[Evidence]
F1. In 1989, Dale confessed to car theft, but the confession was inadmissible in a prosecution for that theft because of a Miranda warning violation. Dale was acquitted of that charge.
In 1998, Dale was brought to trial on a charge of grand larceny. The indictment charged that dale wrongfully obtained possession of a 1995 Buick Skylark, the lawful property of Acme, a corporation engaged in the auto rental business , and converted it to its own use. The car was discovered wrecked and abandoned. At the jury trial, the following occurred:
(1) The prosecution's first witness was Mang, who testified that he is a supervisory employee of Acme and is thoroughly familiar with the computerized system by which the company keeps track of the status and location of cars owned by the company. Mang further testified that whenever a car is leased or returned, the details of the transaction are entered into the Acme computer by the employee handling the transaction, and that the corporation relies on the computer records exclusively for information on its cars. Finally Mang testified that he has by proper means consulted the company's data bank and that the car that dale is charged with stealing is shown by the computer as within the company possession and not out on rental.
(2) The prosecution then called Gum, the officer who discovered the car, who testified that at the time of the recovery the car contained several shirts bearing the laundry mark DAL.
(3) The After dale testified inn his on behalf on direct examination that "I have never stolen a car in my life," the prosecution introduced evidence of dale's 1979 confession.
(4) Dale introduced testimony of his mother that just before his brother died in her arms after being shot, his brother, Chip, said, "Oh mother, I'm a goner, that officer Gum shot me because he hates our family."
Assume that in each instance all appropriate objections were made, discuss whether the trial court erred in admitting items of evidence 1 through 4 above?
[Real Property]
F2. Arthur owned Whiteacre, upon which there is a building which was used as a grocery store. On November 1, 1984, Arthur rented Whiteacre to Broderick for a term of six years. Both signed the written lease. Both signed the written lease. Broderick promised to pay rent at the annual rate of $24,000, payable monthly. Broderick also promised to pay any amount that the real property taxes on Whiteacre exceeded $4,000 in any year. Arthur agreed to keep the exterior of the building in good repair during the rental term. In 1985, Arthur conveyed and assigned his interests in Whiteacre to Caspar . In 1986, Broderick assigned the balance of his leasehold to Darrell. Darrell promptly remolded the building and converted it into four units: a drugstore, a dentist's office, and two doctors' offices. In so doing, Darrell installed plumbing in each of the four units as well as window air conditioners. Some of the remodeling included repairing and repainting the exterior of the building, which had fallen into disrepair. He then leased the units to tenants for two year terms.
In 1988, upon completion of his tenants' lease terms, Darrell could not locate new tenants. He then removed the plumbing and the window air conditioners, which he had previously installed, left the property and notified Caspar that he was treating the lease as ended. Caspar, after a month, advertised the property for rent but could find no tenants. In February 1989, Caspar sold and conveyed Whiteacre to Elmer by quitclaim deed. Real property taxes for 1988, in excess of the $4,000 paid on them by Caspar, are due by unpaid.
1. Are either Broderick or Darrell liable to Elmer for rent? For the unpaid taxes? Discuss.
2. Are either Arthur or Caspar liable to Darrell for his costs in repairing and repainting the building exterior? Discuss.
3. Is Darrell liable to Caspar for remodeling the building and later removing the plumbing and air conditioners? Discuss.
[Torts]
F3. In May 1985, Dick, who was driving a truck owned by Ace Co., his employer, failed to stop at a red light at a busy intersection. Phil was lawfully bicycling through the intersection at the time. Dick collided with Phil. The force of the collision knocked Phil to the ground. Phil's legs were broken and his bicycle destroyed. Although the cycling helmet he wore shattered when he fell, Phil escaped head injuries. A month after the accident, PHil retained an attorney, Len. Len assured Phil that he would pursue an action against Ace Co. and Helmet Co., the manufacturer of the shattered helmet. Three years later, in June 1988. Len revealed to Phil that he had been too busy to pursue settlement or file a lawsuit in his case. Phil was furious and told Len so. In July 1988, Len filed a complaint in state court on behalf of Phil alleging negligence against Ace Co. and Helmet Co. Len believed Phil's case was barred by his state's two- year statute of limitations for negligence actions. However, he filed the complaint to placate Phil and served the summons and complaint on Ace Co. and Helmet Co. Ace Co. and Helmet Co. hired attorneys to defend them and filed appropriate motions to dismiss. The state court dismissed Phil's damage action against Ace Co. and Helmet Co. on the ground that it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. What, if any, liability does Len have to:
1. Phil? Discuss.
2. Ace Co.? Discuss.
3. Helmet Co.
[Constitutional Law]
F4. A new State X-owned office building has an interior ground floor mall area, with spaces for leasing to privately owned retail businesses on the perimeter of the mall. Each lease with State X as lessor incorporates Office Building Rules, provided by State X. One rule permits each lessee to display floor advertising at designated spaces throughout the mall, limited to only commercial advertising. Another rule provides that another designated space in the mall, next to the main entrance to the building, is the only place available in the mall for public demonstrations. This space is to be assigned to the first group of demonstrators to arrive each day. The office building has two side entrances as well.
The Olde Tobacco Shoppe (OTS), a mall lessee, has set up large signs in all designated commercial advertising areas of the mall, advertising its sales of cigarettes at discount prices.
Citizens for Clean Air (CCA), a citizens' group protesting air pollution, began picketing at the mall with placards protesting both the leasing of State X property to OTS, and OTS' advertising in the mall. The first day the CCA picketers, including Dan, appeared they were not allowed to use the one designated space for public demonstrations, because a small antinuclear power protest group had arrived earlier and had been assigned use of the space. CCA members therefore began picketing at the two side entrances. The building manager called State X police who, after some resistance from the protesters, succeeded in escorting them from the premises.
Later that same day, the State X Attorney General obtained an ex parte order from a State X court prohibiting members of CCA from picketing at any place in the mall, other than in the one designated area. The following day, CCA picketers were first to arrive at the mall and were assigned use of the designated area. The picketers, including Dan, were each given copies of the ex parte order. However, Dan left the designated area and stood in front of one of the OTS' mall advertisements near one of the side entrances. He held a poster with a graphic depiction of a fully nude, terminally ill cancer patient with tubes projecting from the patient's body and a caption which read "The Governor Sticks It To You By Supporting Smoking."
Dan was arrested by State X police and charged in State X court with criminal contempt of the ex parte order with criminal trespass and with violation of a State X criminal statute proscribing the "public display" of an "obscene picture."
In the prosecution of Dan, what defenses should Dan assert under the United States Constitution to charges of 1) contempt of the ex parte order, 2) trespass and 3) violation of the statute, and how should they be decided? Discuss.
[Community Property]
F5. All of the following events occurred in California.
In 1978, H and W were married. At that time, H quit his job as a real estate salesman and thereafter worked solely at managing a large office building which he had inherited. H paid himself a modest salary from the office rentals and applied all .
[Business Associations]
F6. Buff is president, board chairman, and the controlling shareholder of Movie Classics Co. (MCC), a publicly traded corporation whose only assets are the motion picture rights to a number of famous black and white films produced in the 1930's and 1940's. A recent wave of nostalgia for older movies has generated greatly increased business interest in the controlling rights to films such as those owned by MCC. As a result, in the last three years, the net asset value of MCC has increased from a $1.50 per share of its one class of common stock to potentially $150,00 per share if MCC's film rights are appraised at their highest possible current market. During the same period, the market price for MCC's shares has increased only one-half as much, and they presently trade at about $8 per share.
Home Videos (HV) is engaged in marketing TV DVDs of motion pictures. HV has recently offered to purchase all the assets of MCC at a premium price, which would equal $15 for each share outstanding. HV has publicly announced plans to colorize all the black-and-white films owned by MCC if the acquisition takes place. Buff has voted against accepting the HV offer because he opposes the colorization of the black-and-white films.
Buff is nevertheless very interested in disposing of his stock ownership in MCC. He would therefore like to accept an offer made by Dan, acting for an anonymous buyer, of $15 per share for all of Buff's controlling shares in MCC. This price would give Bugg about the same amount of money he would obtain if HV's offer is accepted. Dan has also offered Buff an additional $2 per share for Buff's stock, if Buff and the other directors of MCC, all of whom were nominated by Buff, resign in favor of replacement directors to be nominated by Dan's principal, the unidentified buyer.
1. What liabilities, if any, does Buff face if he accepts the offer from Dan for $15 per share of his MCC stock? Discuss.
2. What liabilities, if any, does Buff face if he accepts the additional offer from Dan of a premium of $2 per share for his MCC stock, for assuring the resignation of all present MCC directors? Discuss.
3. What liabilities, if any, does Buff face if, instead of selling his MCC stock to Dan, he sells it to HV after causing MCC to reject the HV offer? Discuss.
4. On what bases, if any, could a minority shareholder of MCC assert a claim against Buff, directly or derivatively, if he causes MCC to reject the HV offer? Discuss. Do not consider federal or state securities law issues.
[Civil Procedure]
J1. Pam (P), a patient, injured in a nursing home fire, brought a suit for $50,000 against the home's operators (D, Inc.) in Federal District Court in State X where the nursing home in which P resides is located. Jurisdiction was properly based on diversity of citizenship, because even though D resides in state X, her domicile is actually in State Y. Under the law of State X, the failure of a nursing home to install smoke detectors in each patient's room is considered negligence per se. P alleged failure to install the device; D's answer denied all allegations of the complaint. Promptly moved for summary judgment as to liability, attaching her own sworn affidavit stating that no smoke detector had been installed in her room. D's attorney responded with a memorandum asserting, "My client stands by its Answer in this case." The court denied the motion. P then initiated discovery. She first served an interrogatory on D asking whether it had installed a smoke detector in P's room. The appropriate corporate official responded, "No." P also requested D to produce for inspection its fire investigator's report, hoping that the investigator's early investigation of the since-demolished home showed no smoke detectors present. D refused to comply with the discovery request. P moved to compel production, and the court ordered D to produce the report for inspection and also held D in contempt of court for refusing the discovery request. At trial, Mac (M), D's maintenance director, testified that smoke detectors had been installed in P's room; P's motion to disallow M's testimony as inconsistent with the interrogatory answer was denied. Was the district court correct in its ruling:
1. On P's motion for summary judgment as to liability?
2. On P's motion to compel production of the fire investigator's report?
3. Holding D in contempt for refusing P's discovery request?
4. On P's motion to disallow M's testimony concerning the installation of a smoke detector in P's room? Discuss.
[Torts] [Remedies]
J2. Dan, owner of ten restaurants, learned about all of the above and resolved to do what he could to hinder the operation of Paul's new restaurant. Dan offered Chef double his current salary and told Chef that if he did not quit his job with Paul,
[Remedies]
J3. For the last three months, Jane has been demonstrating during business hours on the well-traveled public sidewalk in front of a five-story office building. She wears a "sandwich-board" sign over her shoulders and blows a whistle to attract further attention. On the sign, she has hand lettered the following:
"Law Firm
of Lawyer Services, Inc.
Is Crooked
The Firm Stole My Money!"
The law firm of Lawyer Services, Inc. is on the first floor of the building which is being picketed by Jane. The firm had represented Jane on a personal injury claim which was settled four months ago. Jane claimed that the firm wrongfully withheld $100 of a $200 fee that was supposed to have been paid to Dr. Dyer for the doctor's testimony on Jane's behalf at a deposition prior to settlement.
The law firm commenced a suit to enjoin Jane from further demonstration, claiming defamation and trade libel. The firm alleged that the injunction was needed to protect its reputation and to stop a continuing decrease in its earnings and in the number of walk-in clients.
At the hearing for the injunction, the law firm produced a cancelled check for the amount of $200 which was paid to Dr. Dyer. The doctor herself confirmed that she had received the full amount of her $200 fee. Jane offered no evidence other than her testimony that although she had spent her settlement money and was presently insolvent, she remained convinced that the firm had not paid Dr. Dyer the full $200.
Is the firm entitled to an injunction?
[Wills] [Trusts]
J4. Bill, a widower, duly executed a will. Bills will included the following paragraphs:
ONE: I leave my stamp collection to those persons whose names appear from time to time on a memo that can be found in the drawer of my night table in my home.
TWO: I leave the balance of my estate to the Trustees of The Bill Revocable Trust, executed contemporaneously with this will, between myself, as settlor, and the Trust Company, as Trustee to hold in trust thereunder.
The Bill Revocable Trust was embodied in a writing that was properly executed by Bill. Under the terms ofBill s trust, income is payable to Bill for life, remainder to Bill's children, Tory and Rita, in equal shares. Two years later, Tory executed a will that devised all of her property to her cousin, Calvin. One year later, a son, Allan was born to Tory. On Allan's first birthday, Tory gave him $10,000. Shortly after Allan's third birthday, Tory died, survived by Allan, Bill, Calvin, and Rita. The value of Tory's estate, exclusive of Bills trust, was $150,000.
Five years later, Bill died, without having revoked the will he previously executed. After his death, an unsigned and undated memo was found in Bills home. The memo left his entire stamp collection, valued at $150,000, to his cousin, Nellie. In addition, Bill left stocks and bonds valued at $350,000.
Rita, Allan, Calvin, and Nellie survived Bill.
How will Bill's estate be distributed?
[Real Property]
J5. In 1984, Grant subdivided a tract of land into two parcels, A and B. He then sold Parcel B toNell, and thereafter, Parcel A to Owen. Owen constructed a house on Parcel A, close to the boundary with Parcel B.In March 1985, Owen leased Parcel A to Tim under a ten-year lease. The lease provided for an annual rent payable in monthly installments. Since 1984, first Grant and then Owen allowed Nell access to Parcel B by use of a road through Parcel A.
In January 1989, Nell notified Owen of her intent to construct a building on Parcel B near the common boundary. Nell's contractor excavated for a deep basement for the new building. In March 1989, that portion of Parcel A land under Owen's house subsided, causing material damage to the house.Owen refused to repair the damage, insisting that Nell or her contractor should do so. Tim moved out and refused to make further monthly payments of rent during the balance of the lease. Owen then refused to allow Nell further access over Parcel A.
1. What are Owen's rights against Tim for the remaining monthly rent payments? Discuss.
2. What are Owen's rights against Nell for damage to the house? Discuss.
3. Does Nell have a right to continue use of the road through Parcel A? Discuss.
[Professional Responsibility] [Criminal Law]
J6. Len, a public defender, has been assigned to defend Art and Bill, two nineteen-year- old defendants who have been indicted for assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. Art and Bill admitted that they had approached Chuck, that they began a conversation with him, and that Bill pulled a handgun from his pocket and fired at Chuck, wounding him in the arm.
Len spoke with each defendant separately. Art told him that he had not recognized Chuck, that he had not known Bill was armed, and that they had approached Chuck to ask for a cigarette. Art said that from his own point of view, Bill's attack on Chuck was sudden and completely unexpected.
Bill told Len that he had believed that Chuck was a member of a rival gang and wanted to "shake him up a little bit." He said that he now knew he was mistaken and Chuck was a stranger. He also maintained that he thought the gun was empty when he fired it. Bill offered to hand the gun, which he had hidden, over Len to do with it whatever Len though best. Len took the gun and gave it to the prosecutor without giving any explanation of how it came into Len's possession.
1. Did Len violate the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct or Model Code of Professional Responsibility by giving the gun to the prosecutor? Discuss.
2. Will Len violate the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct or Model Code of Professional Responsibility if he defends both Art and Bill or either of them? Discuss.
3. If the statements of Bill and Art are truthful, is Bill guilty of the charged offenses? Discuss.
4. If the statements of Bill and Art are truthful, is Art guilty of the charged offenses? Discuss.