Sam wanted to paint the roof of his house a new color, but did not want to paint it himself. So, instead, he placed a sign on his lawn that stated: “I will pay $1,000 to the first person who paints my house light blue.” Later that same day, Jeff walked by and noticed the sign. Jeff thought this was a great way to make some extra cash and hurried to the store to buy some light blue paint. Luckily, the store had exactly what Jeff needed including the paint, paintbrush, and a ladder. His total for the supplies cost him $100. Upon coming back to paint the house, Jeff noticed the roof had already been painted light blue. Jeff ran up to the door and knocked loudly. When Sam answered, Jeff exclaimed “What gives? I went to the store, bought all the supplies, but when I came back the house was already painted!” Sam replied, “Yes, someone came by just before you and did the job. I paid him the $1,000. Better luck next time!” Jeff was furious. “You can’t do this!” He shouted. “I already accepted your offer before the roof was painted!” Jeff is now suing Sam. You are the judge on the case. How should you rule? Explain.

Danny sadly lost his dog, Callie, when it unexpectedly got out one day from his backyard. Danny posted an advertisement in a local newspaper that read: HELP! LOST DOG!$1,000.00 REWARD!NO QUESTIONS ASKED! [Danny’s phone number was included along with a photograph of Callie] Pete, a local friend of Danny’s, saw the advertisement and set out to find Callie. Pete let Danny know that he took the week off from work in order to look for Callie, and wouldn’t stop until she was found. Pete’s salary is $750/week. Danny expressed his gratitude for Pete’s efforts. The next day, Danny called Pete and told him not to worry about finding his dog; Danny said that if Callie wanted to come home, she would, and that he was just going to get another dog. This upset Pete who loudly told Danny that he was still going to find his dog and, whether he wanted her or not, once his dog was found, that Danny needed to pay him. A few days later, Pete found Callie and brought her to Danny, demanding the $1,000.00. Danny became enraged, telling Pete that that reward had already been cancelled. However, wanting to resolve this informally, Danny and Pete agreed on the amount of $500.00 in order to resolve their disagreement. Danny promptly paid Pete the $500.00 and reluctantly took his dog back. It turns out that Danny lost interest in having Callie returned upon finding out that she was only worth $100.00. The next week, Pete makes an appointment with you, a local attorney, to see what his rights are concerning his recent dealings with Danny. Was a legally enforceable agreement formed between them? Discuss. Assuming that a legally enforceable agreement was formed between them, was the later attempt to modify the agreement valid? Discuss. If a court should find that there is not an enforceable contract, does Pete have any equitable remedies available? Discuss. What monetary damages may Pete seek, if any? Calculate expectation, reliance, and restitution damages; assume all such types of damages are available to Pete.

Edith, an elderly woman, was the only eyewitness to an automobile accident that occurred one block from her nursing home residence. During the ensuing trial, the plaintiff calls Edith to the stand. After a few questions, it becomes clear that Edith remembers having seen the accident, but her memory of the details has grown fuzzy. The plaintiff’s attorney wishes to introduce into evidence the contents of some handwritten notes made by Edith after she returned to her room after witnessing the accident.Which of the following is a FALSE statement with respect to the admissibility of the contents of the notes?

A truck driven by Trevor struck Parker, a pedestrian, causing extensive injuries that eventually resulted in Parker’s death one month after the accident. Parker’s widow sued Trevor as a result of the accident. A bystander who witnessed the accident gave a signed, written statement about the accident to an investigator several days after the accident. She stated that Parker had crossed the street at a time when Trevor had a green light. At trial three years later, after being called by Trevor’s attorney, the bystander testified on direct examination that Trevor went through a red light and hit Parker.How may Trevor’s attorney use the bystander’s signed, written statement from three years earlier?

Paul brought a civil action against Debbie for embezzlement of funds missing from a trust account, for which Debbie also is being investigated by the district attorney. At trial, Paul calls Debbie as an adverse witness and asks her one question, “Is it not true that you embezzled funds from the trust?” Debbie refuses to answer, claiming a privilege against self-incrimination.How should the trial court rule on Debbie’s claim of privilege?

Alfred was saddled with gambling debt and came up with a plan to pay it off. He called his friend, Betty, and proposed that she pretend to be a bear and destroy Alfred’s luxury car. Alfred planned on capturing the entire ordeal on his home security camera, which he would then submit to the insurance company and get paid. They agreed that Alfred would pay her $1,000.00 once he received the insurance proceeds. Alfred purchased a bear costume for Betty to wear. That night she showed up outside Alfred’s home in the bear costume, roared loudly, and then heavily damaged Alfred’s car, which was parked on the street in front of his home. Unfortunately, Alfred’s neighbor – Charles – couldn’t tell if the car was occupied. He then grabbed his rifle and, believing Betty was a bear who was about to kill anyone inside the vehicle, shot her dead. Distraught upon discovering that his friend was killed, Alfred changed his mind about submitting the insurance claim. This jurisdiction has adopted the common law, with modern distinctions where applicable. Should Alfred be charged with any crimes because of his agreement with Betty? Discuss. Should Alfred be charged with any theft crimes? Discuss. Should Alfred be charged with any homicide crimes? Discuss.

To show her concern for the “distress caused by gun violence” to which her city has been subjected, Paula, a protester, carried a United States flag upside down through the streets in a privately organized parade. At the conclusion of the parade, Paula was arrested under a state statute that provides, “Whoever publicly treats the United States flag contemptuously shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Paula’s conviction in the lower courts was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The statute was not challenged on grounds that it violated Paula’s First Amendment rights.Assuming the statute had already been interpreted by the state supreme court to include Paula’s conduct and alleviate any claim the statute was vague, will the Court likely uphold the conviction?

A nurse is assessing a client with suspected systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Which finding is most indicative of this condition?

Big City condemned all of the buildings in a decaying warehouse district and offered them to developers at no cost, provided the developer submits a building revitalization plan to Big City’s planning commission, the commission approves the plan, and the developer pays Big City’s redevelopment authority to perform the work needed to revitalize the building. Edward, an experienced developer, submitted a plan to revitalize a block-long building, and his plan was approved by the planning commission. However, Edward wanted to perform the revitalization work himself, both to ensure that the job was done correctly and to save a substantial amount of money. Although he offered to post a surety bond to insure his performance, Big City refused his offer.As applied to the contractor, is Big City’s requirement that Edward use Big City’s redevelopment authority constitutional?

Pat was a librarian at Dell High School. Pat’s responsibilities included monitoring students assigned to study in the library, helping students find books, buying new books for the library, putting books back on shelves, and giving students research advice on how to proceed. As part of the book buying process Pat reads books the library might acquire while she is minding her desk and monitoring students. Among the books many she read at the desk this last semester and ultimately purchased for the library were Rosaria Butterfield’s Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, (2023), Jerimiah Johnston’s The Jesus Discoveries; 10 historic Finds That Bring Us Face to Face With Jesus, (2026), C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, an English version of Thomas Aquinas’ Treaties on Law from the Suma Theologica, an English translation of the Quran, The Complete works of William Shakespear, Confucius’ Analects in English, an English translation of the Buddhist folk classic The Journey to the West, and an English translation of the Jewish work The Babylonian Talmud. Pat read and rejected Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, making a note that she considered it inappropriate for High School students without parental permission, and that she saw no reason to spend time and money seeking permission from parents. Three anonymous students complained to the principal and the school board about these choices, as well as getting the ACLU to write a letter to the school board stating that these choices constituted a violation of the separation of church and state. The district fired Pat, citing how her choices Dell High School vulnerable to expensive litigation. Pat produced records showing that except for the two books published recently, all of the other books had been on the collections of High School library’s in 28 states between 1838 and 1959, Records were not available for the holdings of the other states, or prior to 1838 as that was when the earlies High School libraries were established in the United States, Philadelphia’s being one of the first. How would you advise Pat on whether her reading at the desk or her choices were Constitutional? What arguments can be made for Pat and Dell concerning the First Amendment’s application to Pat’s actions?