Yes, as a statement under belief of imminent death, even though the victim did not die.
D. Yes, as an excited utterance.

Question #008
T3BE Week 4! Firefighters' Rule and Interstate Commerce

A driver, returning home from a long work shift at a factory, fell asleep at the wheel and lost control of his car. As a result, his car collided with a police car driven by an officer who was returning to the station after having responded to an emergency. The officer was injured in the accident and later sued the driver in negligence for her injuries. The driver has moved for summary judgment, arguing that the common law firefighters' rule bars the suit.

Should the court grant the motion?

A. No, because the firefighters' rule does not apply to police officers.
B. No, because the police officer's injuries were not related to any special dangers of her job.
C. Yes, because the accident would not have occurred but for the emergency.
D. Yes, because the police officer was injured on the job.

Question #009
T3BE Week 4! Firefighters' Rule and Interstate Commerce

A federal statute extends federal minimum wage requirements to all dry cleaning stores. The statute contains express findings that, when combined, the wages received by dry cleaning workers have a substantial impact on the national economy and on the flow of goods and services in interstate commerce. These findings are supported by information presented to Congress during committee hearings on the legislation.

A small dry cleaning store operates exclusively within a community in the center of a geographically large state. It has no customers from outside the state. It employs three workers, each of whom is paid less than the federal minimum wage.

Must this dry cleaning store comply with the statute imposing the federal minimum wage requirements on all dry cleaning stores?

A. No, because the store does no business in interstate commerce.
B. No, because the wages of the store’s three workers do not have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.
C. Yes, because the commerce clause vests Congress with plenary legislative authority over labor relations.
D. Yes, because the wages paid by dry cleaning stores have a substantial impact on interstate commerce.

Question #010
T3BE Week 5! Personal Injury and Comparative Negligence

In a personal injury case, the plaintiff sued a retail store for injuries she sustained from a fall in the store. The plaintiff alleged that the store had negligently allowed its entryway to become slippery from snow tracked in from the sidewalk. Before the lawsuit was filed, when the plaintiff first threatened to sue, the store's manager said, "I know that there was slush on that marble entryway, but I think your four-inch-high heels were the real cause of your fall. So let's agree that we'll pay your medical bills, and you release us from any claims you might have." The plaintiff refused the offer. At trial, the plaintiff seeks to testify to the manager's statement that "there was slush on that marble entryway."

Is the statement about the slush in the entryway admissible?

A. No, because it is a statement made in the course of compromise negotiations.
B. No, because the manager denied that the slippery condition was the cause of the plaintiff's fall.
C. Yes, as a statement by an agent about a matter within the scope of his authority.
D. Yes, because the rule excluding offers of compromise does not protect statements of fact made during compromise negotiations.

Question #011
T3BE Week 5! Personal Injury and Comparative Negligence

A bright 12-year-old child attended a day-care center after school. The center was located near a man-made duck pond on the property of a corporation. During the winter, the pond was used for ice-skating when conditions were suitable. At a time when the pond was obviously only partially frozen, the child sneaked away from the center’s property and walked out onto the ice over the pond. The ice gave way, and the child fell into the cold water. He suffered shock and would have drowned had he not been rescued by a passerby. At the time of the incident, the pond was clearly marked with numerous signs that stated, "THIN ICE-KEEP OFF." When the child sneaked away from the day-care center, the center was staffed with a reasonable number of qualified employees, and the employees were exercising reasonable care to ensure that the children in their charge did not leave the premises. There had not been a previous instance of a child coming onto the corporation’s property from the day-care center. The jurisdiction follows a rule of pure comparative negligence.

In a suit brought on the child’s behalf against the day-care center and based only on the facts above, who is likely to prevail?

A. The child, because he left the center while he was under the center’s care.
B. The child, because the day-care center is located near a pond.
C. The day-care center, because it was not negligent.
D. The day-care center, because the child was a trespasser.

Question #012
T3BE Week 6 - ROCKED by Scandal #T3BEgate2

A state constitution provides that in every criminal trial "the accused shall have the right to confront all witnesses against him face to face." A defendant was convicted in state court of child abuse based on testimony from a six-year-old child. The child testified while she was seated behind one-way glass, which allowed the defendant to see the child but did not allow the child to see the defendant. The defendant appealed to the state's highest court, claiming that the inability of the child to see the defendant while she testified violated both the United States Constitution and the state constitution. Without addressing the federal constitutional issue, the state's highest court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial. The court held that "the constitution of this state is clear, and it requires that while testifying in a criminal trial, a witness must be able to see the defendant." The state petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

On which ground should the United States Supreme Court DENY the state's petition?

A. A state may not seek appellate review in the United States Supreme Court of the reversal of a criminal conviction by its highest court.

B. The decision of the state's highest court was based on adequate and independent state ground.

C. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require that a witness against a criminal defendant be able to see the defendant while the witness testifies.

D. The decision of the state's highest court requires a new trial, and therefore it is not a final judgment.

Question #013
T3BE Week 6 - ROCKED by Scandal #T3BEgate2

A man and a woman agreed that the woman would rob a bank and that the man would steal a car beforehand for the woman to use as a gateway vehicle. The man stole a car and parked it two blocks from the bank. He left the car key under the floor mat with a note saying that he wanted nothing more to do with the scene.

The next day, the woman robbed the bank and ran to the spot where the man had said he would leave the stolen car. She then escaped in the car and disappeared. She never shared any of the money with the man.

In a jurisdiction that has adopted the bilateral requirement for conspiracy, can the man properly be convicted of conspiring with the woman to rob the bank?

A. No, because the man received no benefit from the robbery.
B. No, because the man withdrew from the conspiracy.
C. Yes, because the robbery was successful due in part to the man's actions.
D. Yes, because there was an agreement to rob the bank and an overt act in furtherance of the agreement.

Question #014
T3BE Week 7! Best Evidence and Contract Law

A defendant is being prosecuted for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with intent to distribute. At trial, the government seeks to have its agent testify to a conversation that he overheard between the defendant and a coconspirator regarding the incoming shipment of a large quantity of methamphetamine. That conversation was also audiotaped, though critical portions of it are inaudible. The defendant objects to the testimony of the agent on the ground that it is not the best evidence of the conversation.

Is the testimony of the agent admissible?

A. No, because the testimony of the agent is not the best evidence of the conversation.
B. No, because the testimony of the agent recounts hearsay not within any exception.
C. Yes, because the best evidence rule does not require proof of the conversation through the audiotape.
D. Yes, because the audiotape is partly inaudible.

Question #015
T3BE Week 7! Best Evidence and Contract Law

Your client owns a carpet cleaning company. The company recently contracted with a customer to clean the carpets throughout the customer's ten-story building for $15,000, with payment due in 30 days. Before payment was due, the customer sent your client a check for $12,000 along with a note specifying that several of the carpets still had stains and included pictures of the stained carpets. The customer's note also said that if your client cashes the check, the remainder of the customer's debt will be discharged.

Your client now seeks your advice as to whether the company can cash the check without relinquishing its right to recover the remainder of the customer's debt.

Which of the following search term(s) would be the most likely to produce resources that will answer the client's question?

A. Accord and satisfaction.
B. Consideration.
C. Novation.
D. Offer and Acceptance.

Question #016
T3BE Week 8! Elaborate Crimes and Psychedelics

Milo, a well-known musician, has battled with severe depression for many years. One evening, while under extreme distress, Milo ingests an excessive amount of psychedelic mushrooms, hoping that the experience would provide him with some clarity. During his hallucinogenic trip, Milo believes he is being attacked by a giant insect monster and, in an attempt to defend himself, he breaks a window and severely injures a bystander outside his home. Upon being charged with aggravated assault, Milo pleads not guilty by reason of insanity, arguing that his mental illness combined with the hallucinations made him incapable of understanding the nature of his act. Which of the following is the most accurate?

A. Milo should be acquitted because his voluntary consumption of hallucinogens was an extension of his mental illness.
B. Milo's plea is valid, as he was hallucinating during the incident, which hindered his understanding of reality.
C. Milo's plea is invalid, as voluntary intoxication cannot be the basis for an insanity defense.
D. Milo should be convicted, as the insanity defense requires a continuous, persistent state of psychosis.

Question #017
T3BE Week 8! Elaborate Crimes and Psychedelics

Claire, a disgruntled employee, was determined to disrupt her company's annual charity gala. She believed her company was using the charity event to launder money. So, she decided to protest by tampering with the company's new software system, which was set to be unveiled at the gala. Claire had been involved in the development of the system and knew that an excessive amount of data could cause the system to crash. So, she started feeding irrelevant and bogus data into the system. At the gala, when the system was unveiled and the influx of information started to pour in, the system crashed as Claire had planned. The gala came to a halt and the incident resulted in significant reputational damage for the company.

However, unbeknownst to Claire, the software system was also utilized in the operation of local emergency services, which experienced a temporary shutdown when the system crashed. This resulted in delays in dispatching emergency vehicles, causing a severe injury to be fatal due to the delay in getting the victim to the hospital. The state has a strict liability statute that penalizes anyone who disrupts emergency services. Claire was charged under this statute. She defended herself by claiming she didn't know the software sys tem was used for emergency services, and her intent was solely to disrupt the company's gala.

Given the nature of the strict liability statute, how should the court rule?

A. Claire is guilty because she disrupted the emergency services, regardless of her knowledge or intent.
B. Claire is not guilty because she did not intend to disrupt emergency services.
C. Claire is guilty because she intentionally disrupted the gala, and the disruption of emergency services was a consequence of that.
D. Claire is not guilty because the company didn't inform her that the software system was used for emergency services.

Question #018
T3BE Question 9! Prescription Negligence and Breach of Contract

Olivia, a pharmacist, accidentally gives a customer, Patrick, the wrong prescription medication. Patrick suffers an adverse reaction to the medication and is hospitalized. Patrick sues Olivia for negligence. At trial, expert witnesses testify that the medication Olivia gave Patrick was in a similar-looking container to the correct medication, and that other pharmacists have made similar mistakes in the past. What is the most likely outcome of this case?

A. Olivia will be found negligent because she failed to exercise the standard of care required of a pharmacist.
B. Olivia will not be found negligent because the medication containers looked similar.
C. Olivia will be found negligent only if Patrick can prove that she intentionally gave him the wrong medication.
D. Olivia will not be found negligent if other pharmacists have made similar mistakes in the past.

Question #019
T3BE Question 9! Prescription Negligence and Breach of Contract

Lucy and Brandon, two aspiring musicians, signed an agreement where Lucy, a songwriter, would write an original song for Brandon, a popular singer. The contract stipulated that the song would remain exclusive to Brandon, and Lucy would not share it with any other artist. However, due to some personal reasons, Lucy decided to share the song with another singer, contrary to the terms of the contract. Brandon, upon learning this, filed a lawsuit against Lucy, seeking an injunction against the breach.

A. Brandon will prevail because Lucy breached the contract.
B. Lucy will prevail because an injunction cannot be used in cases involving creative works.
C. Brandon will prevail because an injunction is an appropriate remedy in cases involving exclusive rights.
D. Lucy will prevail because she shared the song due to personal reasons.

Question #020
T3BE Week 10! Disappearing Wallets and Fake Philanthropy

Clyde, a local street performer, is known for his mesmerizing magic tricks. On this particular day, Clyde announces that he will be performing a new trick involving a wallet and a volunteer from the audience. Charles, an unsuspecting tourist, agrees to participate, handing over his wallet to Clyde. Clyde promises Charles and the audience that the wallet will disappear and then reappear in Charles' pocket. However, once the wallet 'disappears', it never reappears. Clyde later confesses that there was no magic trick, he just wanted to steal Charles wallet. In this case:

A. Clyde cannot be charged with robbery as he did not use force or threat of force.
B. Clyde can be charged with robbery as he deceived Charles and the audience.
C. Clyde cannot be charged with robbery as Charles voluntarily handed over his wallet.
D. Clyde can be charged with robbery as he intended to steal Charles' wallet.

Question #021
T3BE Week 10! Disappearing Wallets and Fake Philanthropy

Peter, a philanthropist, publicly promised to donate $10 million to support an upcoming medical research project at a university. Relying on this pledge, the university invested heavily in the project's infrastructure. Peter, however, decided not to make the donation. Can the university enforce Peter's promise?

A. No, because Peter's promise was a gift without consideration.
B. Yes, because the university detrimentally relied on Peter's promise.
C. No, because there was no signed agreement between Peter and the university.
D. Yes, because Peter's promise created a moral obligation.

Question #022
The Trump Trial Is On, and Lordy There Are Transcripts!

Jenny, a disgruntled tenant, had been living in a rundown apartment building for years. She was tired of the landlord's consistent failure to make necessary repairs. To teach the landlord a lesson, Jenny decided to set her apartment on fire, hoping that the fire would destroy the entire building and that she could start anew somewhere else. One night, she doused her old couch in her living room with kerosene and set it on fire. To her shock, the fire spread rapidly and got out of control. Panicked she ran outside the building, screaming and warning other tenants about the fire. Most of the tenants were able to escape the fire, but two tenants, an elderly couple living directly above Jenny, were severely injured while escaping. Once the fire was put out by the fire department, the police investigated and found out from other tenants that Jenny had warned them about the fire. On questioning, Jenny confessed to setting her apartment on fire.

What is the most serious crime Jenny could be charged with?

A. Arson only.
B. Arson and assault.
C. Arson and attempted murder.
D. Arson, assault, and attempted murder.

Question #023
Cannabis Rescheduling; Judge Cannon Stops Trump Trial

Rebecca, a famous violinist, signed a contract with "The Grand Symphony," an esteemed music company, to perform exclusively at their annual concerts for the next three years. Due to a sudden illness, Rebecca was unable to perform and thus delegated her performance duties to her protégé, Lisa, a violinist of equal skill and reputation. The Grand Symphony refused to accept Lisa's performance. Lisa sued The Grand Symphony for breach of contract. Is Lisa likely to succeed in her claim?

A. Yes, because Rebecca was legitimately unable to perform.
B. Yes, because Lisa has equal skill and reputation.
C. No, because a contract for personal services cannot be delegated.
D. No, because Rebecca did not fulfill her contractual obligation.

Question #024
Liz Warren's CFPB Saved By... Originalism?

Jack owns a large fish farm and keeps several difference species, including a type of fish known for its aggressive behavior. One day, a group of divers enters his property without permission and is attacked by the aggressive fish, resulting in injuries. The divers sue Jack under strict liability for their injuries. How will a court likely rule?

A. In favor of Jack, because the divers were trespassing on his property.
B. In favor of the divers, because Jack is strictly liable for injuries caused by his dangerous animals, regardless of the divers' trespassing.
C. In favor of Jack, if he can prove that he had posted adequate warning signs about the aggressive fish.
D. In favor of the divers, but only if they can prove that Jack was negligent in securing the area where the aggressive fish were kept.

Question #025
Law School Doesn't Have to Suck

A plaintiff was on a crowded BART train during commute hours on the way home. The BART line was undergoing significant renovations, resulting in frequent, sudden stops by the BART trains. The plaintiff was standing in the middle of one of the BART cars and holding onto a pole for stability. The defendant, also standing in the same BART car, was texting on his cell phone and not holding onto anything. The BART train came to a sudden stop causing the defendant to fall toward the plaintiff. The defendant lightly grabbed the plaintiff's arm to stop himself from falling completely over. The plaintiff did not like being touched by anyone. Although she was not injured by the defendant's conduct, the plaintiff subsequently brought an action for battery against the defendant.

Will the plaintiff prevail?

A. No, because the plaintiff consented to the defendant's contact.
B. No, because the plaintiff did not suffer any actual harm.
C. Yes, because the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care.
D. Yes, because the defendant intentionally grabbed her arm.

Question #026
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE26

The owner of a building leased it to a manufacturer for 10 years. Among the terms of the lease was a provision that prohibited anyone from assigning any rights under the lease without the express written consent of the owner. Three years later, the manufacturer, facing a contraction of its business, entered into an agreement with a retailer to assume the manufacturer's obligations under the lease for the remaining seven years. The manufacturer did not seek the approval of the owner to this agreement, but the owner was aware of it and accepted the retailer's payment of the rent. With five years remaining on the lease, the retailer entered into an agreement with a distributor for the distributor to lease the building for two years. The retailer sought the owner's permission for this transfer. The owner, because of personal animus toward the distributor, has refused to grant his permission.

Which of the following is an argument that is most likely to compel the owner to accept the distributor as the tenant of the building?

A. The lease provision does not require the owner's approval of the agreement between the retailer and the distributor.
B. The owner waived his rights to object under the lease by accepting the retailer as a tenant.
C. A non-assignment provision constitutes an unreasonable restraining on alienation.
D. The owner does not have a commercially reasonable objection to the distributor as a tenant in the building.

Question #027
Congress passes a law regulating the whole-sale and retail prices of "every purchase of an automobile in the United States." The strongest argument in support of the constitutionality of such a statute is that:

A. Taken as a whole, the domestic purchases and sales of such products affect interstate commerce.
B. The United States Constitution expressly authorizes Congress to pass laws for the general welfare.
C. Congress has the authority to regulate the prices of products purchased and sold because commerce includes buying and selling
D. Congress has the right to regulate interstate transportation and the importation of products from abroad.

Question #028
A woman brought suit in State A federal district court against the company she worked for, claiming that it had failed to promote her on account of her gender, in violation of a federal employment-discrimination statute. The woman is a citizen of State A; the company is a corporation incorporated in State B, with its headquarters in State C and with most of its employees working at the office in State A where the woman works. The relief sought by the suit consisted solely of $46,000 in back pay. Two months after the company timely filed its answer, and while discovery was still pending, the company made a motion to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Will the federal court grant the motion?

A. Yes, because the company is a citizen of several states, one of which is the same as the woman's state of citizenship.
B. Yes, because although there is diversity of citizenship, the amount in controversy requirement is not met.
C. No, because the woman's claim arises under federal law.
D. No, because the company waived its objection by failing to assert it either in its answer or in a motion made before it served its answer.

Question #029
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE29

The vaccination of children against childhood contagious diseases (such as measles, diphtheria, and whooping cough) has traditionally been a function of private doctors and local and state health departments. Because vaccination rates have declined in recent years, the President proposes to appoint a Presidential Advisory Commission on Vaccination which would be charged with conducting a national publicity campaign to encourage vaccination as a public health measure. No federal statute authorizes or prohibits this action by the president. The activities of the Commission would be financed entirely from funds appropriated by Congress to the Office of the President for "such other purposes as the President may think appropriate."

Is the creation of the Commission by the President a constitutional exercise of authority?

A. Yes, because the President has plenary authority to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the United States.
B. Yes, because this action is within the scope of executive authority vested in the President by the Constitution, and no federal statute prohibits it.
C. No, because the protection of children against common diseases by vaccination is a traditional state function, and therefore, is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
D. No, because Congress has not specifically authorized the creation and support of such a new federal agency.

Question #030
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE30

A Quick Mart was robbed and the cashier was shot. The next day, the police arrested a suspect and brought him into the police station for questioning. An officer read the suspect his Miranda rights, which he stated he understood. For two hours, a police officer questioned the suspect about his involvement in the robbery. The suspect did not respond to the questions, remaining silent. After learning the cashier died, the officer informed the suspect of the cashier's death, and told him that he should start talking if he wanted to get the best plea deal. The suspect then confessed to both the robbery and shooting. At trial, the suspect sought to suppress his confession.

Is the confession likely to be suppressed for violation of Miranda rights?

A. No, because the suspect waived his Miranda rights by making the statement.
B. No, because the suspect's statement was not made in response to a question from police.
C. Yes, because the suspect did not receive fresh Miranda warnings before he was told of the cashier's death.
D. Yes, because the suspect invoked his Miranda rights by remaining silent in the face of police questioning for over an hour.

Question #031
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE31

A landowner owned 200 acres of land in a rural district 50 miles outside of a major metropolitan area and airport. Due to a field of vision problem pilots experienced in the vicinity of the landowner's property, the county determined it was necessary to erect a 100-foot tall aviation light signal on the landowner's property. Pursuant to its authority under a state law regarding air travel, the county installed the aviation light on a corner of the landowner's property that he did not use. The landowner requested compensation for the installation but the county refused to pay him. The landowner subsequently sued the county.

Is the landowner constitutionally entitled to just compensation?

A. No, because the light signal was installed on an unused portion of the landowner's property.
B. No, because the county's action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
C. Yes, because the county installed a permanent structure on the landowner's property.
D. Yes, because the county's action adversely affected the landowner's property interest.

Question #032
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE32

A Senate committee conducted an investigation into alleged corruption in the Department of Transportation (DOT). After a thorough investigation, the committee concluded that three DOT agents had significant illegal interactions with organized crime members over the course of four years. Soon after, Congress, on the advice of the Senate committee, passed a statute that removed the agents from the DOT and barred them from any other federal employment. The three agents, whose employment permitted removal with or without cause, were named in the statute. The agents subsequently challenged the statute on the basis that it was unconstitutional.

Will the agents' challenge to the statute be successful?

A. No, because the agents could be removed with or without cause.
B. No, because the statute does not subject the agents to criminal or penal measures.
C. Yes, because the statute constitutes an ex post facto law.
D. Yes, because the statute constitutes a bill of attainder.

Question #033
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE33

Tim was a devoted soccer fan. His favorite team was playing in the finals of the World Cup, and he had incredible tickets. As he was leaving for the stadium, his wife called him from their home. She was lying on the bed, disoriented, and she had run out of insulin again. As a diabetic, she was in danger of slipping into a coma unless she received an injection of insulin within the next few hours. Unwilling to miss the match, Tim committed himself to stop by a pharmacy on his way back from the game and get insulin for his wife. Unfortunately, the match went into extra time and a penalty kick shootout, and traffic was heavy leaving the parking lot, so Tim found his wife had died when he returned six hours later.

Which of the following crimes, if any, has Tim committed?

A. Murder.
B. Voluntary manslaughter.
C. Involuntary manslaughter.
D. No form of criminal homicide.

Question #034
The famous podcast host and comedian, Thomas, was asked by talks how host Jimmy Fallon what type of soda he drank during an interview on The Tonight Show. Thomas responded with "I only drink Columbia Cola because it's the best refreshing soft drink."

A week later, Columbia Cola began an international ad campaign on social media. It featured a picture of Thomas holding a can of Columbia Cola in one hand and his quote form the show. Columbia Cola did not receive Thomas' permission to use his statement from the interview or his picture.

Will Thomas prevail in a lawsuit against Columbia Cola for using his statement and picture?

A. Yes, because Thomas has been defamed.
B. Yes, because Thomas' likeness was appropriated for a commercial purpose without his consent.
C. No, because the ad accurately reflects what Thomas said publicly before a large audience.
D. No, because Thomas' appearance on TV created an implied consent to reasonable use of anything he might say.

Question #035
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE35

After their divorce, Patty and Dan were engaged in a bitter custody battle over their five dogs. Patty is seeking to testify regarding statements made by Dan before the divorce in which he told her that he did not feel that he could properly care for the dogs himself. Dan objects, alleging that the statements are privileged as confidential communication made during the marriage.

Should the court admit the statements?

A. Yes, because the privilege does not apply.
B. Yes, because the privilege ends upon divorce.
C. No, because Patty has no motive to lie.
D. No, because the statements were confidential and made during the marriage.

Question #036
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE36

Tommy Tenant rented a house in a residential neighborhood owned by Larry Landlord. Before Tommy signed the monthly lease, he mentioned to Larry that the house's hot-water heater was broken and only pumping out cold water. As a first-year law student taking Property, Tommy knew that the local housing code required a landlord to provide residential tenants with hot water, for the tenant's health and safety. Larry responded by pointing to the lease provision that made Tommy responsible for repairs and providing his own hot water. Tommy signed the lease and moved into the house. After waiting a reasonable amount of time for Larry to fix the hot-water heater, Tommy started paying his monthly rent into an escrow account. Larry demanded that Tommy pay all rent directly to him. After Larry did not receive any rental payments for six months, he filed an action to evict Tommy from the house.

Will Larry succeed in his eviction action against Tommy?

A. No, because Larry has violated the implied warranty of habitability.
B. No, because Larry's actions constitute a constructive eviction.
C. Yes, because Tommy knowingly accepted the duty to repair the house.
D. Yes, because Tommy knowingly waived the implied warranty of habitability.

Question #037
OA Bar Prep with Heather! T3BE37

Homeowner Homer contracted with local builder Bob to build a set of six raised beds in his backyard as Homer was an avid gardener. The agreement called for half of the contract price of $5,000 to be paid to Bob before he began work and the other half to be paid to him when the job was finished. Bob began the work but, partway through the job, he got an offer for another job that paid much better, and he quit abruptly.

Homer sues builder Bob for specific performance. Will Homer prevail?

A. Yes, because there has been a novation.
B. Yes, because the contract between the parties was valid and Bob had no legal justification for abruptly quitting.
C. No, because by not paying Bob for the second half of the job, Homer has not satisfied all of his conditions under the contract.
D. No, because the contract is for personal services.

Question #038
Patty Plaintiff is a resident of the Western District of the State of Asgard. She sued Debby Defendant, a resident of the Eastern District of the State of Mordor, for personal injuries she suffered when Debby drunkenly hit her over the head at a pool party in the State of Isengard, which only has one judicial district.

In which judicial districts is venue proper?

A. The Western District of the State of Asgard only.
B. The Eastern District of the State of Mordor only.
C. The State of Isengard only.
D. Either the Eastern District of the State of Mordor or the State of Isengard.

Question #039
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE39

Dante was a clerk working at Quick Stop, a small convenience store in New Jersey, when Randall came up to the counter to buy a six-pack of beer. Dante thought Randall did not look old enough to purchase the beer, so he asked for his driver's license. Randall acted like he was going to grab his wallet as Dante turned around to grab a bag for the beer. When Dante's back was turned, Randall threw money on the counter, grabbed the beer, and ran out of the Quick Stop.
In New Jersey, it is a misdemeanor to sell alcohol to anyone under the age of 21.

If Dante is prosecuted for violating the law, what is his best defense?

A. Dante asked for Randall's driver's license.
B. Dante did not know that Randall was a minor.
C. Dante did not sell Randall the beer.
D. Dante was not the owner, but was only an hourly employee.

Question #040
OA Bar Pre With Heather! T3BE39

Paul Plaintiff sued Dale Defendant for breach of contract involving the sale of 50 handmade surfboards, alleging that Dale improperly rejected a shipment of surfboards. Dale defends the suit by introducing evidence that the shipment to his business was only of 15 surfboards, which he rejected. Paul introduced part of an email he sent to Dale the day after the contract was signed stating that there was a production problem which would slightly delay Paul's acquisition of all 50 surfboards. Dale then offers evidence that another part of the email reads, "There is no obligation to receive any surfboards unless they are delivered in one lot of 50 handmade surfboards."

If Paul objects to this evidence, how is the court likely to rule?

A. Dale failed to object to the email and waived any right to introduce any other part of it.
B. Dale is entitled to introduce evidence of any part of the transaction necessary to make it understood.
C. Dale's evidence is inadmissible hearsay.
D. Dale's evidence is inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.

Question #041
An environmentalist decided to take up composting since the city she lived in had not yet adopted composting as part of its waste programs. The compost pile emitted very foul smells which could be smelled throughout the environmentalist's neighborhood by all of her neighbors. Before the environmentalist began composting, the neighbors used to hold pool parties, BBQs, and movie nights regularly outside. However, the horrible stench from the compost pile made it terribly unpleasant for the neighbors in the neighborhood to hold their events any longer. One of the neighbors who could no longer hold his weekly family movie nights due to the foul smell brought an action against the environmentalist for private nuisance.

Is the neighbor likely to succeed in his action?

A. No, because the neighbor has not suffered a harm different than that suffered by other neighbors.
B. No, because the environmentalist's compost pile is not interfering with a profitable use of the neighbor's land.
C. Yes, because the environmentalist's compost pile substantially and unreasonably interferes with the neighbor's use and enjoyment of his land.
D. Yes, because the neighbor's use of the property predates the environmentalist's interference.

Question #042
OA Bar Prep With Heather! T3BE42

Dasha Defendant was charged with two separate crimes related to her drunken driving debauchery in Fort Mason in San Francisco, which is a national park. Each of the crimes was punishable by a maximum of six months imprisonment and a $4,500 fine. Dasha requested a jury trial, but her request was denied. Dasha proceeded to a trial before a judge in federal district court in San Francisco, and was subsequently convicted of both charges. The judge sentenced Dasha to four months of imprisonment for each charge, to be served consecutively, as well as a fine of $4,500 for each charge. Dasha appealed her conviction, arguing that she was entitled to a jury trial.

Will the appeals court overturn Dasha's conviction?

A. No, because the maximum sentence for each offense was six months.
B. No, because Dasha's actual sentence for each offense was less than six months.
C. Yes, because the sizeable fine makes each crime a serious offense.
D. Yes, because the combined maximum sentence for the offenses was 8 months.

Question #043
Are Hot Firefighters a Protected Class?

The City council of Oceania passed an ordinance prohibiting all first responders, like firefighters and paramedics, from working a second job. The council stated that the purpose was to have its first responders available in the face of an emergency such as a wildfire, earthquake, pandemic or other similar reason. Members of Oceania's city council and other city employees did not have this same restriction prohibiting secondary employment. A beloved and long-time firefighter in Oceania, Mike, was upset because the ordinance meant that he would have to give up his well-paying second job as a calendar model. The calendar company sells many calendars, donates money to lots of local organizations in Oceania, and complies with all city ordinances. Mike the firefighter challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Is Mike likely to prevail?

A. Yes, because the ordinance is not the least restrictive means of achieving Oceania's legitimate interest.
B. Yes, because the ordinance unreasonably discriminates against firefighters.
C. No, because the ordinance is rationally related to Oceania's legitimate interest in health and public safety.
D. No, because Mike is an at-will employee of the calendar company and does not have a property interest in his second job.

Question #044
T3BE44: Parental Promised Pizza Payment Predicament

Scotty, Donald's adult son, called Benzino's Pizza to place an order for delivery that evening because Scotty was craving pizza. Typically, the restaurant requires customers to pay using a credit card when they place orders over the phone. However, Donald was a regular at the restaurant and yelled from the couch when Scotty placed the order: "If Scotty doesn't pay, don't worry-I have got it covered!" About 30 minutes later, a delivery driver arrived at Donald's house and delivered the order of delicious, hot, anchovy pizza. Scotty answered the door and refused to accept the food or pay for it as he changed his mind and decided to order Chinese food instead.

Can Benzino's Pizza collect what they are owed from Donald?

A. No, because a third party will not be held liable for the contract obligations of another.
B. No, because Donald's promise was made orally.
C. Yes, because a parent is liable to pay for necessities provided to their child.
D. Yes, because Donald promised to pay.

Question #045
The Case of the Uneasy Easement - T3BE45

Thirty years ago, Orion owned a vast estate with many acres of rolling green hills, and gave an amusement park company an easement to build and operate, as well as maintain a go-kart track on his estate. The written easement was promptly and properly recorded, but the track was never laid. Fifteen years ago, Orion sold the land to Betty, a botanist. The deed of sale did not mention the easement. Recently, the amusement park company contacted Betty to let her know that it planned to install the go-kart track on its easement. There would be double the amount of go-karts than when easement was granted by the original owner, Orion. The amusement park company, which had since purchased an alternative energy company, also wanted to install several wind turbines on the same land covered by the easement. Betty has refused to allow the amusement park company to install the go-kart track and the wind turbines.

Can the amusement park company install the go-kart track and the wind turbines?

A. No as to both the go-kart track and the wind turbines.
B. No as to the go-kart track, but yes as to the wind turbines.
C. Yeas as to the go-kart track, but no as to the wind turbines.
D. Yes as to both the go-kart track and the wind turbines.

Question #046
Taking Jurisdiction Personally - T3BE 46

Don was married to Patty where they lived together in California for over a decade. Don grew tired of his marriage and moved to Florida where he filed for divorce, but did not serve process on Patty. Patty did not have any contacts with the state of Florida as she had never set foot there a day in her life.

During this divorce debacle, Patty's mother received a letter from *Big Envelope Winnings* that led her to believe she won a beautiful beachfront home in Florida and was required to travel there to claim it. Patty and her mom flew to Florida together despite Patty's belief that there was no home awaiting her mother on the shores of Florida's warm waters.

After landing in Florida, Patty's mom quickly learned that she had not won anything at all and *Big Envelope Winnings* was later shut down for sending letters fraudulently enticing people to come to Florida. However, while in Florida, Patty was served by her husband Don with a summons related to the Florida divorce proceedings.

If Patty argues that she is not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida, will she prevail?

A. Yes, because her presence in Florida was procured by fraud.
B. Yes, because she did not have minimum contacts with Florida.
C. No, because Patty consented to personal jurisdiction in Florida.
D. No, because Patty was served while physically present in Florida.

Question #047
OA 1086: Trump's Staff Infection

Gabriella was admitted to the hospital with severe pain in the lower right side of her stomach. Her physician, Dr. Jekyll, ran tests that showed Gabriella had appendicitis that required an immediate appendectomy; the woman's appendix would need to be surgically removed. Dr. Jekyll informed Gabriella of the need for surgery and started explaining that the risks included an infection at the site of the incision. Before Dr. Jekyll could explain the additional risks associated with the surgery, Gabriella stopped him and said, "Please don't tell me anything else! I know I need the surgery regardless of the risks!" Immediately after, Dr. Jekyll performed the operation. Due to an unforeseen complication, Gabriella died during the operation. her estate sued Dr. Jekyll for failing to inform her about the risks of the appendectomy. Dr. Jekyll's defense was that Gabriella had provided informed consent for the surgery.

Will Gabriella's estate prevail in its action against Dr. Jekyll?

A. Yes, because Gabriella did not give informed consent for the appendectomy.
B. Yes, because Dr. Jekyll was bound to inform Gabriella of all the potential risks of the appendectomy.
C. No, because Gabriella consented to the surgery after refusing to hear about the risks.
D. No, because Dr. Jekyll was only required to inform Gabriella of the commonly known risks of the appendectomy.

Question #048
OA 1089: All the President's... Defense Attorneys

A man owned a house worth $150,000 that had a mortgage on it with $120,000 still owed to the mortgagee. The man used the house for rental purposes to make some money. The tenant in the house had lived there for many years. One day, the tenant announced that she was getting married and was leaving the house and terminating the lease. The man wished her well and listed the house for sale for $150,000. However, he did not receive any offers. Real estate prices began to fall rapidly, and it was not long before the man could not make the mortgage payments on the house. The mortgagee foreclosed on the house, receiving only $50,000 at the property conducted foreclosure sale.

What does the man owe to the mortgagee?

A. The man owes nothing to the mortgagee.
B. The man owes $70,000 to the mortgagee.
C. The man owes $120,000 to the mortgagee.
D. The man owes $150,000 to the mortgagee.

Question #049
"The Right Way" Part 2

As Chris walked down the street, he noticed a 1970 Dodge Charger was unlocked and the engine was running. A security guard, Vince, owned the car and parked it in front of his house while he ran in and grabbed the gun that he was licensed to carry. At the same time Vince came out of his front door with the gun, Chris opened the driver's side door to the car. Vince warned Chris not to get in the car or else he'd shoot. Chris ignored the warning. Vince shot and seriously injured Chris. Vince was charged with aggravated battery, which includes battery committed with a deadly weapon.

Can Vince successfully assert defense of property to justify the shooting?

A. No, because Vince was negligent in leaving the car running.
B. No, because Vince used deadly force.
C. Yes, because Vince warned Chris before using force against him.
D. Yes, because Vince reasonably believed that Chris was going to steal the car.

Question #050
Trump's Intelligence Picks - Doozies and Russian Assets

After the recent rainstorms, Thomas watched unhappily as the gutters on his house broke loose and toppled to the ground. As Thomas moved the broken pieces to the curb, his neighbor Matthew saw what happened and offered to put them back together and reinstall them for $1,500. Thomas said he wanted to consult with his wife, Lydia, first. After talking with Lydia, he waited until Matthew walked by again a month later and said, "I would gladly accept your kind offer to put my gutters back together and reinstall them. When can you begin?" Matthew replied, "I'm busy! You should call a professional."

Has a contract been formed between Thomas and Matthew?

A. No, because the offer had lapsed.
B. No, because Matthew is not a merchant.
C. Yes, because Matthew did not state a time period for accepting the offer.
D. Yes, because consulting with Lydia was not a rejection.

Question #051
There’s Something Deeply Wrong With Stephen Miller (And There Always Has Been)

The state of Hawaii enacted a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to anyone under the age of eighteen and imposed a fine for each violation. The legislative history showed a concern that there was a correlation between playing violent video games and subsequent violent behavior in minors. Blood Rage, a maker of video games, brought suit arguing that the law violated its First Amendment right of free speech.

Is Hawaii's law unconstitutional?

A. Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction.
B. Yes, because the costs of such a restriction on speech outweigh its benefits.
C. No, because states have the power to protect children from harm.
D. No, because video games do not qualify for First Amendment protection.

Question #052
Pete Hegseth Is Finally Going to Make the US Military Less Woke

Police officer Paul had probable cause to believe that defendant Delilah was involved in the sale of illegal drugs. Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant and went to Delilah's home to execute it. The officer decided to go to Delilah's home right when he thought she would return from work so he could search the house before Delilah had a chance to hide the drugs. When Paul arrived at the defendant's home, the door was ajar, but nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Paul slowly opened the door and entered the home. The officer walked toward the back of the house and when he heard Delilah in a bedroom, he pushed open the door, loudly told her to freeze, and arrested her.

Did the officer properly execute the arrest warrant?

A. No, because Paul had no consent to enter Delilah's home.
B. No, because Paul failed to "knock and announce" his presence before entering Delilah's house.
C. Yes, because Paul obtained a valid arrest warrant, which gives Paul the right to arrest Delilah in her home.
D. Yes, because Paul went to Delilah's home when he had a reasonable belief that Delilah would be there.

Question #053
A Law for Christmas, and a Happy New Year

Jenny sued Dan for the broken leg she sustained when Dan's truck hit her while she was crossing the street. Jenny testified that she was walking across the street in the crosswalk with the green light when she was hit. Dan argues that Jenny was crossing against the red light and that he was unable to stop his truck in time to prevent the accident. To support her assertion, Jenny called the owner of a cafe on the corner where the accident occurred who testified that, "I saw Jenny cross the street for five years and she has never walked against the red light."

The cafe owner's testimony should be:

A. Excluded, unless the ownter actually saw Jenny crossing the street on the day of the accident.
B. Excluded, because evidence of specific instances of conduct is not admissible to prove conduct in conformity with character on a particular occasion.
C. Admitted, because it is relevant as to whether Jenny crossed against the red light on this occasion.
D. Admitted, to show that Jenny had a reputation for acting safely.

Question #054
The Hysterical Victimhood Complex of John Eastman

Vinny, a local veterinarian, regularly rescued a variety of injured animals that he found in his neighborhood. He would keep the injured animals in his backyard sanctuary, where they were safe from harm and unable to escape while they recovered. Once they were fully healed, Vinny would release them back into the wild. One day, Vinny found an injured skunk rummaging around the trash bins while he was walking on a local hiking trail. He brought the skunk to his sanctuary where he nursed it back to health, then released it onto the hiking trail where he originally found it. The following week, the skunk bit a child who was playing in front of Vinny’s house, while the skunk was wandering around the neighborhood. The child’s parents sued Vinny. Is Vinny strictly liable for the skunk bite?

A. Yes, because Vinny released the skunk onto the hiking trail.
B. Yes, because Vinny nursed the skunk back to health.
C. No, because Vinny did not possess the skunk when it bit the child.
D. No, because Vinny never purchased the skunk as a pet.

Question #055
Professor Paula sued developer David in federal court in California under diversity jurisdiction to void a contract due to mistake. The agreement was for David to create an app that would revolutionize grading by making it faster and easier for Paula. David agreed to build the groundbreaking grading app in one year for $150,000. A few months into the project, David realized it would take two years and $300,000 to create the program for Paula, which was more money than her teacher's salary could afford. In the complaint, Paula alleged that David's promise to finish the app for a specific dollar amount "induced plaintiff to mistakenly enter into the contract with defendant for him to build a grading app" and is suing him to cancel the contract. David has timely moved for a more definite statement of the claim.

Should the federal district court grant David's motion for a more definite statement?

A. Yes, because the circumstances constituting mistake must be pled with particularity.
B. Yes, because a complaint must show that there is a possibility that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.
C. No, because the complaint provides the defendant with notice of the claim.
D. No, because the complaint contains a short and plain statement of the claim.

Question #056
Key Figure Behind Project 2025 Lies His Way Through Confirmation

A private plane crashed near the Washington Monument and Congress enacted a law prohibiting private planes from flying over Washington, D.C. An organization representing private plane pilots, the Private Plane Pilots Association of America, sued in federal court seeking to invalidate the law.

Which of the following is the strongest constitutional argument in favor of enacting such a law?

A. The General Welfare Clause.
B. Congress' police power over the District of Columbia.
C. The Supremacy Clause.
D. The Free Exercise Clause.

Question #057
The Pro-vaccine Republican Doctor Who Just Gave His Vote to RFK, Jr.

Sally was shopping at her local flea market on Sunday morning when she noticed a set of beautiful, hand-carved book ends. As an avid book collector, Sally was delighted to find such lovely and unique items to display in her home. She turned to the person next to her and asked how much the book ends cost. The person said, "$350." Sally paid the person the money, took the book ends, and happily displayed them in her home library. The person Sally spoke with was not the owner of the book ends but a bystander who left with the $350.

What crime at common law has the bystander committed regarding the $350?

A. No crime.
B. Robbery.
C. Extortion.
D. Obtaining property by false pretenses.

Question #058
DoJ Memo Written In Crayon On Olive Garden Kids Menu Directs SDNY to Drop Eric Adams Case

Carly owns a fleet of trucks for her cake delivery business. She has been advertising a rebrand for several weeks in her store and on social media to generate excitement and more business. Carly hired Paul to repaint the fleet of trucks with the new logo. Paul agreed to paint the trucks for $5,000 and finish the work within 45 days. Paul and Carly signed a contract stating these terms. After signing the agreement, Carly reviewed her calendar and realized that she has been advertising the release of the redesign in 30 days, not 45. Carly immediately calls Paul and asks if he can complete the day within the 30 day timeframe and he agrees, but only if Carly pays an additional $2,500. Carly is hesitant, but agrees to pay $7,500 in total. Paul paints the entire fleet of trucks with the new logo in the 30 day timeframe. However, Carly only pays Paul the $5,000 and refuses to pay the additional $2,500. Paul files suit against Carly to recover the additional $2,500.

Who will prevail in this lawsuit?

A. Paul, because Carly had a pre-existing duty to perform.
B. Paul, because he made a new promise to Carly in exchange for more money.
C. Carly, because Paul had a pre-existing duty to paint the trucks.
D. Carly, because Paul exerted undue influence over her regarding the additional $2,500.

Question #059
The Thursday Night Massacre, Part 2

Ben and Sabrina were living in different states when they entered into a valid agreement stating that Ben would buy and Sabrina would sell a painting. The contract claimed that the painting was an original by Georgia O'Keefe reportedly worth $3 million, and Ben agreed to pay that amount. In a separate valid contract, Ben agreed to purchase a beachfront home in California from Sabrina worth $10 million. The purchase of the painting was completed on July 1.

Before Ben brought the home, he resold the painting but only received $500 because it turned out to be a forgery. Ben promptly told Sabrina of his intent to sue her for $3 million in damages. Sabrina then informed him that she would not move forward with the sale of the home.

Ben filed suit against Sabrina in federal court in California. Ben claimed fraud as to the painting and sought $3 million in damages. Ben also claimed breach of contract as to the home, and sought specific performance. He demanded a jury trial on all issues.

Is Ben entitled to a jury trial?

A. Yes, as to both the fraud claim and the breach of contract claim.
B. Yes as to the fraud claim, but no as to the breach of contract claim.
C. No as to the fraud claim, but yes as to the breach of contract claim.
D. No, as to both the fraud claim and the breach of contract claim.

Question #060
‘Run for Something’ Is Stronger Than Ever. We’re Going to Need It.

Wendy owned a 50-acre farm. For many years, she grew corn on a 20-acre parcel located in the southwestern portion of the property. In May, Wendy planted her annual crop of corn, which she usually harvested in September. In August, Wendy sold her farm to a corn grower, Gerry, for $500,000. At the time Wendy sold her farm, the crop of corn was mature and growing well. When Wendy and Gerry entered into the sale of the farm, there was no mention of the corn crop.

In late September, after Gerry took possession of the farm, Wendy contacted him and asked permission to harvest the crop of corn. Gerry refused to allow Wendy to re-enter the property and pic the corn.

Wendy brings suit against Gerry seeking to re-enter the farm and remove the crop of corn that she planted.

Which of the following is correct regarding the respective rights of the parties?

A. Wendy is not entitled to remove the corn crop, and thus is not entitled to re-enter the farm.
B. Wendy and Gerry each have title to the corn crop, and consequently there should be an equitable division of the proceeds from the sale of the crop between both parties
C. Wendy is entitled to remove the corn crop, but she must pay Gerry a fee to enter the farm, thus gaining access to the corn
D. Wendy is entitle to remove the corn crop and is not required to pay Gerry for entering the farm, thus gaining access to the crop.

Question #061
As Trump Drones On, Democrats Resistance Takes Different Forms

Oscar owns an axe throwing pub, Hops and Hatchets. His friend Dawn warned him that leaving the axes laying around without proper safety protocols for putting them away, was a recipe for disaster. One day, Dawn dropped by Hops and Hatchets to check in on Oscar and noticed several axes strewn about. She decided to teach Oscar a lesson since he refused to take her warning seriously. Dawn took an axe that had been left out and swung it around like she was going to strike Oscar, who was standing at the bar with his back turned. Dawn said, "if you move an inch, you're toast!" Oscar heard the swing of the axe, and was terrified of being almost hit with it, but suffered no physical or other harm.

If Oscar sues Dawn, what is the most likely result?

A. Oscar will not recover because he suffered no physical harm.
B. Oscar will not recover because Dawn was joking.
C. Oscar will recover because Dawn was negligent.
D. Oscar will recover because he was afraid Dawn would hit him with the axe.

Question #062
The SAVE Act Could Disenfranchise Millions of Voters. Democrats Must Stop It.

Which of the following questions is most likely to be disallowed in response to an objection that it is leading?

A. On direct examination of the victim, a six-year old girl, the prosecutor asks: "Did the defendant hit you there?"
B. On direct examination of an eyewitness to an accident, plaintiff's counsel asks: "Was the light red when defendant sped through the intersection?"
C. On direct examination, counsel asks her own client: "You live at 221B Baker Street, correct?"
D. On cross-examination of an expert witness, counsel asks: "Isn't it true that psychiatrists routinely prescribe medication for people suffering with depression?"

Question #063
Magical Mister Trumpstoffelees

Allison was a defendant charged with arson and she pleaded not guilty. Immediately before trial began, she fired her defense attorney and decided to represent herself. During opening arguments, Allison got up and galloped liek a horse, as well as neighing at the other people in the court room.

If no one else raises the issue of Allison's competency to stand trial, what is the responsibility of the trial judge?

A. The trial judge must raise the issue of competency because Allison is representing herself.
B. The trial judge must raise the issue of competency because the Constitution obligates the judge to do so.
C. The trial judge has no responsibility because Allison decided to defend herself.
D. The trial judge has no responsibility because he cannot decide whether Allison is competent to stand trial.

Question #064
State Bar of California Fails the Bar Exam

In 2023, Prue was shopping at Grocery Goods when a large display of fruit fell on her, crushing her under the weight of many, various fruits. The incident caused injuries all over Prue's body. She filed suit in federal district court against Grocery Goods for negligently maintaining the display and sought damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. Grocery Goods stipulated that jurisdiction and venue were proper, and filed an answer denying all liability.

After the parties held their discovery conference, Prue filed a set of 27 interrogatories upon Grocery Goods. The company objected to the interrogatories.

Is Grocery Goods under a duty to respond to all 27 interrogatories?

A. No, because Prue exceeded the limit of interrogatories allowed under the rules.
B. No, because only defendants may serve interrogatories.
C. Yes, because the company agreed to answering all the interrogatories.
D. Yes, because Prue has not exceeded the limit of interrogatories allowed under the rules.

Question #065
The HSS Massacre

Emmy, a licensed esthetician, owned a waxing center, Hair Free Carefree, in the city of Bayside, California. Emmy employed only women and catered only to female customers. Bayside had an ordinance that made it unlawful for any person to operate a female waxing center if the employees were female. Emmy the esthetician sued in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the Bayside  ordinance.

If the city of Bayside moves to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that Emmy lacks standing, will the city win?

A. No, because the ordinance prevents the employees from exercising their free speech rights under the 1st Amendment.
B. No, because the employees and Emmy have rights that are harmed by the ordinance.
C. Yes, because only the employees can raise their 1st Amendment rights of association.
D. Yes, because the ordinance does not prohibit the operation of waxing centers per se, but only the right of the female employees to service female customers.

Question #066
T3BE66: Drowning in Camera Repair Debt

A father was walking in Golden Gate Park with his young daughter, when they passed by Blue Heron Lake. The daughter walked close to the edge of the lake, as she wanted to feed the herons that inhabited the Lake. The daughter got too close, fell in, and begun to drown because she could not swim. The father yelled for help because he did not know how to swim, either. A nature photographer was standing nearby and had been photographing the beautiful scenery at the park when he heard the father's screams for help. The photographer dropped his expensive, professional camera to jump in the lake and save the daughter. The camera was destroyed beyond repair. When the father met the photographer at the edge of the lake, the father thanked him profusely and promised to pay the photographer to replace the camera in a few weeks. Two weeks later, when the photographer asked for the money to purchase a new camera, the father had a change of heart and refused to pay.

Can the photographer recover the cost of the camera from the father, under the common law?

A. No, because the daughter, and not the father, received a material benefit from the photographer.
B. No, because the father's promise to pay for the camera is not supported by consideration.
C. Yes, because the photographer suffered a detriment when he dropped his camera to save the daughter.
D. Yes, because the photographer can recover through specific performance.

Question #067
T3BE67: To Larse or to Burgle?

Marsha decided she needed more spice in her life and purchased a brand new, fast, red motorcycle. She parked it in the garage attached to her house for safekeeping. Unfortunately, her flashy new two-wheeler caught the attention of one of her neighbors, Dillon.

Dillon loved motorcycles, but fell on hard times and did not have enough money to purchase one for himself. He was an engineer and adept at creating gadgets from things around his workshop. After seeing Marsha's new motorcycle, he created an automatic garage door opener that could open any automatic garage door. One night, he used the device to open Marsha's garage door, hotwire the motorcycle, and take it for a joyride. Dillon intended only to drive around town, show off to his friends, and enjoy the wind in his hair for a few hours before returning the motorcycle to Marsha's garage without her knowing.

However, while Dillon was out cruising around, he detoured to his friend's party at the beach. After parking Marsha's motorcycle atop the cliffs overlooking the ocean, he felt a rush of anger at the unfairness of the world, pushed the motorcycle off the cliff, and watched it fall and crash into the water below.

Under the common law, what crime or crimes is Dillon guilty of?

A. No crime.
B. Burglary.
C. Larceny.
D. Both Burglary and Larceny.

Question #068
Passing the Joint Tenancy

Wendy and Hubert bought a beautiful piece of land nestled among the hills with a lovely home situated on it, taking title as joint tenants. A few years later, they married and had a child, Kelly. Several years after that, Wendy and Hubert divorced. Wendy and Kelly continued to live on the land after the divorce, although titled remained in the names of both Hubert and Wendy. Hubert moved out of state, conveying all of his title and interest in the land by deed to Kelly. Shortly after, Hubert was killed one evening when a motorcycle fell on him while he was tidepooling by the ocean. Hubert died without a will.

Who has title to the land?

A. Wendy.
B. Wendy owns one-half and Hubert's lawyer owns one-half as tenants by the entirety.
C. Wendy and Kelly as joint tenants.
D. Wendy and Kelly as tenants in common.

Question #069
Getting Our Dramshop Act Together

Patty was walking in a crosswalk near her home while she was hit and seriously injured by a truck driven by drunk driver, Dillon. He had just left his local bar, Thomas' Tavern, after being served many drinks by the bartender, Billie.

Patty sued Billie in a jurisdiction that does not have a dramshop act.

Is Billie vicariously liable for Patty's injuries?

A. Yes, because Dillon caused Patty to suffer personal injuries.
B. Yes, because there is no dramshop act in the jursidction to limit liability.
C. No, because there is no dramshop act in the jurisdiction to impose liability.
D. No, because Dillon acted recklessly by driving while drunk.

Question #070
Can a Priest Rat You Out?

A seller of office chairs, Martha Sitz sued the manufacturer of the chairs, Comfort 4U, for breach of contract, alleging that the chairs failed to conform to contract specifications. Not long before trial began, Martha suffered a serious head injury that left her unable to move or communicate. A guardian was properly substituted as the plaintiff in the lawsuit.

At trial, after the presentation of Martha's case, Comfort 4U calls as a witness, Alberto who is a priest, to question him about a conversation he had with Martha at a church fundraiser. In this conversation, Martha told Alberto in confidence that the chairs she received were fully functional, but that she learned one of Comfort 4U's competitors offered a lower price, and wanted to get out of her contract with the company. Martha's attorney immediately objects on the basis of clergy-penitent privilege.

How should the court rule on the objection?

A. Overruled, because the privilege can be invoked only by the person who made the confidential statement.
B. Overruled, because the circumstances under which Martha made the statement take it outside the scope of the privilege.
C. Sustained, because Martha's statement was made to Alberto in confidence.
D. Sustained, because this is not a criminal case.

Question #071
You're a...... CROOK Captain Hook

On a dark and stormy night, a tanker sailing on the Ohio River ran into a large underwater pipe. The pipe burst and sent millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the water. Louisville sued the ship in federal court, claiming severe damage to its historic riverfront.

Does the federal court have jurisdiction over the matter?

A. Yes, because the case has a maritime nexus.
B. Yes, because the case involves interstate commerce.
C. No, because Louisville is claiming damage to its riverbank.
D. No, because the accident did not occur at sea.

Question #072
Adverse Possession is 9/10ths of the Law

Lily owned a large piece of land next to her neighbor, Nancy. There was never a clearly marked boundary line between the two properties. Thirty years ago, Lily decided to plant a beautiful flower garden on part of the land she believed belonged to her. In actuality, the land belonged to Nancy. Since the time Lily initially planted the garden, she continued to take care of it by tending to the garden on a weekly basis.

Five years ago, Nancy was convicted and imprisoned for insider trading. She recently died and her executor filed suit ot eject Lily and quiet title. The statute of limitations for adverse possession in the jurisdiction is 21 years.

Which of the following is the best answer regarding Lily's claim to the land where she planted her flower garden?

A. Lily cannot claim title by adverse possession because planting a flower garden is not sufficient for actual use.
B. Lily cannot acquire title to the land because Nancy was imprisoned.
C. Lily cannot acquire title because she has committed ameliorative waste.
D. Lily acquired title by adverse possession.

Question #073
The Part of Collections Collector

A retro video game collector, Peach, wrote a letter to her stepsister Daisy, offering to sell her collection of sports games for $5,000 because she knew Daisy had admired it for quite some time as Daisy loved professional wrestling and football games from popular franchises. The day after Daisy received the letter, she mailed a letter back to Peach agreeing to buy part of Peach's collection for $5,000. The next day, after describing the collection to a friend who was very knowledgeable about retro games and collection, Daisy learned that the collection was not worth more than $600 because it was comprised of all the games Peach was trying to offload from her extensive collection. Daisy immediately called Peach and told her she was no longer interested in buying the game collection. Peach received Daisy's letter agreeing to purchase the collection a day after receiving the phone call.

If Peach brings an action against Daisy for breach of contract, and Daisy defends on the grounds that no contract was formed, how should the court rule?

A. For Peach, because the contract is for the sale of goods valued over $500 and Daisy's rejection of the offer was oral.
B. For Peach, because Daisy's letter accepting the offer was effective when mailed.
C. For Daisy, because Peach received the phone call before she received the letter.
D. For Daisy, because the description of the subject matter of the contract was too indefinite to be enforced.

Question #074
I Like My Bar Exam Questions Like I Like My Coffee

A group of people that hijacked a truck full of bees was arrested and indicted by a grand jury. During the grand jury's investigation, the district attorney's office subpoenaed the truck driver, Tom, as a witness. He was relieved that he was not asked questions about a series of thefts of shipments of bee boxes that he was involved in, but he worries the subject might be brought up a trial by the defense attorneys. Tom is afraid that he will be fired from his job if he invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand, so he wants to avoid testifying at all at the trial, even if he is subpoenaed by the defense.

As Tom's lawyer, what advice would you give him about complying with a subpoena?

A. Tom can avoid testifying, because the potential that he will incriminate himself is greater than the interest the defense has in calling him as a witness.
B. Tom can avoid testifying, because he is not a party to the action.
C. Tom cannot avoid testifying, because he can plead the Fifth Amendment on the stand.
D. Tom cannot avoid testifying, because he must answer all questions truthfully, even if his answers will incriminate him, because he is not on trial.

Question #075
Can I Interest You in a Lettuce Farm?

Joe was a farmer who grew lettuce on his farm. He conveyed 50 acres of his property, "to my sister, her heirs and assigns, so long as the premises are used for agricultural purposes".

What is Joe's interest in the 50 acres as a result of the conveyance?

A. Nothing.
B. A fee simple subject to condition subsequent.
C. A possibility of reverter.
D. A right of entry.

Question #076
Accidental Evidence

A driver and a passenger were involved in a car accident. Shortly thereafter, the passenger wrote a summary of the events surrounding the accident in a journal entry. At trial three years later, the passenger is on the stand and unable to accurately recall the details of the accident, even after reviewing his written summary about the accident from his journal.

Assuming a proper foundation is laid, may the summary of the accident be read into evidence? 

A. Yes, because it refreshes the passenger's recollection. 
B. Yes, because the passenger's memory of the actual event is insufficient.
C. Yes, even though it is hearsay because of the out-of-court declarant is on the stand and is capable of being cross-examined.
D. No, because the best evidence is the writing itself.

Question #077
If a Chandelier Falls and You Aren't There to See It, Did the Liability Even Happen?

Winnie was on her way to meet her husband Herb for lunch at the restaurant adjacent to the bookstore where he worked. Winnie had just entered the building, which was owned and operated by the bookstore, when she heard the sound of breaking glass and screams. A big chandelier that was hanging in the restaurant fell into the waiting area. Winnie saw several injured people in the waiting area, including her husband, who was lying in the wreckage of the chandelier. When she saw her husband, Winnie fainted and hit her foot on an umbrella stand, breaking the bones in her foot. The chandelier fell because the fastener that the bookstore used to secure it to the ceiling was loose.

If Winnie sues the bookstore for her injury, is she likely to prevail?

A. Yes, because her husband was one of the people she saw lying in the wreckage.
B. Yes, because the bookstore used the fastener for the chandelier.
C. No, because she was not personally in the zone of danger of physical injury.
D. No, because she did not actually see the chandelier collapse onto the diners.

Question #078
Following the Interpleader

Elsa was a single woman with a life insurance policy that pays her designated beneficiary $74,000 upon her death. She tragically died in a boating accident. Her ex-boyfriend Anthony was a resident of Arkansas and named as beneficiary. But her mother Mary, a resident of California, also filed a claim for the life insurance proceeds. The insurance company, A Delaware Corporation, having its principal place of business in California, filed an interpleader action in federal court to protect itself from potentially inconsistent and multiple claims. May the insurance company bring the interpleader action in federal court.

A. No because there is no federal court where the insurance company will be able to establish personal jurisdiction over both claimants.
B. No because the insurance company is not diverse from one of the claimants.
C. No because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and there is no diversity between the insurance company and one of the claimants.
D. Yes because the amount in controversy is $500 or more and both claimants are diverse from one another.