A man and woman had been dating for a few years.
One day, the man decided to murder his father, in order
to obtain the inheritance that was promised him under
the father’s will. The man asked the woman to assist
him in the murder, and the woman agreed. The woman
subsequently purchased a knife for use in the murder.
However, the following day, the woman changed her
mind. She called the man and told him that she would
not participate in the murder. She also returned the
recently purchased knife to the store. She did not call
the police. The man later murdered his father and was
apprehended for the crime. The man’s criminal trial
concluded with a finding of not guilty.
Is the woman guilty of murder as the man’s accomplice?
(A) Yes, because she did not thwart the murder.
(B) Yes, because she did not effectively withdraw.
(C) No, because the man was found not guilty.
(D) No, because she effectively withdrew from
participation in the crime.
A woman had lived in Apartment 123 in the same
apartment complex for six years. On many prior
occasions, the woman had hired the same handyman
to perform odd jobs in her apartment. The woman,
who was leaving town on vacation, telephoned the
handyman and said, “If you will replace the tile in
my bathroom while I’m on vacation, I will pay you
$700. You can get the keys from the superintendent.”
The handyman responded, “It’s a deal.” During their
telephone conversation, the woman failed to tell the
handyman she no longer lived in Apartment 123, but
had moved down the hall into Apartment 132.
The handyman came to the apartment complex, got the
key for Apartment 123 from the superintendent, and
re-tiled the bathroom. When the woman returned from
her vacation, she noticed that her bathroom tile had not
been replaced. She contacted the handyman, who then
informed her that he had replaced the tile in Apartment
123. The handyman demanded that the woman pay him
$700, but the woman refused.
If the handyman sues the woman for payment of the
$700 and the woman claims mistake, judgment
should be for whom?
(A) The handyman, because the woman should
have realized that he would replace the tile in
(B) The handyman, because even though no
contract existed, he is entitled to quasicontractual
relief under the circumstances.
(C) The woman, because the handyman did not
replace the tile in the woman’s bathroom.
(D) The woman, because no contract existed due
to the mutual mistake of the parties.
A woman and her best friend went out to lunch at a local
restaurant. During their lunch, the friend received several
calls on her cell phone, and the woman grew increasingly
frustrated at the constant interruptions. When the friend
stepped out to use the ladies’ room, leaving her cell phone
on the table, the woman took the phone, turned it off and
put it in her purse, planning to return it at the end of lunch.
However, the woman forgot to return the phone to her
friend and ended up taking it home with her.
If the woman is charged with larceny, should she
(A) No, provided the woman eventually gave the
phone back to her friend.
(B) No, because the woman did not intend to
permanently deprive her friend of the phone.
(C) Yes, because the woman knowingly deprived
the friend of her phone.
(D) Yes, because the woman purposely took and
kept the friend’s phone.
At the start of the basketball season, the team’s coach
decided not to start a player who was a long-time fan
favorite. As the team started to lose on a consistent
basis, one season ticket holder became disgusted with
the coach and began wearing a t-shirt suggesting that
people stop attending the team’s games. During the
games, the fan would walk in front of the TV camera
with his t-shirt slogan prominently displayed.
As the season progressed, many other fans joined in
heckling the coach and wearing similar t-shirts. Soon
thereafter, the fan received a notice from the team’s
management revoking his season tickets. The fan was
informed that he would not be allowed to attend any
more games, but would receive full reimbursement for
all remaining games.
If the fan brings an appropriate action against the
team challenging the revocation of his season tickets,
will he prevail?
(A) Yes, because he was entitled to express his
rights of free speech.
(B) Yes, because he had paid for the tickets for the
(C) No, because his license to attend games
(D) No, because obscene speech is not
An author sued a production company and a screenwriter
for violating his copyrights by producing an unauthorized
TV adaptation of his book. He filed suit in federal court,
suing both defendants in the Southern District of New
York. The author met with the production company, and
worked out a deal where the author’s name would be on
the show’s credits and he would receive a significant fee
as an advisor. Based on the settlement, the author decided
to dismiss his claim against both parties. Before the
author did so, the screenwriter, filed an answer, claiming
he co-owned the copyright based on a 20-year-old
contract with the author. In his answer, he stated several
times how much he was looking forward to seeing the
author in court and making the author spend a lot of
money in attorneys’ fees.
How can the author correctly dismiss his claim?
(A) By filing a notice of dismissal.
(B) By filing a stipulation.
(C) By making a motion for voluntary dismissal.
(D) By moving for summary judgment.
A man was injured when he attempted to rescue his
friend from a lake, which he had fallen into during a
fight with a fisherman. The man sued the fisherman in
the appropriate U.S. District Court, but not his friend.
The fisherman claims that the friend’s conduct was the
exclusive cause of the incident that resulted in injury
to the man and seeks to join the friend in the action.
Under applicable state law, if the friend is not named
as a defendant and the friend and fisherman were joint
and several tortfeasors, the fisherman would have no
right of contribution from the friend if a judgment were
obtained against the fisherman. The man is a citizen
of Idaho, the fisherman is a citizen of Maine, and the
friend is a citizen of Idaho.
How should the Court rule on the fisherman’s motion
to join the friend in the action?
(A) The Court should grant the motion, because
the fisherman’s contention that the friend
was responsible for the incident may (at trial)
prove to be correct.
(B) The Court should grant the motion, because
there is a common nucleus of operative facts.
(C) The Court should deny the motion, because
the friend is not an indispensable party.
(D) The Court should deny the motion, because
joinder of the friend would destroy subject