A woman’s boyfriend came to her apartment with a mink coat in his arms and handed it to the woman. After the boyfriend told her that the coat was now hers, the woman asked him where he got the coat. The boyfriend answered, “From the Easter Bunny.” After the boyfriend left, she tried on the coat and admired how good it looked on her in the mirror. The next day, the woman read in the newspaper that the home of a well-known socialite had been burglarized the night before. Among the missing items, according to the paper, was a mink coat. The woman took the coat from the closet and rifled through the pockets. She found a handkerchief with the monogram matching the initials of the well-known socialite. The woman decided to keep the fur coat, thinking to herself that the socialite could probably afford to buy another coat.  Which of the following best describes the crime or crimes, if any, the woman has committed?

An automobile manufacturer entered into a contract with a well-known tire distributor. The contract provided that the distributor would deliver to the automobile manufacturer 1,000 tires on the 15th of each month for $50,000 per shipment, with payment due upon receipt.  The automobile manufacturer and the tire distributor properly fulfilled their contractual obligations for two months. The day after the third tire delivery, the tire distributor’s president visited the automobile manufacturer and found the automobiles produced with his company’s tires to be a “disgrace.” To protect the tire distributor’s reputation, the president announced that he will not send any additional tire shipments. The automobile manufacturer immediately brought a breach of contract action against the tire distributor. Which party is likely to prevail in the breach of contract suit?

An employee of the United States Department of Labor was instructed by his superior to solicit subscriptions to the Department’s bulletin on a door-to-door basis in the city in which he worked. While doing so, the employee was arrested for violation of a city ordinance that prohibited commercial solicitation of private residences.  What is the employee’s best defense?

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?