September 2020 Flashcards
Murder
Under State A’s statute, murder is defined as “a person who unlawfully causes the death of another person with malice aforethought, either express or implied, commits murder.” § 101(a)(i) specifically states murder in the first degree is a murder committed “willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation…” Premeditation or intent can occur in a short period of time, but premeditation usually requires more thought or planning than occurs in a split second in or mere moments, for example, like in a heat of passion killing/incident.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter in State A is “when the person intentionally kills another person without malice aforethought.” Voluntary manslaughter at common law would tend to include heat of passion killings, or killings wherein someone responded in self-defense in an unreasonable way or in a way that used more force than was necessary. It differs from intentional murder in that there is no deliberation present before the incident. As with other murder statutes and issues, it is relevant whether a defendant’s act(s) reasonably could foreseeably lead to the severe injury or death of another individual
Defenses to Murder
Murder has various defenses, including self-defense and defense of others. To prove self-defense or defense of others a defendant must show he or she reasonably believed the third party or him/herself was in danger of death or great bodily harm, that this belief was honest and objectively reasonable, and the force used in response was proportional to the force exhibited by the victim.
Murder in the first degree
Murder in the first degree can also occur while committing a forcible felony under§101(a)(ii). Forcible felonies are not explicitly enumerated, but under the common lawinclude burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping. In State A, felony theft isdefined as “the unlawful taking or carrying away of merchandise, property, money ornegotiable documents with a value that exceeds $200.”
Implied covenant of quiet enjoyment
A landlord owes a tenant the covenant of quiet enjoyment in both commercial and residential leases. A landlord breaches the covenant if the landlord’s actions or inactions render the property unusable by the tenant and the tenant is constructively evicted. Under the doctrine of constructive eviction, if the landlord fails to repair the property as provided in the lease, the tenant notifies the landlord and gives reasonable opportunity to cure the problem, and the tenant leaves the property, the tenant may claim constructive eviction.
Assignment
The issue is whether the landlord sued the right tenant because of the assignment. An assignment of a lease occurs when the original tenant gives the rest of the lease over to a new tenant. A sublease occurs when the original tenant gives part of the balance of the lease over to a new tenant. Both are permitted unless the lease provides otherwise. Under an assignment, the new tenant has privity of estate with the landlord, and privity of contract with the original tenant.
Surrender of lease
The issue is whether the landlord accepted the doctor’s surrender of the lease, relieving the doctor of the duty to pay rent, or whether the doctor merely abandoned the lease. A tenant may voluntarily surrender her lease by notifying the landlord and giving over possession of the property. The tenant may do this by giving her keys back to the landlord and moving out. However, if the landlord refuses to accept the surrender prior to the end of the lease, then the tenant has merely abandoned the lease and continues to be responsible for unpaid rent.
Sufficient mental capacity
In order for a will to be validly executed the Testator must have sufficient mental capacity at the time of execution. In order to be deemed mentally competent the testator must understand who the intended beneficiaries of her will are, what her property is and what the beneficiaries will be receiving, why she is entering into the will and distributing assets/money to the beneficiaries, and how she is doing so. Here, a court will likely find that the testator had sufficient mental capacity
Mistaken belief
If a testator decides to distribute or withhold property from a beneficiary based on a mistaken fact, a court may sometimes choose not to give the will or the provision effect. In order to invalidate a will or provision for mistake of fact the interested party must show that but for the mistake, the change or provision would not have occurred
Codicil
The Testator attempted to create a codicil to her will in 2014 when she printed off a document on her computer stating she wanted to give $5,000 to University. However, this was not a valid codicil. To be a valid a codicil must meet the same elements as a will: it must be written, it must be executed with testamentary intent, and it must be signed by the testator in the presence of two witnesses. The codicil was not valid because it was not witnessed.
A holographic will, or a holographic codicil, does not need to be witnessed but it must be handwritten and signed by the testator. Here, the woman printed off the document from the computer. Because it was not handwritten, the document was not a valid holographic codicil.
Doctrine of incorporation
Under the doctrine of incorporation, a separate document may be incorporated into a will if it: (a) existed at the time of execution; and (b) was described with sufficient certainty such that it could be identified. Although Testator attempted to incorporate the document providing for distribution of certain assets to University into her validly executed will she did not do so. Not only did the document not exist at the time (it was not created until two years after execution of the will) but also the will did not describe the document with enough detail that it could be adequately identified
Fifth Amendment
The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires just compensation for takings. Under the Constitution, a taking occurs when the government (1) permanently physically occupies an owner’s private land or (2) totally deprives the land of any economic value
Zoning Ordinance
The issue is whether Aaron’s land is totally deprived of any economic value by the zoning ordinance. A zoning ordinance does not automatically constitute a taking unless the ordinance renders the land totally economically nonviable
Taking
The issue is whether the poles and power lines constitute a taking of Barbara’s land.A taking occurs if the government permanently physically occupies a citizen’s private land. Landowners have airspace rights over their land which can also be subject to the Takings Clause. A partial taking occurs when only part of the owner’s land is taken, in which case the owner has a right to proportional just compensation for the portion taken.
Valid taking
The issue is whether the development plan served the public good such that it was a valid taking. Under the doctrine of eminent domain, a government entity may take private land for any public use, broadly construed, including economic development.
As long as the taking is rationally related to a public good, the court will uphold the taking. The governmentmust pay just compensation for seizing private land. Here, the municipality plans to facilitate the building of a shopping mall, leading to increased revenues for emergency services and citywide business development. This is considered a public good within the scope of the takings clause. Therefore, the municipality is permitted to seize Carrie’s land with just compensation
