- Your client has been indicted in federal court for drug trafficking. The key evidence against him was obtained when federal agents, without a warrant, used a novel high-powered listening device to monitor conversations inside your client's home from a public street 200 yards away. You are preparing a motion to suppress this evidence as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Answer: A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that using a thermal imager to scan a home constitutes a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The correct answer is A. The central issue is whether the use of new technology to obtain information from within a home constitutes a 'search' under the Fourth Amendment. The most authoritative and useful source would be a U.S. Supreme Court decision that addresses a similar issue of sense-enhancing technology directed at a home, like the thermal imager case (Kyllo v. United States). This precedent provides the controlling legal framework for analyzing new technology under the Fourth Amendment. B is incorrect because the text of the amendment is too general. C is incorrect because the case is in federal court on a federal constitutional claim, so a state court decision interpreting the state constitution is not binding. D is incorrect because a dissenting opinion has no precedential value and is not binding authority.
- Your client is suing a physician for medical malpractice in the State of Platte. The physician is a board-certified neurosurgeon, and the alleged negligence concerns a complex spinal surgery. The law in Platte is unsettled regarding the standard of care for medical specialists. The last time the Platte Supreme Court addressed the issue, 30 years ago, it applied a 'locality rule.' However, several recent intermediate appellate court decisions in Platte have applied a national standard of care for specialists, citing a modern trend.
Answer: A recent Platte intermediate appellate court decision applying a national standard of care for specialists.
The correct answer is C. While a state supreme court decision is generally the highest authority, a much older decision may be less reliable than more recent, consistent holdings from intermediate appellate courts, which reflect the current state of the law. A lower court's recent interpretation of the law is binding on the trial court and is the most current statement of the law in that jurisdiction. A is incorrect because the 30-year-old precedent is likely outdated and has been implicitly superseded by the more recent appellate decisions. B is incorrect because an out-of-state decision is only persuasive, not binding. D is incorrect because a medical treatise is evidence of what the standard of care is, but it is not a source of law defining the legal standard itself (i.e., whether the standard is local or national).
- Your client, a corporation, is being sued for breach of contract. The contract was signed on the corporation's behalf by an employee who had been fired a week earlier. The third party plaintiff claims it was unaware of the employee's termination and that the employee had 'lingering apparent authority.' The jurisdiction has adopted the Restatement (Third) of Agency. You are researching the viability of the plaintiff's argument.
Answer: A decision from the jurisdiction's highest court applying the principles of lingering apparent authority as described in the Restatement (Third) of Agency.
The correct answer is B. The legal issue is lingering apparent authority. The most authoritative source is a decision from the jurisdiction's highest court that shows how the controlling legal standard (here, the Restatement (Third) of Agency) is applied to specific facts. This binding precedent will guide the trial court's analysis. A is incorrect because the termination letter is relevant to ending actual authority, but apparent authority is based on the principal's manifestations to a third party. C is incorrect because the jurisdiction has adopted the Restatement (Third), making the older Restatement (Second) superseded and less authoritative. D is a factual assertion that supports the plaintiff's case, but it is evidence, not a source of law.
- A public university in the state of Erie has an admissions policy that uses race as one of many 'plus factors' to achieve a diverse student body. The policy is being challenged in federal court under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As counsel for the university, you are preparing a brief defending the policy.
Answer: The most recent U.S. Supreme Court case that articulates the current strict scrutiny standard for race-based classifications in the context of higher education admissions.
The correct answer is D. Constitutional law, particularly in sensitive areas like equal protection, evolves over time. The most authoritative source of law is the most recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent that sets forth the current, controlling legal test. Older cases, while foundational, may have been modified or clarified by subsequent rulings. A is incorrect as it's too general. B (Bakke) is a foundational case but has been built upon by decades of subsequent jurisprudence; relying solely on it would be insufficient. C is factual evidence that would be used to meet the legal standard, but it is not the source of the standard itself.
- You are representing a software development company that entered into a contract with a large corporation. The contract involved a one-time sale of a sophisticated inventory management software program (valued at $200,000) and an ongoing, five-year agreement for technical support and maintenance (valued at $50,000 per year). A dispute has arisen over the warranty provisions. The jurisdiction has adopted Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). To properly advise your client, you first need to determine whether the UCC or the common law governs the contract.
Answer: A recent decision from the jurisdiction's highest court that adopted and applied the 'predominant purpose' test to a hybrid contract involving both goods and services.
The correct answer is C. This is a hybrid contract involving both goods (software) and services (support). In such cases, courts must determine whether the UCC or common law applies. Most jurisdictions use the 'predominant purpose' test to make this determination. The most authoritative source for how to apply this test is a binding decision from the jurisdiction's highest court. A is incorrect because simply citing the UCC statute isn't enough; you need case law to determine if the UCC applies to this specific hybrid transaction. B is incorrect because the Restatement is a secondary source, and it doesn't resolve the threshold question of whether common law applies at all. D is incorrect because a federal case interpreting another state's law is merely persuasive and far less authoritative than a binding precedent from the actual jurisdiction's highest court.
- Your client, a trucking company, has been fined under a new State of Caldonia law that requires all commercial trucks operating in the state to be equipped with a specific, expensive type of side-guard. The federal Motor Carrier Safety Act sets minimum safety standards for trucks but includes a savings clause that explicitly allows states to enact their own, more stringent safety regulations. Your client wants to challenge the Caldonia law in federal court on the grounds that it unduly burdens interstate commerce.
Answer: A U.S. Supreme Court case that establishes the balancing test for evaluating state laws that have an incidental effect on interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause.
The correct answer is C. The client's challenge is based on the dormant Commerce Clause, which limits states' power to legislate in ways that affect interstate commerce. The prevailing test for non-discriminatory state laws that have an incidental effect on commerce comes from Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. This test, established by the U.S. Supreme Court, is the binding legal standard the federal court will apply. A is incorrect because the text of the Commerce Clause is too general and does not contain the specific doctrinal test used to adjudicate these cases. B is incorrect because the savings clause addresses federal preemption, not the separate constitutional issue of the dormant Commerce Clause. Since the federal statute explicitly allows state regulation, preemption is not the issue; the burden on commerce is. D is incorrect because a 30-year-old state court decision is not binding on a federal court on a matter of federal constitutional law and is likely outdated given the evolution of dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
- Your client, a creditor, obtained a judgment against a small, defunct corporation incorporated in Delaware. The corporation has no assets, but its sole shareholder routinely used the corporate bank account to pay for personal vacations and commingled corporate and personal funds. Your client wants to sue the shareholder personally to collect the debt. The lawsuit is filed in federal court in New York, based on diversity jurisdiction. You need to research the standard for 'piercing the corporate veil.'
Answer: A recent Delaware Supreme Court decision that clarifies the 'alter ego' test for piercing the veil of a Delaware corporation.
When dealing with corporate law issues in federal diversity jurisdiction, you must determine which state's substantive law applies. Since this lawsuit involves piercing the veil of a Delaware corporation, Delaware corporate law governs the substantive legal standard, regardless of where the federal court sits.
Answer A is correct because Delaware law controls the veil-piercing analysis for a Delaware corporation. A recent Delaware Supreme Court decision directly addressing the alter ego test would provide the most authoritative and current statement of Delaware law on this issue.
Answer B is wrong because the Model Business Corporation Act is not binding law—it's a template that states may adopt or modify. Even if Delaware had adopted MBCA provisions, you'd still want the most current judicial interpretation from Delaware courts.
Answer C is incorrect because New York veil-piercing law is irrelevant here. While the federal court sits in New York, it's applying Delaware substantive law to a Delaware corporation. New York law would only matter if this were a New York corporation or if procedural issues arose.
Answer D represents a common trap. While Second Circuit precedent would be binding on this federal court, a circuit court's prediction of state law is less authoritative than an actual state supreme court decision. Federal courts must follow state supreme court interpretations of state law, making the Delaware Supreme Court decision more reliable than the Second Circuit's prediction of what Delaware law might be.
Remember: In diversity cases, federal courts apply state substantive law. Always look to the law of the state of incorporation for corporate governance issues, not the forum state.
- You are representing a client in a quiet title action in a jurisdiction with a 'race-notice' recording statute. Your client purchased a property from the owner of record but failed to record the deed for two weeks. During that interval, the original owner fraudulently sold the same property to a second buyer, who immediately recorded their deed without any knowledge of the prior sale to your client. You are preparing a memorandum on whether the second buyer has superior title.
Answer: A case from your jurisdiction's highest court that defines what constitutes 'notice' for the purposes of the recording act.
The correct answer is D. The core legal issue is whether the second buyer took without notice. While the statute (B) provides the rule, its terms—especially 'notice'—are legal terms of art defined by case law. A binding decision from the jurisdiction's highest court interpreting this key element of the statute is the most authoritative and useful source for resolving the specific dispute. A is incorrect because a treatise is a secondary source and not as authoritative as binding precedent. B is incorrect because the statute provides the framework, but the judicial interpretation of its terms is necessary for application. C is incorrect because a case from a pure race jurisdiction is irrelevant, as the legal standard is different (notice is not a factor in a pure race system).
- You are representing a client in a breach of contract case filed in federal court in the State of Ames based on diversity of citizenship. The opposing party has filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury's damage award was excessive. You must now write a brief in opposition to the motion. The federal circuit court for the circuit including Ames has a well-established three-part test for determining whether a damages award is excessive, while the Ames state supreme court uses a different, two-part 'shocks the conscience' test.
Answer: A United States Supreme Court decision holding that the standard for granting a new trial on grounds of excessive damages in a diversity case is a matter of federal procedure.
The correct answer is B. Under the Erie doctrine, federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law and federal procedural law. The standard for granting a new trial is considered a procedural issue. The Supreme Court has held that the determination of whether a jury's verdict is excessive is a matter of federal procedure governed by federal standards. Therefore, the most authoritative source is a U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing this principle, as it provides the binding rule of law on the choice-of-law question. A is incorrect because while the underlying claim is based on state law, the standard for a new trial is federal procedural law. C is incorrect because a law review article is a secondary source and is not binding authority. D is incorrect because a decision from a different circuit is merely persuasive, and it applies the wrong legal standard; the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent is binding and directly addresses the core procedural issue.
- Your client wishes to bring a quiet title action in the state of Kent, claiming ownership of a parcel of land through adverse possession. The client has openly occupied the land for 11 years. The state of Kent has a statute that requires a 10-year period for adverse possession. However, a key issue is whether your client's possession was sufficiently 'hostile,' as the original owner had vaguely mentioned that your client could 'use the land for a while.'
Answer: A decision from the Kent Supreme Court defining the legal standard for 'hostile' possession under the state's adverse possession doctrine.
The correct answer is B. Adverse possession requires satisfying several common-law elements in addition to the statutory time period. The critical issue here is the definition of 'hostile' possession. The most authoritative source for defining this element under Kent law is a binding precedent from the Kent Supreme Court. A is incorrect because the statute only provides the time period and does not define the common law elements like hostility. C is incorrect because a legal encyclopedia is a secondary source and provides general information, not the specific, binding law of Kent. D is incorrect because a historical English statute has no binding authority.
