MBE Foundations Quiz Review Flashcards
Starter MBE Concepts (15 cards)
A woman, who has lived in the state for two years, sued a state university seeking a declaratory judgment to receive the discounted tuition rate offered to state residents who have lived in the state for over three years. After 15 months, during which she stayed in the same residence and deferred her enrollment, the state filed a motion to dismiss the case. How the court should rule on the state’s motion to dismiss?
Grant the motion bc the case is now moot.
Real, live controversy must exist at all stages of review, not only when the complaint is filed
Woman lives state 3 yrs, now qualifies for discounted tuition, her claim is moot
Controversy is capable of repetition yet evading review
When there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again and would again be unable to resolve the issue bc of the short duration of the state action
Not deemed moot
Quieting title
A quiet title action is basically when someone asks the court to force anyone who wants to claim an interest in the property to show up and defend that interest. If no one does, or if they don’t successfully defend their interest, the person bringing the suit gets clear title to it.
A landowner dug a well on what she thought was her property, but it was actually her neighbor’s land. The landowner has been using the well for 25 years without the neighbor’s permission. Did the landowner acquire ownership of the land on which the well was dug?
Yes, Adverse possession allows someone to gain ownership of land if they use it openly, continuously, exclusively, and without the owner’s permission for a certain period (usually 20 years in many places).
the landowner has been using the well openly and regularly, maintaining it for 25 years. She did this without the neighbor’s permission, and she has been using it in a way that a normal property owner would (by maintaining the well).
Since the landowner has done all these things for more than the statutory period (25 years, while the usual limitation period is 20 years), she has met all the requirements for adverse possession (for hostile intent, she used the land w/o permission).
Privity of Estate and Assignment of Lease
When a tenant assigns a lease to another party, the assignee steps into the original tenant’s shoes. However, the original tenant (or any prior assignee) is no longer in privity of estate with the landlord once the assignee takes possession. This means the assignee, not the original tenant, is responsible for obligations like rent, and the landlord cannot sue the original tenant (or prior assignee) for rent after the assignee has taken possession and left.
This principle is important in lease assignments, as it determines who can be held liable for rent and other lease obligations.
Standard of review for content-based regulation of speech
strict scrutiny
Standard of review for content-neutral speech regulations
intermediate scrutiny
they advance important interests unrelated to the suppression of speech
they don’t burden substantially more speech than necessary or are narrowly tailored to further those interests
The Supreme Court has held that an ordinance that distinguishes between on-premises and off-premises signs generally is content-neutral
When is regulation of commercial speech valid (as long as it concerns a lawful activity and isn’t misleading or fraudulent)?
(i) serves a substantial gov interest
(ii) directly advances the asserted interest
(iii) narrowly tailored to serve the substantial interest (doesn’t require least restrictive means used, just legislation has reasonable fit)
An employee of a construction company negligently cut power cables, causing a power outage that disabled a homeowner’s security system. The homeowner received a notification to arrange for someone to restart the system but got distracted and didn’t do so. Later, a burglar broke into the home and stole valuables because the security system was not working. The homeowner sued the construction company for the loss of her valuables in a jurisdiction that follows pure comparative negligence rules.
Is the homeowner likely to recover for the loss of her valuables?
Yes, because the conduct of the construction company’s employee created the opportunity for the burglar to steal the valuables.
The homeowner is likely to recover because the construction company’s negligence (cutting the power) increased the risk of a crime happening. Even though the burglar was a third party, the company is still liable because the crime was foreseeable due to the power outage in a high-crime area. The homeowner’s loss was directly linked to the company’s actions.
A contractor agreed in writing to build a house on his land for a buyer, with completion due by March 1. Due to material delays, the contractor needed an additional 20 days. On March 5, the buyer notified the contractor in writing that she was canceling the contract due to the failure to meet the March 1 deadline. The contractor explained the delay was caused by an unexpected strike and that the house would be ready by March 20. The buyer refused to accept the house, and the contractor filed a lawsuit for breach of contract. Who prevails?
Contractor bc no material breach
The failure to perform on time is a minor breach unless the contract specifies that time is essential.
home was nearly complete and the delay was short, and the contract didn’t make time of the essence = breach was minor.
For a minor breach, the remedy is damages, and the buyer is still required to perform under the contract.
A homeowner sold a house to an accountant using a general warranty deed, which was recorded. Years later, the accountant sold the house to a doctor using a quitclaim deed, which she bought at an office supply store. The doctor paid $125,000 for the house. After moving in, the doctor discovered that the title was not valid, and the true owner demanded the doctor vacate. The title was judicially determined to belong to the true owner, and the doctor was forced out.
Does the doctor have any legal action against the homeowner or the accountant based on a covenant for title?
The doctor can sue the homeowner, but not the accountant. The homeowner gave the accountant a general warranty deed, which includes covenants for title that protect against title defects.
These covenants run with the land, meaning they can be enforced by subsequent purchasers like the doctor.
the accountant gave the doctor a quitclaim deed, which has no covenants for title, so the doctor cannot sue her.
suit to recover for injuries after a car accident at intersection. P testifies she had right-of-way at intersection. D’s attn didn’t cross-examine P. P calls witness testify that after collision, as she pulls P from car, W hears P say “I think I’m dying! Didn’t the other driver see I had right-o-way?” Should court admit testimony?
Yes, excited utterance
Note, there’s not rule limiting cumulative evidence to establish a point. Even having a 2nd witness to prove a key issue is admissible. If you have 10th person testifying on that point, testimony might not be relevant.
A customer sued her stockbroker in federal court, claiming $70,000 for violating federal securities laws and $4,000 for damages from a car accident. Both parties are from the same state. The federal court must determine if it can hear both claims together.
No, because the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the negligence claim.
The federal court cannot hear both claims together because the negligence claim doesn’t meet the subject matter jurisdiction requirements. Here’s why:
- Federal Question Jurisdiction – The securities law claim is based on a federal law, so the court can hear it.
- Diversity Jurisdiction – This only applies if the parties are from different states and the case is worth more than $75,000. Since both parties are from the same state and the total claim is $74,000, diversity jurisdiction does not apply.
- Supplemental Jurisdiction – This allows a court to hear a state law claim only if it’s closely related to the federal claim. The negligence claim (car accident) has nothing to do with the securities claim, so the court cannot hear both together. Remember, a federal court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that share a common nucleus of fact with a claim already under its subject matter jurisdiction and would normally be tried together.
Bottom line: The securities claim stays in federal court, but the negligence claim would need to be filed in state court separately.
Hubby & wife both profs at US Naval Academy. Hubby made speech criticizing US foreign policy. He’s dismissed. Wife sues in fed court claiming Naval Academy violated her husband’s right to due process & free speech.
What ground will court dismiss suit?
lack of standing. Except for very limited exceptions, the traditional rule is that a person has standing only to raise constitutional issues that affect her PERSONALLY. She cannot claim that a third person’s constitutional rights were violated. The husband is the injured party and must assert his own rights
Promissory Estoppel
Applies when:
- A Promise is Made – The promisor makes a promise that they should reasonably expect to cause reliance.
- Reliance Occurs – The promisee takes action or refrains from acting based on the promise.
- Avoiding Injustice – The promise must be enforced to prevent unfair harm to the promisee.
