An act of Congress provides for the payment of Social Security benefits to the disabled children of deceased workers. The benefits are payable even after the child reaches the age of majority, but terminate automatically if the recipient marries, unless the recipient marries a person who is also disabled, in which case the Social Security payments continue.Payton has been disabled since birth, and her father died when she was 14 years of age. She has received Social Security benefits since her father’s death. However, at age 25, Payton married. Her husband is not disabled, and thus her Social Security benefits were summarily terminated. She files suit in federal district court, seeking to compel the government to restore her benefits. Payton asserts, among other things, that there is no logical reason why she should be deprived of benefits when unmarried disabled persons and disabled persons who marry other disabled persons continue to receive them.Which of the following provides the strongest constitutional basis for Payton’s suit?

Lucas owned an apartment building. Needing money to make some repairs and improvements, he went to Brilliant Bank and applied for a loan. Brilliant Bank loaned Lucas $100,000, secured by a mortgage on the apartment building. Last month, Lucas defaulted on his mortgage payments. Brilliant Bank instituted foreclosure proceedings and wishes to take possession of the apartment building in order to collect the rents from the property.Does Brilliant Bank have the right to take possession of the apartment building before foreclosure?

Brandon entered into a private sale with Seth to purchase his home for $300,000. The date for closing was not expressly stated in the written agreement, but Brandon knew Seth had taken a new job in another state, which was scheduled to begin three months from the date of the sales contract. After the sales contract was drafted, both parties reviewed the specific terms. Seth then handed the contract back to Brandon without signing it. Brandon did sign the document, then he set it aside. For the next ten weeks, Seth did not hear from Brandon. Seth attempted unsuccessfully to reach Brandon by phone on several occasions.The following week, Seth was approached by a third party who offered to pay him $350,000 for the house. Seth accepted the offer and sold the house.Brandon called Seth two days later, saying he was ready to deliver a cashier’s check for $300,000 and close the sale. When Seth informed him that the house had already been sold, Brandon brought suit against Seth for breach of contract.Will Brandon prevail in this action?

FREE

Patrick (P) lives in Tustin, CA and has decided to purchase a motorcycle from David (D).  After talking on the phone, they agree to a purchase price of $10,000.  Since Patrick has never driven a motorcycle, David agrees to provide Patrick with 2 lessons as part of the contract.  Patrick asks David to “test drive” the motorcycle before taking possession or providing payment.  During the test drive, Patrick notices a steady stream of oil leaking from the motorcycle.  Patrick tells David he will not pay him until this is fixed.  Patrick gets so excited about the purchase, he goes to a store and buys a new helmet, an expensive jacket, and new leather boots to wear while riding it.  He believes the motorcycle will be perfect once it is fixed. The next day, David receives an offer for his motorcycle from another buyer for $15,000 as is.  David accepts this offer and delivers the motorcycle to the second buyer. Questions: Is there a legally enforceable contract between Patrick and David? Which law applies? Are there any defenses available to David? What, if any remedies are available?

In May 1995, Mario purchased a two-story building used for a take-out only pizza shop on the first floor and three apartment units on the second floor. These uses were permitted under city’s original zoning ordinance and map, enacted in 1929, but not under the zoning changes enacted in 1989. On June 5, 1995, approximately one month after Mario purchased the subject property, Mario applied for and was issued a certificate of occupancy by the city building inspector, approving the use of the premises as a pizza shop and three apartment units.Starting on December 31, 1995, Mario made numerous improvements to the pizza shop including installation of new kitchen equipment, appliances, lighting fixtures, counterspace, and eat-in seating. Mario spent more than $85,000 for these building improvements.On May 15, 1996, the city building inspector inspected the premises, and shortly thereafter, the city revoked Mario’s certificate of occupancy. Mario appealed the revocation of the certificate of occupancy to the zoning board of adjustment, and the board held a hearing on June 21, 1996.Mario sought judgment against the city compelling reissuance of the certificate of occupancy. Will Mario be successful?

Tolerance and withdrawal are necessary and sufficient for a diagnosis of substance use disorder

Notice: DO NOT CLICK PAST THIS QUESTION UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE COMPLETED TESTING IN EXAMPLIFY!   Read all instructions before moving ahead. 1. A white board is permitted on your exam.  Show the blank white board now to the screen. 2. Please navigate to Examplify at this time. You cannot copy/paste the password.  You will need to split your screen to enter the password in Examplify. Do not share the password with anyone!  Your exam password is: MAkeupexaM3 3. Do NOT close this window until you have completed your Examplify test and uploaded it successfully (green check mark)! 4. Remember to return to Canvas after you’ve completed your assessment to submit this quiz. Submitting this quiz will end proctoring session and stop the recording. Any exam submitted that does not also have a complete recording session in Canvas will be assigned a grade of zero.   For any technical assistance, please contact Honorlock support thru the livechat at the bottom right of this page or by calling (855) 828-4004.   DO NOT GO PAST THIS QUESTION – LEAVE THIS QUESTION OPEN TO TEST!!!

Lucy and Nora, her neighbor, owned adjoining tracts of land. No public road abutted Nora’s land, so Lucy granted Nora an express easement over the north twenty-five feet of Lucy’s land. However, the following month the county extended the public road to Nora’s land, and Nora ceased using the easement for ingress and egress.Twenty years later, Nora conveyed the easement to her friend, who owned the land adjoining the other side of Lucy. The following year, Nora conveyed her land to Lucy. None of the parties has used the easement since the public road was extended. The jurisdiction has a fifteen-year statute of limitations for acquiring property interests by adverse possession.Was the easement extinguished?

Darien, a developer, and Ian, an investor, had been in the real estate business for many years. Because of their long-standing relationship, Darien and Ian often dispensed with certain legal formalities when dealing with each other. Ian owned a parcel of land in which Darien was interested, and he offered to buy it from him for $50,000. Ian accepted Darien’s offer, and the parties agreed on June 15 as the closing date. Darien handed Ian a check for $2,500 with “earnest money” written in the memo, and they shook hands on their deal.A few weeks before closing, Darien called Ian and told him he had changed his mind about purchasing the land because of a sudden economic downturn in the area. Ian appeared at Darien’s office on June 15 with the deed to the land in his hand. Darien refused to tender the balance due, and Ian sued Darien for specific performance.Will Ian prevail?