All Topics Flashcards

Question

Bilateral vs. Unilateral Approach to Conspiracy

Answer 1

Common law: bilateral — at least 2 guilty minds (2 people with actual criminal intent) needed for a conspiracy. Cannot be guilty of conspiracy if enter into a conspiracy with an undercover police officer. MPC: unilateral—only 1 guilty mind

Answer 2

No, conspiracy is a separate act. It does NOT merge.

Answer 3

Conspiracy is an agreement with at least 1 other person to commit a crime. There must be (1) an intent to agree, (2) an agreement to commit a crime, (3) intent to commit the crime, and (4-MPC) an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Answer 4

The conspiracy itself, and all foreseeable crimes in furtherance of the conspiracy (even if not present for those crimes).

Answer 5

Voluntary manslaughter occurs when (1) the killing is committed after adequate provocation that causes the defendant to lose control. Adequate provocation is provocation that would cause an ordinary person to lose self-control from sudden intense passion, with no cooling off period. Voluntary manslaughter also occurs when (2) the killing is committed out of imperfect self-defense, which means the defendant was either the initial aggressor, or was unreasonable in his use of deadly force.

Answer 6

The physical component of the crime. Must be a voluntary bodily movement. A failure to act can result in liability when (1) there was a legal duty to act, (2) the defendant knew of the facts giving rise to the duty to act, and (3) it was reasonably possible for the defendant to act.

Answer 7

Evidence of someone’s habit is admissible to show that the person acted in conformity with that habit. A habit is a regular response to a specific set of circumstances. It must be so frequent that it is almost instinctual. Look for “always” “instinctively” “invariably” “automatically”

Answer 8

Similar occurrences are inadmissible for propensity but admissible if relevant for non-propensity purposes: causation, rebut an impossibility, custom, prior accidents, notice/knowledge, defect, intent

Answer 9

The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought: Intent to kill Intent to commit serious bodily harm Felony murder Depraved heart (a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life)

Answer 10

Intent to commit the underlying felony

Answer 11

Entrapment can be a defense to liability when a defendant is induced by law enforcement to commit the crime. Criminal design cannot originate with the defendant, meaning that the crime cannot be the defendant’s idea, and the defendant cannot be pre-disposed to commit the crime. It is not entrapment if the police merely provide an opportunity for the defendant to commit a crime.

Answer 12

A court can accept a fact as true (the proponent’s burden of proof has been met) if the fact is generally known within the jurisdiction, or can be verified by a source whose accuracy cannot be questioned. Criminal: MAY take fact as conclusive Civil: MUST take fact as conclusive

Answer 13

It is a 6th Amendment right that for a serious offense (imprisonment over 6 months), criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial of at least six jurors, up to 12. A six-person jury must be unanimous. The jury pool must be representative of a cross-section of the community, but the jury need not be.

Answer 14

Cannot be based on race, gender (religion, national origin)

Answer 15

Defendant has unlimited challenges for cause and can challenge based on prejudices relevant to case.

Answer 16

Witnesses are generally presumed competent. To be competent, a witness must (1) base his testimony off of his actual perception, (2) be able to remember the event perceived, (3) be able to communicate the perception, (4) understand the oath and significance of telling the truth.

Answer 17

A hearsay exception (when present recollection refreshed does not work). If witness does not remember, can read from a document that witness created/adopted when his memory was fresh. The document can be introduced into evidence by other party as an exhibit, but just read to jury into evidence by reader.

Answer 18

Generally inadmissible to prove that defendant acted in conformity with character trait. Unless it is directly at issue in the case. Arises with child abuse, defamation, negligent entrustment.

Answer 19

A killing committed with criminal negligence, or during an act/crime that does not rise to the level of felony murder (not BARRK).

Answer 20

The actus reus must be the cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the harm. Cause-in-fact: but for the crime, the harm would not have occurred. Proximate cause: the harm was a natural and foreseeable result of the crime. Proximate cause can be cut off by superseding acts; these are unforeseeable events that cut off the chain of causation. However, third-party medical negligence or refusal of medical treatment is never a superseding act.

Answer 21

Mens rea and actus reus must occur simultaneously. This means that you cannot be guilty of murder if you intend to shoot the victim, but accidentally run over him with your car on the way there.

Answer 22

``` Generally inadmissible to prove defendant had a propensity to commit a crime, but may be admissible for MIMIC: Motive Intent Mistake (lack thereof) Identity Common plan/scheme ```

Answer 23

Crimen Falsi: crimes involving element of false statement or dishonesty—ALWAYS admissible. (Perjury, fraud, embezzlement, and in PA robbery). Not up to discretion of court. Other felonies: may be admissible. For criminal defendant: reverse 403 balancing. For non-defendant witness: 403 balancing. Other misdemeanors: Inadmissible. ALL crimes have a ten-year limit. They cannot be introduced if over ten years have passed since conviction or release from incarceration, whichever date is later.

Answer 24

In PA it is

Answer 25

All parties can impeach all witnesses. To impeach means to cast doubt as to the veracity of the witness. Cannot bolster before impeach (unless it is a prior consistent statement to dispute that it was made before motive to lie arose).

Answer 26

Cannot be convicted of both crimes if they merge. (1) Inchoate crimes (attempt, solicitation) merge into target crime. Conspiracy does not merge. (2) Lesser crimes merge into greater crimes if the lesser crime has the same elements of the greater crime, but not all of them.

Answer 27

Yes. Once you encourage/ask the other person to commit the crime, you are on the hook for solicitation.

Answer 28

You are guilty of solicitation if you ask or encourage another person to commit the crime with the intent that they actually commit the crime. If the person says yes, solicitation merges into conspiracy. If they say no, you are still guilty.

Answer 29

The doctrine of limited admissibility allows the court to admit evidence to be used for one purpose but not another. If the court admits evidence for limited purpose, the court must issue a limiting instruction.

Answer 30

Evidence: Similar Occurrences. Admissible to prove causation.

Answer 31

Evidence. Similar Occurrences. Inadmissible to show negligence or accident prone, admissible to prove causation or common plan/scheme.

Answer 32

Evidence. Similar occurrences. Generally inadmissible to prove negligence by other accidents. However, admissible to prove notice to defendant, or that instrumentality is defective/inherently dangerous.

Answer 33

Evidence. Similar occurrence. Admissible to infer intent.

Answer 34

No, this is not particular enough. Running a red light sometimes is not a regular response to a specific set of circumstances. Running the same red light eight times in two weeks is both frequent enough and particular enough to rise to a level of habit.

Answer 35

(A). The other answers describe character evidence, which is generally inadmissible to prove propensity. Habit is a regular response to a specific set of circumstances that must be particular and frequent enough to rise to a level of a habitual, instinctual response.

Answer 36

When someone does something AFTER an accident to make things safer (repair, chances in policy, firing employee, design changes, installing safety equipment). The purpose of the Pub Pol exclusion is to encourage safety precautions without fear of liability. It is inadmissible to prove negligence, defect, or fault. It IS admissible to prove ownership/control (if disputed), feasibility of safety measures (if disputed), destruction of evidence, to impeach (lies on stand about how something could not be safer).

Answer 37

Feasibility of safety measures (if disputed) Destruction of evidence Impeach (claims product is as good/safe as it can be) Control/ownership (if disputed)

Answer 38

Evidence. Subsequent remedial measures. Generally inadmissible to show negligence.

Answer 39

Evidence. Subsequent remedial measures generally inadmissible to prove negligence or defect, but admissible to prove ownership/control, if disputed.

Answer 40

Evidence. Subsequent remedial measures. Generally inadmissible to show negligence/defect/fault, but admissible to impeach if witness testifies as safe as could be.

Answer 41

If there is a disputed claim, then evidence of OFFERS to settle, ACTUAL settlements, or ADMISSIONS OF FAULT during settlement negotiations are inadmissible to prove fault/amount of damages/impeach with prior inconsistent statement.

Answer 42

A claim does not have to be a commenced lawsuit. It can be an assertion of threat of litigation, or letter.

Answer 43

A disputed claim is a dispute as to either fault or damages. If the claim is NOT disputed, the statement is admissible as an opposing party statement.

Answer 44

Evidence Rule: If there is a disputed claim settlement offers, or statements made during settlement negotiations, are generally inadmissible to prove fault/amount of damages, or impeach with PIS. Here, there is a claim because there has been an asserted threat of litigation. However, the claim is not disputed because D has conceded to both the fault and amount of damages. These statements are admissible.

Answer 45

Evidence Rule. If there is a disputed claim, evidence of offers to settle, actual settlements, or statements made during settlement negotiations are generally inadmissible to prove fault, amount of damages, or impeach with PIS. Here, there is a claim (asserted threat of litigation) and dispute (as to money). As a result, D’s statement of an actual settlement is inadmissible for public policy reasons.

Answer 46

Evidence. Settlement exclusion for public policy reasons. P can prove settlement, but not fault.

Answer 47

Yes, settlement offers/actual settlements/statements made during negotiations are admissible for BIAS.

Answer 48

Guilty plea later withdrawn No contest plea Statements made during plea negotiations Purpose: encourage plea bargaining

Answer 49

Inadmissible.

Answer 50

Admissible. Not withdrawn! Actual guilty plea.

Answer 51

Inadmissible, but admission of fault DURING offer is admissible.

Answer 52

“It’s all my fault, I wasn’t paying attention.” Admissible. | “I’ll pay all your medical bills.” Inadmissible.

Answer 53

Evidence that a person had insurance against liability is not admissible to prove negligence or fault. If party makes a statement of fault in a statement mentioning insurance, the statement of fault is admissible, but statement of insurance is redacted. Liability insurance is admissible to prove ownership/control, or bias.

Answer 54

Sorry, I was at fault: admissible. | My insurance will cover it: inadmissible.

Answer 55

Evidence of liability insurance is not admissible to show negligence, but is admissible for the limited purpose of showing ownership.

Answer 56

Liability insurance inadmissible to prove negligence, but admissible for the limited purpose to prove bias of a witness.

Answer 57

B. Related statements in offer to pay medical expenses are admissible. Related statements in settlement negotiations are not.

Answer 58

Character evidence is evidence of a person’s general propensity or disposition. Examples: honesty, dishonesty, peacefulness, violence.

Answer 59

Reputation: Bad reputation in community for honesty Opinion: In her opinion, D is dishonest. Specific Instances: Specific acts of violence.

Answer 60

No, Prosecution cannot introduce. Only defendant can open the door with character trait pertinent to crime charged and prosecution can rebut.

Answer 61

NO. Character of violence is never an element of a criminal charge.

Answer 62

(1) Yes. Reputation. (2) Yes. Opinion. (3) No. Specific Act. (4) No. Trait not pertinent to crime charged.

Answer 63

Yes, can ask both of these things. P can cross-examine D’s character witnesses by questioning the knowledge of specific acts that D has engaged in that are relevant to the character trait in issue. This is to test the knowledge and the judgement of the witness, not to prove D’s bad character.

Answer 64

No. Because the purpose of P’s questioning is not to prove D’s bad character, but to impeach the knowledge/judgment of W. Cannot introduce extrinsic evidence!

Answer 65

No, it is not pertinent to the crime charged.

Answer 66

(1) Yes. If D opens door with evidence of good character trait, P can rebut with calling own witness for reputation/opinion of bad character trait. (2) No, specific acts are only permitted on cross of D’s witness.

Answer 67

No, D did not open door with evidence of good character trait.

Answer 68

Defendant may offer reputation of opinion evidence of victim’s violent character to prove that victim was aggressor. P can rebut with evidence of Victim’s good trait, or evidence of D’s same bad trait.

Answer 69

Yes, D may offer evidence of V’s violent character to prove V was first aggressor in form of reputation. Yes, P can rebut with evidence of D’s same trait.

Answer 70

Yes, if D offers evidence that V is first aggressor, P can rebut with evidence of V’s character for non-violence through reputation or opinion.

Answer 71

The D can offer opinion of V’s character for violence to show D’s state of mind (reputation, opinion, or specific act). This is because it is relevant for D’s belief, not for V’s propensity. Because not propensity, all three types of evidence are allowed.

Answer 72

(1) No. D cannot offer specific acts to show V first aggressor. (2) Yes. D can offer specific acts to prove that he believed he was in danger.

Answer 73

NEITHER admissible. Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove propensity in civil cases.

Answer 74

Character is an essential element of claim or defense. Directly at issue in claim. Examples: defamation, child custody, negligent entrustment or negligent hiring. Can use reputation, opinion, OR specific acts.

Answer 75

No. This is a CIVIL case. Character evidence to show propensity is inadmissible.

Answer 76

Both admissible. In a civil case, when character directly at issue because element of claim or defense, like negligent hiring, can introduce character evidence in form of specific acts, reputation, or opinion. Because not showing propensity.

Answer 77

A, B, and C all admissible. In a civil case, character evidence admissible if character directly at issue because element of claim like here, in libel suit. Because not propensity, specific acts, reputation, and opinion are allowed in.

Answer 78

``` Inadmissible to prove propensity, but if offered for some other purpose than propensity, will not be barred by rule against character evidence. MIMIC Motive Intent Mistake (lack thereof) Identity Common plan/scheme ```

Answer 79

No, because prior bad acts (robbery) is not being used to show propensity, but motive. Admissible.

Answer 80

Yes, admissible, because evidence of prior bad acts (selling LSD) not being used to show propensity but rather intent.

Answer 81

(1) No. Prior bad acts are inadmissible to prove propensity. | (2) Yes. Prior bad acts are admissible to show absence of mistake.

Answer 82

Yes, prior bad acts admissible to prove not propensity, but opportunity.

Answer 83

Yes, prior bad acts admissible to show identity, or modus operandi. Evidence of modus operandi must be unique and associated with defendant. Signature type evidence.

Answer 84

Conviction (but does not require conviction or even arrest) or evidence that tends to show the act occurred. Evidence must be sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that D committed prior act by a preponderance of the evidence.

Answer 85

D. Yes, because it is evidence of D’s knowledge.

Answer 86

Foundation laid to support finding that documentary evidence is what proponent says it is. Proponent must produce sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find this document genuine.

Answer 87

Admission, eyewitness testimony, handwriting proof, voice ID

Answer 88

Lay witness: must already be familiar with handwriting. Cannot BECOME familiar with handwriting for purpose of testifying. Expert witness. Jury comparison.

Answer 89

Lay witness CAN become familiar with voice for purposes of testifying.

Answer 90

Documentary evidence must be authenticated first. LL must offer sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury would find that the original lease is in fact the original lease.

Answer 91

Are self-authenticating IF: (1) Record is certified by a custodian (2) Offering party gives adverse party reasonable written notice and makes record and certification available so other party can challenge authentication

Answer 92

Certified copies of public records, official publications (DMV pamphlet with markings) newspapers, labels, notarized documents, signature on certain commercial documents

Answer 93

To authenticate a photograph, the witness must testify on the basis of personal knowledge that the photo fairly and accurately represents the persons or objects portrayed. It does not have to be the photographer.

Answer 94

Yes, proper foundation for authentication because the witness has testified that the photo fairly and accurately represents the intersection it portrays. Admitted.

Answer 95

When offering the contents of a writing, MUST produce the original or account for absence of original. If the explanation for the absence of the original is reasonable, can introduce a copy of the writing or oral evidence.

Answer 96

Writings (including legally operative documents—wills, deeds, leases, contracts, divorce decrees), films, photos, X-rays, and recordings

Answer 97

When the witness’s SOLE knowledge comes from a document

Answer 98

Hearsay objection is overruled. This is not hearsay, because it is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is not offered to prove that V was having affair, but that D had motive. Better objection is Best Evidence Rule: witness testifying as to contents of document when sole knowledge comes from the document itself, must produce the original document.

Answer 99

When witness has personal knowledge of events or items described in the writing, independent of the writing. Collateral documents: documents of minor importance

Answer 100

No, because she is an eyewitness to the event so she has knowledge of the events described in the writing independent of the writing.

Answer 101

Public records: certified copies are okay Voluminous documents: can use summaries or charts as long as the originals would be admissible if offered, and the originals are made available to the opposing party

Answer 102

A duplicate is a copy produced by any technique that avoids casual errors and accurately reproduces the original. Carbon copies, photographic copies, Xeroxes, and faxes are all duplicates. A duplicate is admissible to the same extent to the original (with no need to explain absence of original) if: there is no genuine question raised about the authenticity of the original OR it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in place of the original.

Answer 103

Lost and cannot be found with due diligence Destroyed without bad faith Cannot be obtained with the legal process Court must find by preponderance of the evidence that excuse is established. Then secondary evidence is admissible.

Answer 104

Yes. Physical evidence must be authenticated, meaning that the proponent must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that it is what he claims it to be. Handwriting can be authenticated by a layperson who is familiar with the writing, and has not made herself familiar solely for the purpose of testimony. The secretary is familiar with the handwriting prior to the litigation and thus can authenticate the signature.

Answer 105

Cannot exceed scope of direct. Limited to issues raised on direct, and credibility.

Answer 106

1. Must be qualified by education, training, or experience. | 2. The opinion must be scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact.

Answer 107

Personal knowledge Evidence made known to the expert AT or before the hearing Inadmissible evidence if reasonably relied upon by experts in the field (but cannot testify as to the contents of that evidence)

Answer 108

Daubert Factors: Theory or technique that has been tested Subject to peer review and publication Known or potential error rate Generally accepted in scientific community

Answer 109

Yes, but NOT to the mental state of a defendant in a criminal case

Answer 110

May be relied upon by expert during direct examination or may be used to impeach expert during cross. If the learned treatise is established as reliable authority, it can be used as substantive evidence for the truth of the matter asserted. Not as an exhibit, only read into the record.

Answer 111

Judicial Notice Opponent’s expert on stand says it is a learned treatise Your own expert says so Stipulation

Answer 112

Yes, under the hearsay exception to learned treatises.

Answer 113

Yes, because the notes may be used to refresh recollection. Witness cannot remember. Anything can be used to refresh recollection.

Answer 114

The process of showing the witness is not reliable

Answer 115

The process of trying to repair a witness’s credibility after the witness has been impeached

Answer 116

``` Prior inconsistent statement Bias, motive Sensory defects Reputation or opinion for untruthfulness Criminal convictions Prior bad acts Contradiction ```

Answer 117

Is extrinsic evidence allowed? Is there a foundation requirement?

Answer 118

Documentary evidence, another exhibit, or testimony from other witnesses

Answer 119

Any witness can be impeached with contradictory statement made at ANY TIME prior. Cannot be used for the truth of the matter asserted (unless falls under HS exception). No foundation requirement, but witness needs opportunity to explain or deny (unless party opponent, or if it is a hearsay declarant being impeached)

Answer 120

Confronted with impeaching fact before introducing extrinsic evidence

Answer 121

(1) Yes. Any statement can be used to impeach if PIS. | (2) No. Statement does not fall under HS exception for PIS.

Answer 122

(1) Overruled. P is party-opponent. No requirement to explain/deny. (2) Yes. Because she is a party-opponent.

Answer 123

When witness is a party, friend, relative, employee, expert hired by opposing party, someone who dislikes a party, etc.—the testimony is slanted in party’s favor. Can be shown with extrinsic evidence. =

Answer 124

Anything that could affect witness’s perception or memory. Poor eyesight, mental defects, alcohol or drug use at the time of the event or while on the witness stand. Extrinsic evidence allowed. No foundation requirement.

Answer 125

Any witness may be impeached by this method. Extrinsic evidence is allowed (this is how it’s done—you call another witness to testify)

Answer 126

(1) Yes. Impeachment by rep/opinion for untruthfulness. EE allowed. (2) No. Cannot impeach with specific acts for untruthful character.

Answer 127

EE allowed (certified copy of conviction). No foundation requirement.

Answer 128

1. Yes. Crimen falsi, not too remote. 2. No. Misdemeanor (non CF) inadmissible. 3. Same. 4. Up to discretion of judge. Reverse 403 balancing.

Answer 129

NO. Can only confront on cross. Must have good faith basis and within court’s discretion to permit. Cannot ask about consequences of act.

Answer 130

Yes, prior bad act can be used to impeach. No conviction. Asking on cross with no EE.

Answer 131

No. No EE allowed for impeachment by prior bad acts.

Answer 132

No, this is asking about the consequences. Not the act itself.

Answer 133

Witness gets a fact wrong. If a collateral matter, you are bound by the answer. No EE is allowed for collateral matters.

Answer 134

Something not essential to the case

Answer 135

No, no EE on collateral matter. Bound by W’s answer.

Answer 136

Yes, by any method as if took stand.

Answer 137

Yes, can introduce because falls under requirements for impeachment by criminal conviction and can impeach HS declarant as if took the stand.

Answer 138

After impeached. Cannot bolster (introduce evidence supporting credibility before credibility is attacked) Exception: Prior Statement of ID. Rehabilitation must meet attack.

Answer 139

Yes, PSID exception to bolstering

Answer 140

1. Rebut a charge of recent fabrication (statement must have been made before motive to lie arose) 2. Rehabilitates a witness who has been impeached on other grounds * Nonhearsay, so can be asserted for TOMA

Answer 141

Out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Must be made by human, not animal or machine. Inadmissible unless exemption or exception.

Answer 142

No chance to cross-examine declarant’s perception, memory, and sincerity at time statement was made.

Answer 143

Yes, example: old letter

Answer 144

Yes, if intended to assert something or offered to prove that point. Conduct in response to a question is assertive. (Answering the question by using conduct is a statement).

Answer 145

No. Machine, not human.

Answer 146

Yes, out of court (bank) statement (assertive conduct offered to prove a point) offered for the truth of the matter asserted (robber ran out back door).

Answer 147

Not on the stand testifying at this current proceeding.

Answer 148

Out of court statement = Truth of matter asserted Ex. Out of court statement (to police): I didn’t kill V. Offered to prove: D didn’t kill V. I didn’t kill V = D didn’t kill V. Hearsay

Answer 149

Yes. Out of court statement (bear came in my window) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (bear came in window).

Answer 150

No. Although out of court statement (the bear came in my window) not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (sister alive).

Answer 151

No. Although out of court statement (I’m alive) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted (plaintiff was alive), it was not the words themselves that prove H was alive, but the words themselves (conduct). Think, anything he said would support the conclusion that he was alive.

Answer 152

No, words that have independent legal significance (create, alter, modify, or terminate legal rights) are not hearsay. Generally tortious or transactional language. Examples: words of defamation, words showing transfer of property, alleged perjury, words by adverse possessor showing adverse possession, words of contract.

Answer 153

Not offered for truth of matter asserted, so not hearsay.

Answer 154

No. Not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, offered to show crazy.

Answer 155

``` Co-conspirator PIS PCS PSID Opposing party admission Remember: Anything C3PO said was not hearsay! ```

Answer 156

For the 3Ps (PIS, PCS, PSID)

Answer 157

Statements by a co-conspirator are admissible against a party-opponent for the truth of the matter. They are not hearsay.

Answer 158

BOTH civil and criminal

Answer 159

(1) Conspiracy existed (need independent proof, does not have to be charged) (2) Declarant was a member of the conspiracy (3) Offered against other member (party-opponent) (4) Statement made during the course of the conspiracy, or in furtherance of the conspiracy

Answer 160

Any statement made by a party may be offered by that party’s opponent for the truth of the matter asserted. ANYTHING OTHER PARTY SAID GOES. Does not matter if opposing party does not testify.

Answer 161

A party adopts another person’s statement as true by words or conduct, including by remaining silent. If party Heard, Understood, and a Reasonable Person would have Taken exception, the party is HURT by silence.

Answer 162

Yes, as adoptive party admission under nonhearsay. Heard, Understood, and a Reasonable person would have Taken exception.

Answer 163

No, silence after Miranda warnings cannot be used against you.

Answer 164

Statements by a person authorized to speak on behalf of party counts as statement by party-opponent. Examples: president of company, attorney for client.

Answer 165

Statements by employees are admissible against employer as admission if: (1) Made within the scope of employment (job-related) (2) While employed (statement itself is evidence of employment, but need additional evidence to prove employment if disputed)

Answer 166

Declarant must (1) testify and (2) be subject to cross about prior statement.

Answer 167

A prior inconsistent statement by a testifying witness given UNDER OATH at a PRIOR PROCEEDING is not hearsay and is admissible for the truth of the matter asserted, and to impeach.

Answer 168

Before a grand jury At a prior trial At a deposition

Answer 169

Prior consistent statements cannot be used for any purpose EXCEPT to rebut a charge of fabrication based on improper motive, or when witness impeached on other non-character ground and prior consistent statement can be used to rehabilitate.

Answer 170

(1) When the cross-examination raises express or implied charge against the declarations of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. (2) PCS must have been made BEFORE the alleged undue influence.

Answer 171

PSID is not hearsay as long as declarant (1) testifies and (2) is subject to cross-examination about the statement. If declarant does not testify or refuses to answer questions on cross, 3rd party witness can testify about PSID. If declarant DOES testify and cannot recall, makes wrong ID or recants prior statement, 3rd party witness CAN testify about PSID.

Answer 172

``` Lineups Show-ups (drive up with D in back of police car) Photo array Sketch by police artist In-court ID at prior proceeding ```

Answer 173

Yes, (1) testified, and (2) subject to cross. Even if made wrong ID, can still introduce PSID.

Answer 174

No, exception to bolstering.

Answer 175

If the declarant made an out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it is admissible only if it (1) meets a hearsay exception, or (2) is excluded from the definition of hearsay.

Answer 176

``` PRISM, Remember: I can’t testify, I am caught in a PRISM Privilege Refusal to testify Illness Subpoena won’t work Memory (lack thereof) ```

Answer 177

Former testimony, Dying declaration, Statement Against Interest

Answer 178

Statement made under oath at a prior proceeding. The statement is now being offered against a party to the prior proceeding, and the party against whom the statement offered had a prior opportunity to examine the declarant at prior proceeding. The prior proceeding must have been conducted for essentially the same reason as the examination at the present trial, so the reason or motive for both examinations is similar.

Answer 179

Yes, under former testimony exception to hearsay rule. Declarant unavailable (5th = Privilege). The statement was under oath at a prior proceeding, and offered against party who had opportunity to examine the declarant at prior proceeding with similar motive.

Answer 180

``` CUBA Cause of Death (statement must relate to cause of apparently impending death) Unavailable Belief death imminent All civil or homicide Remember: I died in CUBA. ```

Answer 181

I died in CUBA. Cause of death: statement relates to cause of death, Derek killed my buddy and me Unavailable: Coma = Illness (prIsm) Belief that death is imminent: I’m not going to make it All civil or homicide: homicide

Answer 182

Statement of non-party declarant is admissible hearsay if: (1) statement was against declarant’s interest when made (financial, criminal, or pecuniary) (2) Reasonable person would not have made the statement unless she believed it true when she made it, and (3) Declarant unavailable

Answer 183

No. Not against declarant’s financial interest when made. However, it is a opposing party statement.

Answer 184

If statement against interest incriminates declarant, the rule requires corroborating circumstances to indicate trustworthiness.

Answer 185

Statement that describes event while declarant is perceiving the event (or immediately after)

Answer 186

A startling event causes the declarant to be excited or shocked, and defendant made statement related to startling event while under stress of startling event.

Answer 187

Statement of declarant’s then-existing state of mind, emotion or sensation, physical condition. Admissible to prove intent, plan, motive, mental feeling, pain.

Answer 188

No, statement of then-existing mental condition offered to prove intent to prove future acts.

Answer 189

Yes, because although state of mind it was not then-existing. Cannot be statements of memory or belief. No looking back. Exception: wills.

Answer 190

Statement made by ANYONE talking to doctor for purpose of diagnosis or treatment that describes medical history, symptoms, pain, or cause (BUT NOT FAULT) of injury if reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.

Answer 191

Partially as hearsay exception of statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Statement made to doctor for purposes of medical treatment. Statements of pain and cause admissible as pertinent to treatment, but not fault.

Answer 192

No, not to medical personnel for treatment, and not statement of then-existing physical condition because memory.

Answer 193

Yes, levels of hearsay. Child’s statement then-existing physical condition and mother’s statement made for purposes of medical treatment.

Answer 194

(1) Yes. Recorded recollection. (2) No. She can only read it into evidence. (3) Yes. Opposing party can introduce into evidence as an exhibit.

Answer 195

(1) Must be authenticated: a custodian or otherwise qualified witness who knows how records are kept files an affidavit to say all requirements met. Requirements: (1) Record made contemporaneously with business transaction (2) Made by person with knowledge of facts (sales clerk, book-keeper) (3) Made and kept in the normal course of business (4) UNLESS opponent shows record is suspicious or unreliable

Answer 196

Overruled. Admissible under business records hearsay exception. Authenticated by custodian. Made by clerk at time of sale during regular course of business. Not suspicious.

Answer 197

Records FAIL to show transaction occurred. Requirements: record made (1) same time as transaction, (2) by person with knowledge, (3) in the regular course of business, and (4) ALL transactions of this type are recorded. Also must be authenticated by custodian.

Answer 198

The fourth element. Business Records: not suspicious. Absence of Business Records: all transactions of this type are recorded. Otherwise elements and authentication are the same.

Answer 199

A government record that describes (1) the activities of the agency, (2) any matter observed by public official with duty to observe and report, (3) Investigative reports in civil cases and against the government in criminal cases

Answer 200

Police report against a defendant in a criminal trial

Answer 201

Public Records Exception to Hearsay (1) Activities of agency (2) Activities of agency (3) Matter observed by public official with duty to observe and report (4) Investigative report in civil case

Answer 202

Evidence that a diligent search failed to reveal public record. Will take the form of a testimony by custodian of public records.

Answer 203

Evidence of a final judgment of conviction of felony. Can be used in civil or criminal cases, but in criminal must be judgment against defendant and not third party. Can prove any fact essential to the judgment.

Answer 204

Yes, under prior felony judgments exception to hearsay.

Answer 205

No, because judgment against third party. Not defendant. Does not fall under prior felony judgments to hearsay exception.

Answer 206

Each statement must meet exclusion/exception

Answer 207

Yes, one level of hearsay under public records (matter observed by public official with duty to observe and report).

Answer 208

Yes, hearsay within hearsay but both statements fall under exception. 1. Public records. 2. Excited utterance

Answer 209

Yes, hearsay within hearsay and both statements fall under exception. First level: public records exception. Second level: statement made for medical treatment.

Answer 210

Hearsay within hearsay. Both statements fall under exception/exemption: (1) business records, (2) admission of party-opponent.

Answer 211

No, hearsay within hearsay and both statements do not fall under exception. The first falls under business records, but the second does not fall under a hearsay exception because it is a statement of fault.

Answer 212

Prosecution cannot offer any testimonial hearsay unless: (1) defendant has opportunity to cross examination declarant, or (2) declarant is unavailable and defendant had a prior opportunity to cross.

Answer 213

Primary purpose of the statement is to provide police with information in their case. NOT a call for help/emergency.

Answer 214

Hearsay exception: excited utterance. | Call for help/emergency is not testimonial so does not violate confrontation clause.

Answer 215

Sustained. This is testimonial hearsay. Testimonial because the primary purpose of the call was to provide information to the police to help them with their case. Cannot offer unless defendant has opportunity to cross (no, dead) or declarant unavailable and prior opportunity to cross (did not happen).

Answer 216

Yes. So exclude UNLESS opportunity/prior opportunity to cross.

Answer 217

When emergency turns from 911 (non-testimonial) to 411 (testimonial) it becomes testimonial hearsay and must have opportunity to cross/prior opportunity to cross to let in.

Answer 218

A report that has the effect of accusing a targeted person of criminal conduct is testimonial. If analyst who drafted report is unavailable to testify, Confrontation clause violation.

Answer 219

Yes, look for short time in answer.

Answer 220

Confidential communications between attorney and client during legal consultation. Or representative of either. Client can waive, or exception can apply. Privilege survives client’s death.

Answer 221

Client must intend confidentiality. If a client knows a 3rd party is listening, or tells attorney to disclose to 3rd party, not confidential.

Answer 222

No, just communications.

Answer 223

If two or more clients with common interest consult the same attorney, their communications as to the common interest are privileged. But if joint clients later have dispute, communications no longer privileged.

Answer 224

Client going to commit future crime or fraud Client makes an issue of legal advice (says acting on legal advice) Dispute between attorney and client

Answer 225

Spouse cannot be compelled to testify against spouse in criminal case. Privilege belongs to TESTIFYING spouse. Must be married at time of trial, but privilege covers pre-marriage matters.

Answer 226

Spouse not required to and not allowed to without consent of other spouse to disclose confidential communications made during marriage. BOTH spouses hold privilege. Must be married at time of communications, not trial. Protects only communications, not physical evidence. Applies in both civil and criminal cases.

Answer 227

Joint criminal enterprise (Bonnie and Clyde) Communications/acts destructive to family (spousal or child abuse) Spousal dispute

Answer 228

Client has privilege against disclosure of confidential info acquired by social worker in professional relationship entered into for purpose of getting treatment. Patient must be seeking treatment. Information acquired must be necessary to facilitate treatment.

Answer 229

When suing psychotherapist or when patient puts condition at issue (i.e., pleads insanity).

Answer 230

Whether witness qualified to testify Existence of privilege Admissibility of evidence (ONLY bound by rules of privilege, can consider everything else)

Answer 231

Civil: produce evidence to rebut Criminal: there are NO mandatory presumptions

Answer 232

(1) Standing (2) Ripeness (3) Mootness (4) Political Question Doctrine

Answer 233

A plaintiff has standing if he is the proper party to bring to court for adjudication. For standing, a plaintiff must have (1) an injury (the plaintiff has been or will imminently be injured), (2) causation (the defendant caused the injury), and (3) redressability (the federal court decision will provide a remedy—not an advisory opinion)

Answer 234

A plaintiff cannot assert claims of others who are not before the court except for: (1) there is a close relationship between the plaintiff and injured third party (2) the injured third party is unlikely to be able to assert his or her own rights (3) an organization can sue on behalf of its members if the individual members have standing and the claim is related to the purposes of the organization

Answer 235

NO. NO GENERAL GRIEVANCES. A plaintiff does not have standing solely because they are a taxpayer UNLESS they are challenging the government using tax money to violate the establishment clause. Specifically MONETARY aid, not grants of property, not general executive revenues, or tax credits.

Answer 236

The question of whether a federal court may grant pre-enforcement review of a statute or regulation. Consider the hardship that plaintiff will suffer without pre-enforcement review, ad the fitness of the issues and the record.

Answer 237

If events after the filing of a lawsuit end the plaintiff’s injury, the case must be dismissed as moot. The plaintiff must have an ongoing injury. Exceptions: (1) the injury is capable of repetition but evading review (pregnancy) (2) voluntary cessation (3) class action, injury must be ongoing for just one member

Answer 238

Constitutional violations that the federal courts will not adjudicate: (1) the republican form of government clause, (2) challenges to the President’s conduct of foreign policy, (3) challenges to the impeachment and removal process, (4) challenges to partisan gerrymandering.

Answer 239

(1) The four justifiability requirements (2) All cases come to the Supreme Court from state and CoA by writ of certiorari. (3) Cases can skip CoA when 3-judge federal district courts (4) Cases between state governments (5) There must be a FINAL JUDGMENT of the highest state court, of the CoA, or of a three-judge federal district court

Answer 240

If reversing federal law found will not change the result, cannot hear the case. It rests on adequate state grounds.

Answer 241

Cannot hear suits against state governments because of sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment, which also bars suits against states in state court or federal agencies. Exceptions: explicit waiver, under section 5 of the 14th amendment, the federal government may sue state governments, and bankruptcy proceedings.

Answer 242

YES. State officers can be sued for injunctive relief or when they are personally liable. State officers cannot be sued if it is the state treasury that will be paying retroactive damages.

Answer 243

Abstention is the doctrine that holds that federal courts may not enjoin pending state court proceedings

Answer 244

Congress can act ONLYT when it has the express or implied authority to do so. There is no general federal police power. It is MILD: (1) military, (2) Indian reservation, (3) federal Lands, (4) D.C.

Answer 245

The Necessary and Proper Clause is used in CONJUNCTION with other powers. It gives Congress the implied authority to use any means not prohibited by the constitution to carry out its powers.

Answer 246

Congress can tax and spend for the general welfare

Answer 247

Congress may regulate: Channels of interstate commerce Instrumentalities of interstate commerce (trains, planes, phones, state lines) Activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce (if it is a non-economic activity, the substantial effect cannot be based on cumulative impact)

Answer 248

Congress cannot compel state legislature/regulatory activity (anti-commandeering). But Congress CAN induce state legislature by making grants conditional, as long as conditions are expressly stated, related to the purpose of the spending program, and not unduly coercive. COngress MAY prohibit harmful commercial activity by state governments.

Answer 249

Legislative vetoes (where congress attempts to overturn executive action without bicameralism (vote by house and senate) or presentment (given to President to sign or veto))AND line-item vetoes where president attempts to veto just parts of a bill and sign the rest into law

Answer 250

Agreements between the United States and foreign countries negotiated by president and ratified by the senate. Treaties prevail over conflicting state laws. When treaties vs. fed statute, last in time prevails. When treaties conflict with constitution, constitution prevails.

Answer 251

An agreement between the United States and a foreign country that is effective when signed by the president and the head of the foreign country. Can be used for any purpose. Prevail over state laws, but not federal laws and not the Constitution.

Answer 252

Congress CANNOT designate the capital of the foreign country

Answer 253

The PRESIDENT has broad discretion

Answer 254

The PRESIDENT, as commander in chief. This is usually dismissed as a political question.

Answer 255

Federal judges, ambassadors, and officers

Answer 256

No. Congress MAY vest appointment of inferior officers (who can be fired by an officer, i.e., AG can fire U.S. attorneys), heads of departments, or lower federal courts

Answer 257

NO. And cannot give itself power to appoint.

Answer 258

The President cannot make recess appointments during intra-session recesses that are less than 10 days

Answer 259

Unless removal is limited by statute, the President may fire an executive branch officer. For Congress to limit removal, it must be an office where independence from the President is desirable. Cannot prohibit. Only limit for good cause.

Answer 260

President, VP, federal judges and officers of the United States

Answer 261

Treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors

Answer 262

House impeaches with a majority vote and then Senate convicts with a 2/3 vote

Answer 263

President ABSOLUTELY immune to civil suits for money damages for any actions while in office. But does not have immunity for actions that occurred prior to taking office. (Basically, once you become president everyone will try to sue you so they don’t let that happen.)

Answer 264

The president has an executive privilege for presidential papers and communications, but privilege not absolute. Yields to other important government interests.

Answer 265

Accused and convicted of FEDERAL crimes. Cannot pardoned for impeach offenses. Only FEDERAL liability for CRIMES. Keep an eye out for civil contempt! NOT CIVIL CONTEMPT.

Answer 266

If conflict between federal and state law, federal wins. There is an express preemption if the federal law says it is “exclusive.” There is an implied preemption if: (1) direct conflict and mutually exclusive (can’t obey both laws at once), (2) state law impedes federal objective, (3) congress evidences clear intent for federal law preemption statute (i.e., immigration law)

Answer 267

No, states cannot tax or regulate a federal activity. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to pay state tax out of federal treasury. Inter-governmental immunity.

Answer 268

Cannot pay taxes out of federal treasury. Unconstitutional

Answer 269

Also known as the negative implications of the commerce clause. Rule: if a state law places an undue burden on interstate commerce, it is unconstitutional. To determine if commerce clause or DCC, ask who is passing the law: congress or state?

Answer 270

No state may deny citizens of other states of privileges and immunities adorned to its own citizens. Look for state discrimination against out of staters.

Answer 271

This is ALWAYS the wrong answer (unless it is a question of the right to travel)

Answer 272

P and I of Article IV does not apply. If the law burdens IC, it violates the DCC if the burdens exceed the benefits.

Answer 273

DCC: If the law burdens IC, it violates the DCC unless it is necessary to achieve an important government interest. Exception: (1) Congressional approval, and (2) the market participant P and I: If the law discriminates against out of staters with ability to earn livelihood, violates P and I unless necessary to achieve important government interest. Look for federal rights or important economic activities (earn a living, fees for license, residency requirement vs. simple hobby)

Answer 274

If the government is an actor in the market, a state may prefer its own citizens in receiving government benefits. Ex. In-state tuition

Answer 275

NO. Only use DCC.

Answer 276

Discrimination against out of staters: required under P and I, not DCC because this just goes to balancing test What is required: burden on IC vs discrimination with regard to fundamental rights or important economic activities Corps and aliens: can sue under DCC, not P and I Exceptions: 2 exceptions to DCC

Answer 277

State cannot use tax to help in-state business. States can only tax activities with substantial nexus to state. State CAN require out of state business to collect sales tax (online sales can constitute a physical presence)

Answer 278

No, only government action. Private conduct does not have to comply with constitution. Federal, state, and local action must comply with constitution.

Answer 279

Government, by statute, may apply constitutional norms to private conduct. The Thirteenth Amendment can be used to prohibit private race discrimination. This can be done through the Commerce Clause, not Section 5 of 14th Amendment.

Answer 280

(1) Public function exceptions: private entity is performing a task traditionally exclusively done by the government. Ex. Running a town. NOT running a utility! (2) Entanglement Exception: Government affirmatively authorizes, encourages, or facilitates unconstitutional activity.

Answer 281

(1) Courts enforce racial restrictive covenants (2) Government LEASES premises to restaurant that racially discriminates (3) Government gives free textbooks to school that racially discriminates

Answer 282

(1) Government funding private school (2) NCAA orders suspension of basketball coach at state university (3) Private entity regulates public school sports (4) Liquor license given to place that racially discriminates So, NOT funding and not license.

Answer 283

Only applies to federal governments. Applied to state and local governments through incorporation by 14th Amendment due process clause. Not included: 3rd Amendment right not not have a soldier quartered in a person’s home, Fifth Amendment right to grand jury indictment in criminal cases, Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in civil cases.

Answer 284

A law is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Burden is on the challenger, not the state.

Answer 285

A law is upheld if it is substantially related to an important government interest. Burden on state.

Answer 286

Law is upheld if it is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Burden on state. Necessary = no other way to achieve (narrowly tailored).

Answer 287

Deprivation of life, liberty, or property

Answer 288

There is a loss of freedom granted by a statute or the constitution. Example: institutionalizing adult

Answer 289

A loss of property occurs if there is an entitlement and the entitlement is not fulfilled. An entitlement is a reasonable expectation to continued receipt of a benefit (ex. Government PROMISED a job for a year) NOT if the contract requires renewal

Answer 290

Negligence is not sufficient for PDP deprivation. The government must have acted intentionally or at least reckless for liability to exist. In emergency situations, the government is only liable if the act shocks the conscience.

Answer 291

No, this is not a deprivation of due process. The government must CREATE the danger or the person must be in government custody.

Answer 292

Balancing Test: (1) Importance of interest to the individual (2) Ability of additional procedures to increase accuracy of fact-finding (3) Government’s interest

Answer 293

Notice and a hearing

Answer 294

Post-termination hearing

Answer 295

Notice of charges and opportunity to explain. Corporal punishment does not require any due process.

Answer 296

Notice and a hearing

Answer 297

Require instructions be given to jury and judicial review to ensure reasonableness. Grossly excessive punitive damages violate due process.

Answer 298

Must be accorded due process

Answer 299

Unless exigent circumstances, notice and a hearing required.

Answer 300

If a law affects economics rights, only the RBT is used.

Answer 301

The government may take private property for public use if it provides just compensation. (1) Is there a taking? (2) Is it for public use? (3) Is just compensation paid?

Answer 302

Possessory taking: government confiscates or physically occupies a property. Regulatory taking: leaves no reasonable economically viable use (does not just devalue).

Answer 303

Not if justified by a benefit that is roughly proportionate to burden imposed. Otherwise, taking.

Answer 304

No, so long as the action is reasonable.

Answer 305

Broadly defined. So long as government acts out of reasonable belief that taking will benefit public.

Answer 306

Measured in terms of loss to owner (market value), not gain to taker

Answer 307

No STATE shall impair the obligations of contracts. Only state/local NOT FEDERAL interference to already existing Ks.

Answer 308

Intermediate Scrutiny. But a different test. (1) Does the legislation substantially impair a party’s rights under an existing contracts? (2) If so, is the law reasonably and narrowly tailed means of promoting and important and legitimate public interest?

Answer 309

Strict Scrutiny

Answer 310

An ex post facto law is a law that criminally punishes conduct that was lawful when it was done or that increases punishment for a crime after it was committed. Not allowed. Applies to criminal but not civil. Retroactive CIVIL liability only needs meet RBT.

Answer 311

Law that directs the punishment of a specific person or persons without trial

Answer 312

Privacy are fundamental rights protected under substantive due process. Deprivation of these rights requires strict scrutiny. Right to marry, right to procreate, right to child custody, right to keep family together, right to steer upbringing of kids, right to purchase and use contraceptives

Answer 313

Test is not strict scrutiny. Test changes depending on viability status of fetus. Pre-viability: cannot put an undue burden on the right. Can regulate but cannot prohibit. Post-viability: CAN prohibit unless mom’s health in danger.

Answer 314

Yes! Unconstitutional.

Answer 315

Not if there is a judicial bypass, where the minor can, as an alternative, go to a judge to be allowed abortion.

Answer 316

Not undue burden. Constitutional.

Answer 317

Not undue burden not unconstitutional.

Answer 318

Not unconstitutional not undue burden.

Answer 319

Undue burden. Unconstitutional.

Answer 320

Laws that prevent people from moving into a state: SS Durational residency requirements: SS (example: voting, 50 day max allowed) Restrictions on foreign travel: RBT (Corona!)

Answer 321

Laws that deny some citizens right to vote must meet SS, but regulations on electoral process to prevent fraud need only be “only balance, desirable” Ex. Poll taxes are unconstitutional, property requirement unconstitutional, purpose to prevent fraud, not unconstitutional

Answer 322

MUST be met for all state and local elections. For any elected body with districts, all districts must be the same in population.

Answer 323

Constitutional. Unless discriminatory purpose

Answer 324

Must meet SS to be constitutional

Answer 325

Violates Ep

Answer 326

What is the level of classification? What level of scrutiny should be applied? Does law meet level of scrutiny?

Answer 327

State and local governments ONLY

Answer 328

Through the 5th Amendment Due Process Clause

Answer 329

Strict Scrutiny Classification exists: (1) On the face of the law (2) Law is facially neutral, prove discriminatory impact AND intent

Answer 330

Strict scrutiny

Answer 331

Still strict scrutiny

Answer 332

Only to remedy past discrimination (clear proof)

Answer 333

This is okay if there is no race-neutral alternative which could achieve diversity. Cannot add points to scores based on race

Answer 334

Intermediate scrutiny How law classifies: (1) discrimination on face (2) facially neutral but discriminatory impact AND intent

Answer 335

Only to remedy past discrimination, but not based on stereotypes

Answer 336

Generally strict scrutiny UNLESS: (1) Alienage classifications that concern self-government and the democratic process: RBT (voting, jury, teacher, police officer) (2) Congressional discrimination: RBT (3) Undocumented alien children: IS

Answer 337

Intermediate Scrutiny | Laws that deny benefit to all non-marital child but gives to all marital is unconstitutional

Answer 338

Content-based: Strict scrutiny Content-neutral: Intermediate Scrutiny If there is a subject matter restriction or a viewpoint restriction, this is content-based

Answer 339

This is a judicial order or administrative system that stops speech BEFORE it occurs. Such as the court ordering a preliminary injunction or restraining order, or a license or permit. If a court orders something and it is procedurally proper, it must be followed until it is overturned. If it is violated you are barred from challenging it.

Answer 340

Laws are unconstitutionally vague if a reasonable person can’t tell what speech is permitted/prohibited. Ex. “Tending to corrupt morals of youth” Laws are unconstitutionally over-broad if regulates substantially more speech than is constitutionally allowed. Ex. “All live entertainment barred”

Answer 341

Unconstitutionally vague and overboard! Fighting words are words directed to another likely to incite a fight Look for a NASTY speaker and an appealing victim. Speaker gets convicted under fighting words. Vague and overboard.

Answer 342

Conduct that communicates. Congress CAN regulate if important purpose/interest other than suppression of message and no greater than necessary to achieve purpose

Answer 343

Constitutionally protected

Answer 344

NOT unconstitutionally protected

Answer 345

Can be prohibited by local governments

Answer 346

Protected speech unless done with intent to threaten

Answer 347

Constitutional, but expenditure limits are not

Answer 348

Violates the constitution. Ex. Forcing to salute flag

Answer 349

Cannot be challenged as violating the speech clause of the first amendment

Answer 350

Speech that causes a substantial likelihood of imminent illegal activities may be punished by the government if the speech is directed at causing it

Answer 351

Unprotected if: (1) Material must appeal to prurient interest (excites lustful thoughts) - Community Standard (2) Material must be patently offensive -Community Standard (3) Material must lack serious or redeeming artistic, scholarly, literary, political or scientific value-National Standard

Answer 352

Yes, even if not obscene. Must be children, though, and not adults who look like children.

Answer 353

No, but government MAY punish private possession of child pornography

Answer 354

Generally, yes, protected by 1st Amendment UNLESS over broadcast media (free tv and radio) or in schools

Answer 355

Advertising for illegal activity, or FALSE/DECEPTIVE ads are not protected by First Amendment. Government MAY prohibit truthful ads risking deception (es. Professional practicing under a trade name, in-person solicitation of clients, except accountants). Regulation of other commercial speech: IS. Must be narrowly tailored but does not have to be least restrictive.

Answer 356

Actual malice and falsity of the statement for recovery | Actual malice: defendant knew statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth

Answer 357

Falsity and negligence | Punitive damages requires actual malice

Answer 358

P can recover for punitive damages without actual malice

Answer 359

Liability must meet requirements for defamation and cannot exist for protected speech (for example, parody or the westboro baptist church)

Answer 360

The government cannot create liability for truthful reporting of information lawfully obtained. Media not liable if broadcast a tape of illegally intercepted call, if media did not participate in the illegality and involves matter of public importance.

Answer 361

Not protected by first amendment

Answer 362

Government properties that the government is constitutionally required to make available for speech: sidewalk, parks. Can regulate if: (1) Content neutral. If not, SS (2) Time, place or manner regulation that serves and important government purpose and leaves alternatives open for communication (3) Does not have to be least restrictive alternative, but does have to be narrowly tailored

Answer 363

Government properties that government could close to speech but chooses to keep open. Same rules as public forum. Ex. Public school on nights and weekends.

Answer 364

Government properties that are limited to certain groups or certain subjects. Can regulate speech so long as it is reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

Answer 365

Government closes to speech. Can regulate so long as regulation is reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Ex. Military bases, areas outside prisons and jails, sidewalks on post office property, airports (can prohibit solicitation of money, cannot prohibit distribution of literature)

Answer 366

Laws that prohibit or punish groups membership: strict scrutiny. To punish a membership in a group it must be proven that the person: (1) actively affiliated with the group, (2) knowing of its illegal activities, (3) with the specific intent of furthering those illegal activities.

Answer 367

Strict scrutiny if such disclosure would chill association

Answer 368

Constitutional. Unless interfere with intimate association or expressive activity. Intimate association: dinner party. Expressive activity: discrimination is integral, the klan can exclude blacks, nazis can exclude Jews

Answer 369

Cannot be used to challenge NEUTRAL law of GENERAL applicability. The government may not deny benefits to individuals who quit jobs fore religious reasons. The government may not hold a religious institution liable for the choices it makes as to who will be its ministers. The denial of benefits to a religious school that are provided to a secular private school must meet SS.

Answer 370

(1) Must be secular purpose for law (2) Effect must be neither to advance or inhibit religion (3) No excessive entanglement with religion

Answer 371

No. Establishment Clause.

Answer 372

Strict Scrutiny

Answer 373

Yes. Establishment Clause

Answer 374

No. Establishment clause.

Answer 375

Yes. Textbooks. Parent vouchers.

Answer 376

Control by one party over another

Answer 377

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act

Answer 378

It is unlawful for an employer to fail to hire, fire, or otherwise discriminate against any individual because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation

Answer 379

Employer with 15 or more employees (unless state or local government) Labor unions Employment agencies

Answer 380

Religious organizations Private membership clubs Indian tribes

Answer 381

It is unlawful for employer to fail to hire, fire, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to AGE

Answer 382

Plaintiffs OVER 40 when they are discriminated against in favor of someone younger

Answer 383

Employers with 20 or more employees (unless state/local government) Labor unions Employment agencies

Answer 384

States retain 11th Amendment immunity from suit

Answer 385

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability. It also also unlawful not to make reasonable accommodations to known physical and mental limitations for otherwise qualified individual unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship.

Answer 386

Plaintiffs with: (1) an actual, present disability (2) a record of disability or (3) regarded as having a physical, mental impairment

Answer 387

A mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity

Answer 388

An individual with a disability who with or without reasonable accommodations can perform essential functions of the job

Answer 389

Employers with 15 or more employees (unless state or local government)

Answer 390

States have 11th Amendment immunity

Answer 391

(1) File a charge with PA Human Relations Commission within 180 days of the alleged violation, under oath (2) File with EEOC within 300 days after unfair hiring practice or within 30 days after notice that PHRC has terminated proceedings (whichever is earlier)

Answer 392

You can cross-file with the EEOC and PHRC.

Answer 393

Depends on the type of claim. Discrete Act: time of the ACT (or resignation if constructive discharge)-notice of Decision Rule: Notice to employee of employer’s decision to take adverse action Paychecks: Each new paycheck awarding discriminatory pay starts the clock Hostile environment: Will not be time barred so long as (1) all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice, and (2) at least one act falls within the time period

Answer 394

After filing charge, obtain right to sue letter. Can demand RTS once 180 days after filing charge have passed or wait and see what happens (retain power to demand right to sue)

Answer 395

(1) Find no reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred and issue notice of dismissal, or (2) Find reasonable cause, attempt conciliation, and if that fails, file suit or issue right to sue letter

Answer 396

When you are filing under the ADEA

Answer 397

Plaintiff has to file suit within 90 days of decision. Plaintiff may bring claims not listed in charge, unless defendant objects.

Answer 398

File charge with PHRC (180 days) File charge with EEOC (300 or 30 days) Get right to sue letter or notice of dismissal (must wait 180 days) File in court (90 days)

Answer 399

(1) individual disparate treatment (2) systemic disparate treatment (3) disparate impact (4) harassment (5) retaliation

Answer 400

The employer treats an individual differently from others because of a prohibited characteristic. ALL statutes have this. Plaintiff must show intent to discriminate through single motive or mixed motive.

Answer 401

McDonald Douglas Test. Must prove 5 elements by preponderance of the evidence: (1) Membership in protected class (race, over 40, disabled) (2) Qualified for position/performing job at satisfactory level (3) Applied for open position (4) Adverse employment action (5) Position remained open or it was failed with someone outside protected class Establishing the prima facie case creates a presumption of discrimination, and burden shifts to employee to prove a legitimate, non discriminatory reason. If meets burden, shifts to plaintiff to prove pretext was real reason for discrimination, and membership in protected class was determinative and LNDR was false.

Answer 402

NO. But can be sufficient for fact-finder.

Answer 403

``` Plaintiff bears burden of prima facie case Defendant bears burden of LNDR Plaintiff bears burden of pretext (membership in the protected class was a determinative factor in decision) ```

Answer 404

Title VII: Unlawful employment action is established when plaintiff shows impermissible reason is MOTIVATING factor (plaintiff does not need direct evidence). If plaintiff makes this showing, defendant has opportunity to demonstrate by preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision in absence of impermissible reason. This LIMITS remedies: injunctive relief and attorney’s fees but no damages ADA: Requires direct evidence of motivating factor. Employer may AVOID liability with. Same-decision defense. Liability determined after defense, as opposed to Title VII (liability determined with plaintiff’s showing). ADEA: NO MIXED MOTIVES

Answer 405

Title VII and ADA: Single and Mixed Motive available | ADEA: Single motive only

Answer 406

Is present where employer discriminates against an entire class. Must show intent. Two methods to prove: Racially discriminatory policy OR Pattern or practice of discrimination

Answer 407

Plaintiff shows formal policy and policy allows/mandates adverse employment action on basis of protected class. Employer can only avoid liability with statutory defense: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)

Answer 408

(A) Qualification reasonably necessary to normal operation of particular business (B) Religion, sex, national origin or age is a proxy for the qualification by showing either: (1) there is a reasonable cause to believe that all or substantially all of the persons in the class are unable to perform safely and efficiently duties of the job or (2) some of the employees in the class possess a trait precluding safe and efficient job performance, and it is practically impossible for the employer to deal with the class of employees on an individual basis

Answer 409

Plaintiff must prove employer’s standard operating procedure discriminates against a protected class. May prove through statistics (workforce vs. community), anecdotal evidence, historical evidence. If prove by statistics and the employment is skilled, the community is the right geographic area (where you commute from), if the employment is not skilled, the community is the general population. Defendant can challenge numbers, inference of intent, BFOQ, avoiding liability under another claim.

Answer 410

Lawful under Title VII. Weber Test: plaintiff has to prove does not meet the test. The test: (1) remedy a manifest imbalance in a traditionally segregated job category and cannot unduly trammel rights of disfavored group

Answer 411

(1) Plaintiff proves elements for PF case of systemic disparate treatment (2) Defendant produces LNDR of voluntary affirmative action plan (3) P must prove that affirmative action plan does not meet Weber Test

Answer 412

An employer’s facially neutral policies, regardless of intent, adversely affect a protected class more than others, and cannot be adequately justified. NEED NOT SHOW INTENT.

Answer 413

(1) Plaintiff is in a protected class (2) Identify practice (adopted vs. implemented) that causes disparate impact (Bottom-Line Exception: if the plaintiff can’t tell which practice causes the impact because the employer does not keep records, then can use bottom line to satisfy prima facie case) (3) Causal link between practice and impact (4) Disproportionate Impact: the plaintiff must prove that the practice she challenges causes a disparate impact (4/5ths Rule: if protected group’s pass rate is less than 80% of non-protected group’s pass rate, evidence of disparate impact)

Answer 414

(1) Business necessity and job-relatedness: practice is job-related for business in question. The practice must accurately measure applicant’s ability to perform successfully.

Answer 415

(1) Professionally Developed Test (2) Bona Fide Seniority System: different compensation, terms, and conditions for different groups of employees (3) Bona Fide Merit or Peace Work System: Quantity and quality-based compensation is permitted (4) ADEA: reasonable factor other than age

Answer 416

Alternative employment practice that achieves the same goals without disparate impact (serves the same purpose, is not discriminatory, and is reasonable for employer to use)

Answer 417

Under all statutes. If employee’s terms or conditions of employment are altered due to sex, race, disability, etc. she has a claim for harassment. 2 claims: quid pro quo, or hostile environment

Answer 418

Sexual conduct is a condition of tangible employment benefits. Plaintiff must show: (1) Supervisor (2) made sexual demands/advance to subordinate (3) Plaintiff submitted to demands or suffered tangible employment action (4) Employer liable If plaintiff proves claim, employer is vicariously liable and no defense.

Answer 419

Plaintiff must prove: (1) Member of protected class (2) There was conduct because of membership (3) and that conduct was uninvited (4) Conduct was severe of pervasive (severity, frequency, physically threatening or humiliating, interferes with work performance)

Answer 420

If supervisor creates HWE: employer still vicariously liable but the employer has a two part affirmative defense (1) used reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct and (2) employee unreasonable failed to use reporting procedures created by employer If co-worker creates HWE: employer will be liable under a negligence standard if plaintiff shows: (1) employer should have known/knew about conduct and (2) failed to take prompt, remedial action

Answer 421

Someone who is empowered by the employer to take significant employment action against victim (hiring/firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significant different responsibilities, decision causing significant change in benefits)

Answer 422

Under all statutes. It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this statute, or has participated in an investigation. ADA: any person ADEA/Title VII: current and past employees

Answer 423

(1) Plaintiff engaged in statutorily protected expression: opposition or participation. Opposition: plaintiff explicitly challenging employment practice without formally filing charge. Plaintiff must show reasonable, good-faith belief that practice unlawful and doesn’t have to be at employee’s initiative can be just responding to questions. Participation: behavior by the plaintiff within the formal complaint structure within the EEOC or relevant state agency. (2) Employer aware of expression (3) Employee suffered adverse action (need not be directly related to plaintiff’s employment and can include harm outside of workplace) but must be materially adverse: would dissuade someone from making/support discriminatory charge (4) Causal connection between statutorily protected expression and adverse employment action

Answer 424

Once the plaintiff has established PF case, defendant has burden of articulating LNDR for adverse employment action. Such as: plaintiff’s opposition was unreasonable.

Answer 425

Burden shifts to plaintiff to show that defendant’s articulated reason was pretext for discriminatory motive

Answer 426

On the basis of sex includes: pregnancy, childbirth, related medicinal conditions, and in the 3rd circuit, abortions. The standard: women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related purposes as other persons not so affected but similar in ability or inability to work.

Answer 427

Pregnancy and related conditions may not be treated differently than other conditions. Example: if other employees are fired for accommodation, then can fire pregnant woman.

Answer 428

Accommodation offered to some employees but not pregnant employees. PF Case: (1) membership in protected class (2) sought accommodation (3) employer refused (4) employer accommodated others similar in ability to work

Answer 429

Articulate a LNDR: cannot be that accommodating pregnancy is more expensive

Answer 430

Failure to accommodate is a significant burden on pregnant workers and articulated reason offered is not sufficiently strong to justify burden and gives rise to inference of discrimination (pretext)

Answer 431

Gender-specific grooming and dress codes do not violate Title VII unless they impose unequal burden

Answer 432

Protected. Also gender identity and sexual stereotype.

Answer 433

Must accommodate religious observances and practices unless undue hardship. (Duty to accommodate). Does not have to provide accommodation that employee requests, but does have to offer something that allows practice. As long as it does this, the accommodation is reasonable.

Answer 434

(1) Plaintiff has a sincere religious beliefs that conflicts with job requirement. (2) Plaintiff informed employer of conflict. (3) Plaintiff was disciplined for failure to comply.

Answer 435

(1) A good faith effort to reasonably accommodate or | (2) Any accommodation was an undue hardship

Answer 436

Anything more than a de minimis cost on employer (economic, non-economic, or violating a federal law)

Answer 437

Plaintiff must show that employer was aware of religious beliefs but may also succeed by showing that employer was motivated by desire to avoid giving accommodation

Answer 438

(1) Religious Organizations (Title VII does not apply to religious organizations with respect to employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with carrying on the activities of an entity) (2) BFOQ

Answer 439

When employment position in question deals with the religious core of the organization, courts have held they may not consider other charges of discrimination because it would infringe on the Free Exercise rights of the religious organization. Ministerial Exception. Courts cannot interfere with matters of internal church doctrine. Can hire someone of a particular religion to teach curriculum.

Answer 440

(1) Good cause | (2) Reasonable factors other than age: in a disparate impact claim, the employer has the burden of proving the defense

Answer 441

Must be qualified individual discrimination on the basis of disability

Answer 442

Can perform essential functions of job with or without reasonable accommodation. Job description gets deference. Regular and timely attendance at work is an essential function of job.

Answer 443

(1) Actual present impairment (2) Record of impairment (3) Regarded as having an impairment

Answer 444

Permanent physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity of individual. This definition is given broad coverage. An impairment still counts if it is episodic/in remission, as long as it substantially limits when active. Must consider the limitation without regard to remedial measures (medication, but NOT eyeglasses/contacts).

Answer 445

Regarded as having an impairment if established that she has been subjected to action prohibited by act because of actual or perceived impairment, whether or not it limits major life activity

Answer 446

Making existing facilities accessible and usable by disabled people Job restructuring Re-assignment Readers, interpreters, aids Cost is considered whether accommodation is reasonable

Answer 447

(1) LNDR: not motivated by disability (2) Undue hardship in providing accommodation (significant difficult or expense, considering size and financial resources of employer) (3) Direct threat: significant risk to health and safety of others that cannot reasonably accommodate (4) Job-related and business necessity: performance cannot be accomplished with reasonable accommodation

Answer 448

Burden of providing: Plaintiff has the burden of proving reasonable accommodation. Defendant proves undue hardship.

Answer 449

Although current drug users are excluded from coverage, the ADA does protect alcoholics and drugs addicts from discrimination on basis of addiction. Current drug use mean she use of drug was sufficiently recent to justify employer’s reasonable belief that drug abuse remained on ongoing problem.

Answer 450

An employer may inquire into plaintiff’s ability to do the job and condition hiring on results of medical exam. Provided that all employees take exam. (Testing for drug use is a not a medical exam. Current employees may be subject to medical examinations and inquires as long as it is job related with business necessity.

Answer 451

Two types of relief: (1) Legal (2) Equitable

Answer 452

After-acquired evidence limits remedies. (No front-pay, no reinstatement). Same-decision defense results in no damages.

Answer 453

``` Based on number of employees. 15-100: 50k 101-200: 100k 201-500: 200k 501 +: 300k ```

Answer 454

Awarded for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life

Answer 455

Employer has engaged in intentional discrimination and has done so with malice or reckless indifference to the federal protected rights of an aggrieved individual

Answer 456

ADEA only. A successful ADEA plaintiff may recover liquidated damages in an amount equal to unpaid wages. Only awarded in cases of willful violation: a violation of the ADEA is willful if the employer knew or showed reckless disregard for whether conduct prohibited

Answer 457

Reinstatement Retroactive seniority Affirmative Action relief Backpack: compensation that would have been received absent discrimination

Answer 458

Back pay period begins date plaintiff first lost wages. There is a 2-year limit on calculation. Backpay period ends on judgment or when employee rejects off of reinstatement. Reduced by amounts that were earned/could have been earned.

Answer 459

Substitute for reinstatement. It compensates any economic losses that will occur after the court’s judgment. A front-pay award covers time period from judgment to when employee obtains wrongfully denied position. If no reinstatement, future salary and benefits. Reduced by money that could be earned with reasonable diligence.

Answer 460

Each statute provides for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing party. A prevailing party is awarded relief by court, not necessarily favorable ruling on the merits. Defendant may obtain attorney’s fees if plaintiff’s claim is dismissed. Can be awarded to both!

Answer 461

Applies to sale of goods. Common law applies to any other contract. When its a mixed K, predominant purpose test. What is the predominant purpose of the contract?

Answer 462

A contract is formed either expressly (orally or written) or impliedly (by conduct). Restitution is a solution when there is no contract, but there has still be unjust enrichment. It is a remedy of last resort! Comes after K. Remedy: fair market value of benefit conferred.

Answer 463

Bilateral K: you can accept with a promise, or by performance Unilateral K: you accept by performance. Look for magic words: “offer...only by” also look for reward offer.

Answer 464

Manifestation of intent to be bound. Judged by Reasonable Person standard.

Answer 465

No, unless there is a quantity term. If there is no quantity term, it is simply an invitation to deal.

Answer 466

Price term in sales vs. common law: not required by UCC, courts will read in

Answer 467

UCC: quantity term can be missing because measured by buyer’s needs—>this is still a valid offer. Buyer cannot however jump up requirements unreasonably.

Answer 468

(1) Lapse Of time (2) Revocation (3) Rejection (4) Death

Answer 469

An offer lapses after a STATED term or a REASONABLE time has passed. Look for dates to see if reasonable. usually around one month

Answer 470

An offer can be revoked at any time before acceptance. Either explicitly revoked (direct) or indirect revocation: conduct indicating a change of mind and the offeree is aware of the conduct. Cannot revoke: option contract, firm offer, foreseeable reliance, start to perform unilateral

Answer 471

Cannot revoke. Paid promise to keep an offer open.

Answer 472

UCC Only. Merchant who promises in signed (or letterhead) writing to keep offer open. No consideration required. There is a 3 month limit, or if it is unstated, reasonable time limit.

Answer 473

Cannot revoke. Usually only foresseable after acceptance, unless there is a bid. Reliance on a bid to make another bid constitutes foreseeable reliance.

Answer 474

Cannot revoke offer after performance has begun. UNLESS it’s just mere preparation. (Starting to paint house vs. just ordering the paint)

Answer 475

On receipt.

Answer 476

A counteroffer is a rejection, and operates as a new offer. Mere bargaining is not a counteroffer. PUNCTUATION is important here. Period = counteroffer. Question mark = bargaining.

Answer 477

Operates as a rejection and new offer. “I accept on the condition that...”

Answer 478

Common Law: Rejection. Follows the Mirror-Image Rule. UCC: Does not prevent acceptance. But new terms ONLY included: BOTH parties merchants, no material change (disclaimers), no objection within reasonable time. If not included, still acceptance.

Answer 479

Yes, an offer. Not an irrevocable offer. Not a K.

Answer 480

Language of the offer controls manner of acceptance

Answer 481

Can accept by promise or by performance. Starting performance IS acceptance and carries implied promise to finish the job.

Answer 482

Complete performance only constitutes acceptance. If you start performance, YOU can back out but offeror cannot revoke.

Answer 483

Acceptance AND breach. UNDER UCC: accommodation note can be a counter-offer!

Answer 484

NO. Accept if you stay quiet does not work. But exception: custom creates a duty to speak. Custom of acceptance by silence.

Answer 485

Mailbox Rule: Acceptance is effective upon dispatch. Doesn’t matter if never received or lost in mail. Cannot revoke acceptance once mailed. Exceptions: (1) offer states otherwise—>overrides MR. (2) Irrevocable Offer—>option K, no MR, must be RECEIVED by deadline. (3) If you send rejection first, then acceptance. Whichever is RECEIVED first wins.

Answer 486

Bargained-for legal detriment or benefit. Promise for promise. Promise for performance. Promise for forbearance. Even if you would not have done something anyway, if you are giving up a legal right to do something, that counts as consideration. No such thing as past consideration or moral obligation. Adequacy is irrelevant to concept of consideration.

Answer 487

Common law requires new consideration. Pre-existing duty rule: cannot get more money for a pre-existing duty. However, if unanticipated change in circumstances, fair modification is allowed without new consideration. Third party promise to pay more money: allowed without new consideration. UCC: No consideration needed, just good faith required for modification.

Answer 488

Not consideration. If you owe money that is undisputed, and you agree to pay portion of it and the rest is forgiven, this is not consideration. The creditor can still come after you for the rest of the money.

Answer 489

Written promise to pay a debt enforceable without consideration

Answer 490

Substitution for consideration. Foreseeable reliance makes K enforceable even without consideration (even if a gift). No promissory estoppel if there IS consideration.

Answer 491

Promissory Estoppel. Foreseeable reliance. No consideration.

Answer 492

Promissory estoppel

Answer 493

(1) Lack of capacity (2) Ambiguity/Misunderstanding (3) Mutual Mistake (4) Unconscionability (5) Duress (6) Statute of Frauds

Answer 494

(A) Minors (B) Intoxicated (C) Mentally incompetent An incapacitated defendant has the right to disaffirm the contract. Look for minor retaining benefit after reaching age of majority: implied affirmation and bound by K. Exception: incapacitated party is liable for necessaries (food, shelter, clothing, medical care) but only for reasonable value, not contract price.

Answer 495

Defense to K where there is no meeting of the minds. A reasonable ambiguity will result in no contract, and no remedy. (Unless 1 party knew or should have known, and then enforce against the knowledgeable party).

Answer 496

Results in a rescission of the contract. If there is a mistake about VALUE, as opposed to a material fact as to the subject matter, the contract is enforced. Look for subject matter that is fake or doesn’t exist.

Answer 497

NOT a defense. Unless 1 party knew of the mistake (fraud, obvious palpable mistake). This arises with LOW BIDDERS.

Answer 498

Empowers a court to refuse to enforce all or part of the agreement. There are two tests: (1) unfair surprise and (2) oppressive terms —>at the time the contract was made. Long-term contract that now looks one-sided: NOT unconscionable!!!

Answer 499

Defense to contract where there is (1) an improper threat or (2) no reasonable alternative.

Answer 500

Oral contract generally enforceable unless it falls into one of the statutory categories: MYLEGS. Contracts for Marriage, contracts for over a Year, contracts for land, contracts made by the estate, contracts for goods over $500, and contracts of suretyship.

Answer 501

Contracts in consideration of marriage are subject to statute of frauds. NOT PROMISES TO MARRY. I’ll do this if you marry me.

Answer 502

Contracts that cannot possible be completed in 1 year are subject to Statute of Frauds. If performance is THEORETICALLY possible in under 1 year, not subject to SoF. If performance is not actually completely in 1 year, not subject to SoF. Lifetime employment Ks: NOT SoF. Performance theoretically possible: can die tomorrow.

Answer 503

Contracts for the sale of land need to be in writing to be enforceable. Or rent/easement over 1 year. If contract for authorization to sell real estate: equal dignity rule. If underlying deal subject to SoF, so must authorization.

Answer 504

Promises of executor to pay estate’s debts from other source of funds needs to be in writing to be enforceable.

Answer 505

Sale for Goods for $500 or more (under Article 2) needs to be in writing to be enforceable.

Answer 506

A promise to answer for the debt of another person has to be in writing to be enforceable. Person guaranteeing to pay debts of another. “If he doesn’t pay, I will” - NOT just a mere promise to pay money, must be underlying debt. Wrong answer a lot

All Topics Flashcards

(556 cards)