Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Analogical Case Analysis

You represent a software development company that entered into an oral agreement to provide a local college with custom software maintenance for a period of "five years, unless the college's enrollment drops by 20% or more, in which case the agreement terminates immediately." After one year of performance, the college terminated the contract for reasons unrelated to enrollment and now refuses to pay, arguing the agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The college's motion for summary judgment relies on Jensen v. BizSolutions, a case from the same jurisdiction. In Jensen, the court held that an oral contract for a fixed three-year employment term was unenforceable because it could not, by its terms, be performed within one year.

What is your company's strongest argument for why the Jensen precedent does not compel summary judgment for the college? Select one.

You are defending a homeowner in a negligence action. The plaintiff was a guest at a party at your client's house and was injured when he slipped on a small puddle of water in the kitchen. Your client testified that she had wiped the floor dry just ten minutes before the plaintiff fell. The plaintiff has no evidence of how the puddle formed or how long it was there. At trial, the plaintiff's attorney requests a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur. The controlling case on the issue is Grant v. Supermarket. In Grant, the court allowed a res ipsa instruction for a customer who slipped on a broken jar of mayonnaise in a grocery store aisle. The court reasoned that jars of mayonnaise do not ordinarily fall and break without negligence on the part of the store in stacking or maintaining its shelves, and the store had exclusive control of the shelves.

Which of the following arguments best explains why Grant v. Supermarket is distinguishable from your client's case? Select one.

You are representing a plaintiff who was fired from her job as a head chef. The written one-year employment contract provided that she could only be terminated "for cause." She was fired after three months because the restaurant's owner disliked her new menu, which the owner claimed was 'uninspired' and 'bad for business.' The owner has moved for summary judgment, arguing that dissatisfaction with an employee's performance constitutes 'cause.' The owner cites Jackson v. Corp. Services, a controlling case. In Jackson, the court held that an employer had 'cause' to fire a janitor under a similar contract because the janitor repeatedly failed to clean designated areas despite multiple warnings and clear, objective cleaning standards.

Which argument best distinguishes the Jackson precedent and supports your client's claim that she was fired without cause? Select one.

You are defending a client charged with conspiracy to commit bank robbery. The prosecution's key witness is a former co-conspirator who has accepted a plea deal. The prosecution seeks to introduce testimony from the witness that another member of the conspiracy, who is not on trial, said to him, "Our friend is getting the getaway car ready for Tuesday's job." The statement was made two days before the planned robbery. As precedent, the prosecution cites State v. Mills, which held that a co-conspirator's statement is admissible as non-hearsay if it was made "during and in furtherance of the conspiracy." In Mills, the statement admitted was one conspirator giving instructions to another about how to disable a bank's alarm system.

Which of the following is your client's best argument for why State v. Mills does not support the admission of the testimony in this case? Select one.

You are defending a client who was arrested after police searched his home and found illegal firearms. The police had a valid warrant to search the home for stolen jewelry. While searching a desk drawer in the home office for the jewelry, an officer found a key. The officer then used the key to unlock a large, locked safe in the closet of the same room. Inside the safe, the officer found the firearms. The prosecution argues the firearms are admissible under the plain view doctrine, citing the precedent State v. Miller. In Miller, police executing a search warrant for drugs saw an illegal machine gun resting on a table in the living room. The Miller court held the gun was admissible because the officer was lawfully in a position to observe the item, and its incriminating character was immediately apparent.

Which argument best explains why the seizure of the firearms is not supported by the State v. Miller precedent? Select one.

You are representing the plaintiff in a breach of contract case. The defendant, a winery, had a written contract to sell your client 1,000 cases of its 2022 vintage Cabernet Sauvignon for $120,000, delivery on June 1. On May 15, an unexpected frost destroyed 90% of the winery's 2022 vintage grapes still on the vine, making it impossible for them to produce the wine. The winery now claims the defense of impossibility. Your research uncovers a controlling case, DeBono v. Farm Co., where a farmer contracted to sell 5,000 bushels of corn to a buyer. A flood destroyed the farmer's entire crop. The court in DeBono discharged the farmer's contractual duty, reasoning that when a contract is for goods from a specific, identified source, the destruction of that source without fault of the seller makes performance impossible.

Which of the following facts, if discovered, would provide you with the strongest basis to argue that DeBono is distinguishable and does not apply to your client's case? Select one.

You represent a software development company that entered into an oral agreement to provide a local college with custom software maintenance for a period of "five years, unless the college's enrollment drops by 20% or more, in which case the agreement terminates immediately." After one year of performance, the college terminated the contract for reasons unrelated to enrollment and now refuses to pay, arguing the agreement is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The college's motion for summary judgment relies on Jensen v. BizSolutions, a case from the same jurisdiction. In Jensen, the court held that an oral contract for a fixed three-year employment term was unenforceable because it could not, by its terms, be performed within one year.

What is your company's strongest argument for why the Jensen precedent does not compel summary judgment for the college? Select one.

You represent a landowner who purchased a five-acre parcel of undeveloped land. The previous owner had granted a written, properly recorded easement to a neighboring utility company to run power lines "across the northernmost 20 feet" of the parcel. Your client now wishes to build a house on the property and has discovered that the utility company installed its power lines 50 feet south of the designated easement area, bisecting the property and interfering with the planned construction. The lines have been in that location for 12 years, and the jurisdiction's statutory period for a prescriptive easement is 10 years. The utility company claims it has a prescriptive easement for the lines' current location, citing Brandt v. Jones. In Brandt, the court granted a prescriptive easement to a landowner who had used a dirt road across his neighbor's property for 15 years under the mistaken belief it was a public road.

What is your client's best argument for why the Brandt precedent does not support the utility company's claim? Select one.

Your client, a concert promoter, contracted with a famous singer for an outdoor concert. The contract had no force majeure clause. Two days before the event, the National Weather Service issued a hurricane watch for the area, predicting a 40% chance the hurricane would make landfall on the concert date. Citing safety concerns for the audience and crew, your client cancelled the concert. The singer sued for breach of contract. Your client has asserted the defense of impossibility. The singer's attorney cites the case of Hall v. Theater Co., which held that a theater owner was not discharged from its contract to host a play when its star actor became ill, because a substitute actor could have been hired. The court in Hall noted that performance is only impossible if "the very thing necessary for performance is destroyed or prevented from existing."

What is your client's best argument for distinguishing the Hall precedent? Select one.

You are defending a client who was arrested after police searched his home and found illegal firearms. The police had a valid warrant to search the home for stolen jewelry. While searching a desk drawer in the home office for the jewelry, an officer found a key. The officer then used the key to unlock a large, locked safe in the closet of the same room. Inside the safe, the officer found the firearms. The prosecution argues the firearms are admissible under the plain view doctrine, citing the precedent State v. Miller. In Miller, police executing a search warrant for drugs saw an illegal machine gun resting on a table in the living room. The Miller court held the gun was admissible because the officer was lawfully in a position to observe the item, and its incriminating character was immediately apparent.

Which argument best explains why the seizure of the firearms is not supported by the State v. Miller precedent? Select one.

You represent the defendant in a lawsuit arising from a car accident. Your client was driving 10 mph over the speed limit when he struck a pedestrian who had suddenly darted into the street from between two parked cars. The plaintiff's attorney has filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of negligence per se, based on your client's violation of the speed limit statute. The plaintiff cites Martin v. Driver, a case in which the court found negligence per se where a driver, blinded by the setting sun, ran a red light and caused a collision. The Martin court held that violating a public safety statute creates a conclusive presumption of negligence.

What is your best argument for why the holding in Martin does not compel summary judgment against your client on the issue of negligence? Select one.

You are representing a client who was seriously injured when an unknown assailant attacked him in the dimly lit underground parking garage of a large department store. The store did not employ security guards for the garage. In the two years prior to the attack, there had been over a dozen car break-ins and two robberies involving threats of force in the same garage. The department store has moved to dismiss the client's negligence claim, citing the controlling precedent of Parker v. Retail Corp. In Parker, the court held that a business has no duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts unless there is a high degree of foreseeability based on prior, similar incidents. The plaintiff in Parker was carjacked at gunpoint in a well-lit surface parking lot that had experienced several instances of shoplifting inside the store but had no history of violent crime on the premises.

Which of the following is your best argument to defeat the motion to dismiss by distinguishing your client's case from the Parker precedent? Select one.

You are counsel for a public university that suspended a student for distributing pamphlets in the student union. The pamphlets contained inflammatory, though not obscene, language criticizing the university's administration and urged students to participate in a disruptive protest. The university suspended the student pursuant to a policy prohibiting speech that "is reasonably likely to cause a substantial disruption to the educational environment." The student has sued, claiming a First Amendment violation and citing Tinker v. Des Moines. In Tinker, the Supreme Court upheld students' right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, holding that student speech is protected unless officials can show it would "materially and substantially disrupt" school activities. The protest in Tinker was silent and passive, and school officials acted on an undifferentiated fear of disturbance.

Which of the following arguments best uses the Tinker precedent to support the university's decision to suspend the student? Select one.

You represent a landowner who purchased a five-acre parcel of undeveloped land. The previous owner had granted a written, properly recorded easement to a neighboring utility company to run power lines "across the northernmost 20 feet" of the parcel. Your client now wishes to build a house on the property and has discovered that the utility company installed its power lines 50 feet south of the designated easement area, bisecting the property and interfering with the planned construction. The lines have been in that location for 12 years, and the jurisdiction's statutory period for a prescriptive easement is 10 years. The utility company claims it has a prescriptive easement for the lines' current location, citing Brandt v. Jones. In Brandt, the court granted a prescriptive easement to a landowner who had used a dirt road across his neighbor's property for 15 years under the mistaken belief it was a public road.

What is your client's best argument for why the Brandt precedent does not support the utility company's claim? Select one.

You are representing a plaintiff who was fired from her job as a head chef. The written one-year employment contract provided that she could only be terminated "for cause." She was fired after three months because the restaurant's owner disliked her new menu, which the owner claimed was 'uninspired' and 'bad for business.' The owner has moved for summary judgment, arguing that dissatisfaction with an employee's performance constitutes 'cause.' The owner cites Jackson v. Corp. Services, a controlling case. In Jackson, the court held that an employer had 'cause' to fire a janitor under a similar contract because the janitor repeatedly failed to clean designated areas despite multiple warnings and clear, objective cleaning standards.

Which argument best distinguishes the Jackson precedent and supports your client's claim that she was fired without cause? Select one.

Your client, a small publishing house, is being sued for defamation by a local politician. Your client published a biography that contained a sentence stating, "Sources say the politician accepted a bribe in 2010." The politician has proven this statement is false. Your client's defense is that it did not act with actual malice. The politician has moved for summary judgment on the issue of fault, citing Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts. In Butts, the Supreme Court found actual malice where a magazine published a story from a source the publisher knew was on probation for check fraud, and the magazine made no effort to independently verify the serious allegations. The Court found this amounted to a reckless disregard for the truth.

Which of the following facts, if true, would be most helpful in distinguishing Butts and defeating the politician's motion for summary judgment? Select one.

Your client, a Colorado corporation, sells high-end bicycles through an interactive website. The company has no offices, employees, or property in California. A California resident purchased a bicycle from the client's website. The client shipped the bicycle to the customer in California via a common carrier. The customer was later injured in California, allegedly due to a manufacturing defect, and has filed a products liability lawsuit against your client in a California state court. You have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff's response brief cites Gomez v. AutoParts, a controlling appellate decision. In Gomez, the court found personal jurisdiction in California over a Michigan-based auto parts manufacturer that sold its parts to a national distributor, knowing that the distributor sold thousands of those parts to retailers in California each year.

Which argument best distinguishes the Gomez precedent in support of your motion to dismiss? Select one.

You are counsel for a public university that suspended a student for distributing pamphlets in the student union. The pamphlets contained inflammatory, though not obscene, language criticizing the university's administration and urged students to participate in a disruptive protest. The university suspended the student pursuant to a policy prohibiting speech that "is reasonably likely to cause a substantial disruption to the educational environment." The student has sued, claiming a First Amendment violation and citing Tinker v. Des Moines. In Tinker, the Supreme Court upheld students' right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, holding that student speech is protected unless officials can show it would "materially and substantially disrupt" school activities. The protest in Tinker was silent and passive, and school officials acted on an undifferentiated fear of disturbance.

Which of the following arguments best uses the Tinker precedent to support the university's decision to suspend the student? Select one.

You represent a creditor attempting to pierce the corporate veil and hold the sole shareholder of a small corporation personally liable for a corporate debt. The corporation was consistently undercapitalized and failed to pay its debts, but the shareholder scrupulously maintained separate bank accounts for himself and the corporation and always signed documents in his corporate capacity. The shareholder's attorney has cited Weston v. Manufacturing Co. as the controlling precedent. In Weston, the court refused to pierce the veil of an undercapitalized corporation, stating that "undercapitalization alone is insufficient to justify piercing the veil; there must also be evidence that the shareholder failed to observe corporate formalities or used the corporation as a mere alter ego."

Despite the holding in Weston, which argument provides the best basis for you to continue pursuing your claim against the shareholder? Select one.

Your client, a Colorado corporation, sells high-end bicycles through an interactive website. The company has no offices, employees, or property in California. A California resident purchased a bicycle from the client's website. The client shipped the bicycle to the customer in California via a common carrier. The customer was later injured in California, allegedly due to a manufacturing defect, and has filed a products liability lawsuit against your client in a California state court. You have moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The plaintiff's response brief cites Gomez v. AutoParts, a controlling appellate decision. In Gomez, the court found personal jurisdiction in California over a Michigan-based auto parts manufacturer that sold its parts to a national distributor, knowing that the distributor sold thousands of those parts to retailers in California each year.

Which argument best distinguishes the Gomez precedent in support of your motion to dismiss? Select one.