The driver of a tanker truck was transporting radioactive waste from a nuclear power plant to a permanent storage facility in a remote western region of the United States. After driving all night, the driver fell asleep at the wheel and the truck crossed over the center line, off the road, and onto a homeowner’s property, coming to rest after crashing into several glass cases containing the homeowner’s collection of poisonous snakes, the keeping of which was permitted by local ordinance. When the driver exited the truck, he was bitten on the leg by one of the poisonous snakes and became seriously ill.  The driver brought an action against the homeowner for his injuries. The parties stipulated to the above facts, and that the driver violated a state statute by driving off of the road. Both parties moved for judgment as a matter of law on the liability issue. How should the court rule?

Congress enacted a statute appropriating money to the states on condition that the states use the money to support “public performances of classical ballet open to the public.” The statute provided that the money was not to be used to support any other type of dance, and that tickets to any performance paid for with these funds were to be distributed to the public on a first come, first served basis.  A state that accepted a grant of $500,000 under the federal statute gave half of the grant to a state sponsored ballet company. The company had been started 20 years earlier as part of a state effort to bring culture to poor, inner-city areas. By state law enacted when the company was formed, no less than 35% of the tickets to each performance of the ballet company must be distributed to the inner city school systems to be given to minority school children. Is the state’s method of distributing tickets to the state ballet company’s performances constitutional?

When the defendant learned that his former wife, to whom he was paying $1,000 per month in alimony, was dating someone else, the defendant encouraged her to get married “for the sake of the children.” The former wife said that she would consider it, but she also expressed concern that her boyfriend might already be married. The defendant told his former wife that he would have an acquaintance run a computer check on the boyfriend that would reveal whether he was currently married. However, the defendant did not bother with the computer check; instead he called the boyfriend and offered him $5,000 if he would propose to the defendant’s former wife. The defendant then told his former wife that, according to official records, the boyfriend was single. The defendant’s former wife and the boyfriend went through a wedding ceremony shortly thereafter. The boyfriend, however, was already married to someone else, a fact that would have been disclosed by a routine check of official records.  If the defendant is charged with being an accessory to bigamy, a strict liability offense in the jurisdiction, should he be found guilty?

A rancher entered into a written contract to buy a farm from a farmer for $100,000. The contract stipulated for closing on September 30. In addition, the contract contained the following provision: “The taxes shall be prorated as agreed to by the parties at a later date.” Upon the signing of the contract, the rancher gave the farmer a check for $10,000 as a down payment.  On September 28, the rancher notified the farmer that he would not be able to close on the farm until October 2, because the closing on his current home, the proceeds from which were to be applied to his purchase of the farm, was unavoidably delayed due to his buyer’s illness. Meanwhile, the farmer had difficulty finding a home she liked as well as the farm. She decided that she would rather not sell the farm and wished to avoid the contract with the rancher. On October 2, the rancher showed up at the closing with the $90,000 to tender to the farmer. The farmer did not show up. The rancher sues for specific performance. In whose favor will the court most likely rule?

A shareholder bought 1,000 shares of a global energy company on August 20. At the time, there were 100,000 shares of the company’s stock outstanding. Unfortunately for the shareholder, on August 21 it came to light that the company’s management was artificially inflating the company’s earnings the past year in order to inflate the company’s stock price. By August 27, the stock was worthless. It is unquestioned that the shareholders who owned the stock during the week of August 21-27 were harmed. The shareholder filed a class action lawsuit in the federal district court.  Must she give notice to other absent class members?

A corporation manufactured a patented automatic potato peeler. Subsequently, that corporation’s biggest rival manufactured a similar potato peeler. Both are corporations of the same state. The state has a unique statute authorizing quadruple damages for unfair business competition relating to potatoes; however, there is considerable debate whether the law is constitutional under the state constitution. The corporation holding the patent sued its rival in federal court, alleging that the rival corporation violated its patent and the unfair business law. Shortly after the pretrial meeting of the parties required under the Federal Rules, the two companies reached a settlement of the patent infringement claim.  May the court dismiss the remaining claim?

A buyer bought a home from a real estate developer for $700,000. The buyer paid $100,000 of the purchase price herself. The buyer’s employer provided $100,000 of the purchase price by giving the buyer a loan and taking a mortgage. The developer loaned $500,000 to the buyer to finance the remainder of the purchase price, and in return took a mortgage on the property. One week later, a bank obtained a judgment against the buyer for a delinquent credit card balance. The bank properly recorded its judgment as a lien against the property. Another month after that, the buyer incurred some extraordinary medical expenses, and asked the employer for another $100,000, which the employer provided and added onto the principal balance the buyer owed on the loan. Finally, six months later, the buyer asked the developer to change the terms of the loan, so that the buyer would have more time to pay. The developer and the buyer agreed that the buyer could have an additional five years to pay the balance of the loan in exchange for an increase in the principal of the loan. Shortly thereafter, the buyer lost his job and defaulted on all of his payments. The employer brought an action to foreclose its mortgage. All mortgages and liens were promptly and properly recorded.  Regarding the distribution of the proceeds of an eventual sheriff’s sale of the property, which of the following statements is true?

A pedestrian was injured in an auto accident caused by a driver. The pedestrian’s injuries included a broken nose and a broken toe. Not sure of the strength of her case, she sued the driver only for the injuries to her nose. She was awarded $15,000 in damages. Encouraged by this success, she now wishes to sue the driver for the injuries to her toe.  May she sue the driver again?

A grantor executed a valid deed conveying a tract of land to a city “for the purpose of constructing a planetarium thereon.” The city held the property for a number of years, but decided on another site for the planetarium. When presented an offer to purchase the property by a privately owned garbage collection company, the city accepted and conveyed the land to the company.  Which of the following statements about the title of the tract of land is true?

A bookie testified before a grand jury regarding allegedly illegal gambling activities. As a result, the bookie was indicted and a warrant was issued for the bookie’s arrest, along with a search warrant for the bookie’s home. The police went to the bookie’s home, informed him of the charges against him, and placed him in handcuffs. The officers then conducted a search of the bookie’s home and found a desk calendar, which had possibly incriminating information written on it relating to appointments. They seized the desk calendar and one of the officers asked the bookie what he had to say about their find. The bookie made an incriminating statement in response. Before trial, the prosecutor obtained an exemplar of the bookie’s handwriting to compare it with the handwriting on the calendar.  If introduced at trial, which of the following would most clearly violate the bookie’s Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights?