Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Assess Probable Outcome Of A Claim Or Motion

12 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Assess Probable Outcome Of A Claim Or MotionQuestion 1 of 12

On June 1, PackRight agreed to manufacture and deliver 10,000 custom cartons to FreshFoods on September 1. On July 10, FreshFoods emailed PackRight: 'We are considering canceling this order because we may switch suppliers.' PackRight did not reply. On July 25, FreshFoods emailed: 'We are canceling this order and will not accept any delivery.' PackRight had not yet bought materials. PackRight immediately sued FreshFoods for breach. FreshFoods moved to dismiss, arguing that no breach occurred before September 1 and that PackRight never asked for assurances.

What is the most likely outcome of FreshFoods' motion?

The motion will be granted because the July 10 email made any later repudiation ineffective.

The motion will be granted because PackRight cannot sue until the delivery date passes.

The motion will be denied because FreshFoods' July 25 email was an unequivocal repudiation, so PackRight may sue immediately.

The motion will be denied because FreshFoods' July 10 email created reasonable insecurity, allowing PackRight to suspend performance.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz

Bar Exam (Next Generation) Quiz: Assess Probable Outcome Of A Claim Or Motion

Practice Assess Probable Outcome Of A Claim Or Motion in Bar Exam (Next Generation) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Assess Probable Outcome Of A Claim Or Motion, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Next Generation).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

What is the most likely outcome of FreshFoods' motion?

The motion will be granted because the July 10 email made any later repudiation ineffective.
The motion will be granted because PackRight cannot sue until the delivery date passes.
The motion will be denied because FreshFoods' July 25 email was an unequivocal repudiation, so PackRight may sue immediately. (correct answer)
The motion will be denied because FreshFoods' July 10 email created reasonable insecurity, allowing PackRight to suspend performance.

Explanation: Whenever you see a buyer or seller renounce a contract before performance is due, think anticipatory repudiation: a party may sue immediately if the other makes an unequivocal statement that it will not perform. FreshFoods' July 25 email — "We are canceling this order and will not accept any delivery" — is exactly that. It clearly and definitively announces nonperformance before September 1. Under the UCC, that repudiation lets PackRight treat the contract as breached at once and sue immediately; no need to wait for the delivery date, and no need to first demand assurances. The motion is denied, not because of the July 10 email. That earlier message — "considering canceling" — was only tentative and did not repudiate anything. It also does not make the later July 25 repudiation ineffective; a party can later make a firm repudiation after an earlier equivocal statement. Nor is the denial based on reasonable insecurity: even if July 10 gave PackRight grounds to request adequate assurances under UCC § 2-609, that is a separate remedy, and PackRight did not use it. The decisive act is the unequivocal July 25 cancellation. Study tip: separate equivocal statements from unequivocal repudiations. Words like "may," "considering," or "thinking about" usually are not repudiations; words like "will not," "cancel," or "refuse" usually are.

Question 2

Rosa and Miguel are the only members of Alder Grove Holdings, LLC, which owns and manages apartment buildings. The LLC's operating agreement states: 'No member shall have any duty to present business opportunities to the LLC, and each member may acquire property for that member's own account.' While driving to a property conference, Miguel learned that a small office building near the LLC's largest apartment complex was for sale. He did not tell Rosa, used his personal funds to buy the building, and rented it to a commercial tenant. Rosa, on behalf of the LLC, sued Miguel to force him to account for the profits from the building.

What is the most likely outcome of Rosa's claim on behalf of Alder Grove?

Alder Grove will prevail because Miguel learned of the opportunity while engaged in LLC business.
Alder Grove will prevail because a member's fiduciary duty of loyalty cannot be eliminated by an operating agreement.
Alder Grove will not prevail because Miguel used only his own funds and did not use any LLC asset to acquire the building.
Alder Grove will not prevail because the operating agreement expressly relieved Miguel of any duty to offer the opportunity to the LLC. (correct answer)

Explanation: When a question tests a fiduciary's duty of loyalty in an LLC, your first move should always be to read the operating agreement carefully. The corporate opportunity doctrine generally bars members from taking business opportunities that belong to the LLC, but LLC statutes and case law allow members to waive or shape fiduciary duties in the operating agreement—so long as they do not eliminate the implied contractual covenant of good faith. Here, the operating agreement expressly stated that no member has any duty to present business opportunities to the LLC and that each member may acquire property for that member's own account. That language directly removes the duty Miguel would otherwise owe Rosa. Therefore, Alder Grove cannot force him to account for profits, even though Miguel learned of the building while going to a conference and even though the building was near an LLC asset. The agreement controls. Rosa's claim fails for that reason, not because Miguel used his own funds or because no LLC asset was used—those facts support his position but would not alone defeat a corporate-opportunity claim. The more tempting wrong answer is that loyalty duties "cannot be eliminated," but that overstates the law: the operating agreement did not eliminate loyalty wholesale; it specifically disclaimed only the duty to offer opportunities, which is permissible. Likewise, the fact that Miguel was "engaged in LLC business" when he learned of the opportunity does not create a duty where the agreement explicitly says none exists. On the exam, remember: whenever an LLC question presents an operating-agreement provision, apply it first—specific waivers of fiduciary duties are valid, and the "cannot be eliminated" trap usually confuses wholesale elimination with permitted narrowing.

Question 3

Police arrested Devin for burglary and took him to the station. An officer told Devin that he had the right to remain silent and to have an attorney before being questioned. Devin said, 'No, I don't want to talk.' The officer stopped questioning and left. About two hours later, a detective opened the door to Devin's holding cell and said, 'Your cousin just told us you were at the house.' The detective did not remind Devin of his rights. Devin replied, 'All right, I was there.' Devin was charged, and his lawyer moved to suppress the statement.

What is the most likely result of the motion?

The statement will be suppressed because Devin invoked his right to remain silent and the detective interrogated him without first giving fresh warnings. (correct answer)
The statement will be suppressed because Devin's refusal to talk was an invocation of his right to counsel.
The statement will be admitted because two hours passed and a different officer conducted the later contact.
The statement will be admitted because Devin's reply was voluntary and the detective did not use physical force.

Explanation: Whenever you see a Miranda question involving a suspect who says "I don't want to talk," separate the initial invocation from any later police contact. Devin's statement "No, I don't want to talk" was a clear invocation of the right to remain silent, not a request for counsel. That invocation required officers to stop interrogation immediately. The detective's later comment, "Your cousin just told us you were at the house," was interrogation—or its functional equivalent—because it was a remark reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. About two hours had passed and a different officer made the contact, but the detective did not readminister Miranda warnings first. Under Michigan v. Mosley, police may reinitiate questioning after a suspect invokes silence only if they scrupulously honor the invocation; time passing and a different officer are relevant factors, but they are not substitutes for fresh warnings. Without fresh warnings, Devin's reply was obtained during unlawful custodial interrogation and is suppressible. The suggestion that suppression rests on invocation of counsel walls wrong: Devin never asked for an attorney, and refusing to talk is not equivalent to invoking the right to counsel. The "two hours passed" reason to admits is also wrong because time and a different officer do not cure the absence of fresh warnings. And the "voluntary/no force" reason fails because although voluntariness is necessary, a voluntary statement can encore be suppressed for a Miranda violation when the procedural safeguards were omitted. Study takeaway: aftera right-to-silence invocation, think "stop, wait, rewarn"—if police reinitiate without fresh Miranda warnings, the statement is almost certainly inadmissible no matter how much time passed or who asks.

Question 4

Ortiz went to a same-day surgical center for a routine procedure under general anesthesia. When she woke, an X-ray showed that a surgical instrument had been left in her abdomen. Ortiz sued the surgical center for negligence. She presented no evidence explaining how the instrument came to be left. The surgical center moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ortiz had not identified any negligent act and that its staff had followed standard procedures.

What is the most likely outcome of the motion?

The motion will be granted because Ortiz has no direct evidence of negligence.
The motion will be granted because res ipsa loquitur cannot apply when the defendant has presented evidence of due care.
The motion will be denied because res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the surgical center to disprove negligence.
The motion will be denied because a jury may infer negligence from the presence of a surgical instrument left inside a patient. (correct answer)

Explanation: This question tests res ipsa loquitur in a medical negligence case. When you see a plaintiff with no direct evidence of a negligent act, think about whether the injury itself allows a jury to infer carelessness. Here, the key fact is that Ortiz went in for routine surgery and woke up with a surgical instrument left inside her abdomen. That is the classic res ipsa loquitur situation: an injury that ordinarily does not happen unless someone was negligent, while the instrument was within the surgical center's control. A jury may infer negligence from the mere presence of the instrument, so summary judgment should be denied. The plaintiff does not need direct evidence of a specific negligent act to survive summary judgment. The choice saying the motion will be granted because Ortiz has no direct evidence of negligence is wrong: circumstantial evidence and res ipsa loquitur can be enough. The choice saying the motion will be granted because the defendant presented evidence of due care is also wrong: the defendant's evidence creates a factual dispute for the jury, not a basis for automatic judgment. And the choice saying res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the surgical center is wrong: it does not shift the burden; it permits an inference of negligence, which is enough to defeat summary judgment. On exam day, remember: res ipsa loquitur is an inference, not a burden shift. If a reasonable jury could infer negligence from the event, summary judgment for the defendant fails.

Question 5

A state enacted a statute requiring that all gasoline sold in the state be made from at least 50% corn grown in that state. An out-of-state ethanol producer sued, arguing that the statute is unconstitutional. The state moved to dismiss, arguing that it may regulate fuel sold within its borders.

What is the most likely outcome of the state's motion?

The motion will be granted because states have broad power to regulate the sale of gasoline within their borders.
The motion will be granted because the statute applies equally to all gasoline sold in the state.
The motion will be denied because Congress has occupied the entire field of motor fuel regulation.
The motion will be denied because the statute discriminates against out-of-state corn and ethanol producers in favor of in-state producers. (correct answer)

Explanation: This is a Dormant Commerce Clause question. Whenever a state law regulates economic activity that touches interstate commerce, ask two things: Does it discriminate against out-of-state economic actors, and is there a legitimate local justification that cannot be achieved in a nondiscriminatory way? Here, the statute requires gasoline sold in the state to contain at least 50% corn grown in that state. That is a textbook local-preference law: it advantages in-state corn growers and ethanol producers while making it harder for out-of-state producers to compete. Under the Dormant Commerce Clause, such protectionist discrimination is presumptively invalid. The state's general power to regulate fuel sales within its borders does not override that constitutional limit, so the motion to dismiss should be denied. The first wrong choice, "states have broad power to regulate the sale of gasoline within their borders," states a true background principle but ignores that this power cannot be used to discriminate against interstate commerce. The second wrong choice, "applies equally to all gasoline sold in the state," misses the point: even a facially neutral law can be discriminatory in effect when it requires a locally sourced input. The third wrong choice, "Congress has occupied the entire field of motor fuel regulation," invokes federal preemption, but the constitutional problem here is not that federal law preempts the state statute—it is that the statute burdens interstate commerce through economic protectionism. Study tip: when you see a state law requiring local production, local sourcing, or in-state preference, immediately think Dormant Commerce Clause. Equal application is not a defense to protectionism.

Question 6

Ames fell on a staircase and sued the building owner in state court for negligence. The state court dismissed the action because Ames filed it after the statute of limitations had run; the dismissal order stated 'with prejudice.' Ames then sued the same owner in federal court for the same fall, alleging a different negligence theory and seeking the same damages. The owner moved to dismiss.

What is the most likely outcome of the owner's motion?

The motion will be granted because the prior dismissal with prejudice is a judgment on the merits that bars the entire claim. (correct answer)
The motion will be granted only if the state court would have had jurisdiction over the federal claim.
The motion will be denied because a statute-of-limitations dismissal is not a judgment on the merits.
The motion will be denied because Ames may assert a new legal theory in a new court after a prior dismissal.

Explanation: When you see a prior dismissal followed by a new lawsuit, you should immediately think of claim preclusion—res judicata. The key question is whether the first dismissal was a final judgment on the merits of the same claim. Here, the state court dismissed Ames's suit "with prejudice" after the statute of limitations ran. That dismissal is a final judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes, even though it was based on a procedural time bar. Because it is "with prejudice," it not only ended that case—it extinguished the claim itself. Therefore, Ames cannot bring the same fall-related claim against the same owner in federal court, even if he asserts a different negligence theory or seeks the same damages. The owner's motion will be granted. The wrong answers target common misconceptions. Choice B says the motion would be granted only if the state court would have had jurisdiction over the federal claim—but claim preclusion does not require the first court to have jurisdiction over the second court's claim; it requires the first court had jurisdiction over the original case and issued a valid final judgment. Choice C argues that a statute-of-limitations dismissal is not a judgment on the merits—that is the trap. A dismissal with prejudice, even on limitations grounds, is treated as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Choice D says Ames may assert a new legal theory in a new court—but a new theory based on the same fall is still the same claim; once a claim is barred, all theories arising out of that incident are barred too. For study: always distinguish "with prejudice" from"without prejudice." A without-prejudice dismissal usually allows refiling; a with-prejudice dismissal bars the whole claim, including all legal theories, in any court.

Question 7

Dr. Inez Nella leased commercial space from Parkview Properties to operate a dental office. The written lease was for five years at $4,000 per month. It stated: “If tenant vacates the premises before the expiration of the term, tenant shall pay landlord the sum of $30,000." After three years, Dr. Nella moved her practice across town and vacated the space. Parkview spent $2,500 on cleaning and $1,900 on brokerage commissions, then relet the space within six weeks to an optometry practice for $4,000 per month under a five-year lease. Parkview demanded $30,000 from Dr. Nella; she refused. Parkview filed suit. Dr. Nella moved for summary judgment on the $30,000 claim.

Which issue is most likely to determine whether Dr. Nella is entitled to summary judgment?

Whether Parkview's prompt reletting at the same rent satisfied Parkview's duty to mitigate Dr. Nella's damages.
Whether the $30,000 payment provision is an enforceable liquidated-damages clause rather than a penalty. (correct answer)
Whether Dr. Nella's move across town constituted a voluntary abandonment of the leased premises.
Whether Parkview's actual damages are too uncertain to support an award of consequential damages.

Explanation: Whenever you see a clause that requires a fixed payment on breach, your first instinct should be: is this a valid liquidated-damages clause or an unenforceable penalty? That is exactly the issue here. A liquidated-damages clause is enforceable if, at the time the contract was made, (1) damages were difficult to estimate and (2) the stipulated amount was a reasonable forecast of actual loss. If the amount is grossly disproportionate to the actual loss, it is a penalty and unenforceable. Here, Dr. Nella's promise to pay $30,000 upon early vacating may look like liquidated damages, but Parkview relet the space within six weeks at the same $4,000 monthly rent, leaving only $2,500 in cleaning and $1,900 in brokerage costs. That $30,000 sum is far larger than the apparent actual loss, so the decisive question is whether the clause is a reasonable estimate or a penalty. That is why the enforceability of the clause determines summary judgment. The prompt-reletting choice misses the point: mitigation affects actual damages, but a valid liquidated-damages clause can substitute for proving actual damages. The "voluntary abandonment" choice is also a trap—abandonment clearly occurred; the fight is over the consequence. And the "actual damages too uncertain" choice is irrelevant because the claim is for liquidated damages, not consequential damages. Study tip: whenever a contract sets a fixed sum for breach, ask two questions—were damages hard to estimate, and was the sum reasonable? If the answer to either is no, it's a penalty.

Question 8

Summit Equipment, a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Arizona, makes specialized mining conveyors. It has no office or property in New Mexico and no employees stationed there. A New Mexico mining company telephoned Summit's Arizona office and ordered a customized conveyor system. Summit built the system in Arizona, shipped it to New Mexico, and sent two technicians to New Mexico for one week to install and test it. The system later malfunctioned, and the mining company sued Summit in federal court in New Mexico. Summit moved to dismiss, arguing that the New Mexico court could not require it to defend the suit there.

What is the most likely outcome of Summit's motion?

The motion will be granted because Summit's contacts with New Mexico were not continuous and systematic.
The motion will be granted because Summit did not have an office or property in New Mexico and had no employees stationed there.
The motion will be denied because Summit purposefully directed its business to New Mexico and the suit arises from that business. (correct answer)
The motion will be denied because New Mexico's long-arm statute extends to the limits of the federal Constitution, which is sufficient by itself.

Explanation: Whenever you see a civil procedure question about where a defendant can be sued, ask: is this general jurisdiction (continuous and systematic contacts) or specific jurisdiction (suit arises from the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum)? Here, Summit's only New Mexico tie is one customized conveyor system. That is not enough for general jurisdiction, but it can support specific jurisdiction. The key is that Summit deliberately sought out a New Mexico customer, built the system for that customer, shipped it into the state, and sent technicians there to install and test it. Because the lawsuit arises directly from that transaction, Summit purposefully availed itself of New Mexico's market. The motion should be denied. The first wrong answer says Summit loses because its contacts were not continuous and systematic. That misstates the test: continuous and systematic contacts are needed for general jurisdiction, but specific jurisdiction can rest on one purposeful transaction that gives rise to the claim. The second wrong answer focuses on Summit's lack of an office, property, or employees in New Mexico. Physical presence is not required when the defendant purposefully directs business into the forum. The last wrong answer says New Mexico's long-arm statute reaching the constitutional limit is sufficient by itself. The statute is only the first step—you still must satisfy federal due process through minimum contacts and fair play. On exam day, when you see a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, first classify the claim as arising from the defendant's in-state activity. If it does, look for purposeful direction—not offices or employee counts.

Question 9

Voltaic Batteries, Inc. is incorporated in State A and has its principal place of business there. It manufactures specialty battery cells. Voltaic entered into a written distribution agreement with PowerDistributors, Inc., an independent company organized in State C. Under the agreement, PowerDistributors markets Voltaic's cells to retailers in State C, uses promotional materials that Voltaic approves before release, and receives a commission on sales. PowerDistributors also distributes cells for several other noncompeting manufacturers. Voltaic has no offices, employees, bank accounts, or property in State C and has never directly sold or advertised its cells there. Marta bought a Voltaic cell at a State C hardware store that PowerDistributors had supplied; the cell malfunctioned and injured her. Marta sued Voltaic in federal court for the District of State C, alleging products liability. Voltaic moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Which issue is most likely to determine whether Voltaic's motion to dismiss should be granted or denied?

Whether PowerDistributors' sales of Voltaic's cells in State C may be imputed to Voltaic because PowerDistributors acts as Voltaic's marketing agent in that state.
Whether Voltaic's distribution agreement and its approval of promotional materials show that Voltaic purposefully directed its products into the State C market. (correct answer)
Whether Voltaic's contacts with State C through PowerDistributors are so continuous and systematic that Voltaic is "at home" in State C and subject to general jurisdiction.
Whether the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Marta's products-liability claim because she is a citizen of State C and Voltaic is a citizen of State A.

Explanation: Whenever a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, separate specific jurisdiction from general jurisdiction. The plaintiff must show that the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum state and that the claim arises from those contacts. Here, Voltaic has no physical presence in State C, so the case turns on whether Voltaic's relationship with PowerDistributors created purposeful contacts with the State C market. The distribution agreement and Voltaic's approval of promotional materials are the key evidence: they show Voltaic intentionally targeted State C consumers through an in-state distributor. Under stream-of-commerce reasoning, a manufacturer that places goods into a forum's market through a distributor can be subject to specific jurisdiction when its product injures someone there. That makes this the most likely dispositive issue. The imputation/agency framing misses the point: whether PowerDistributors is called an agent affects vicarious liability, but the due-process question is Voltaic's own purposeful availment—using an independent distributor still counts if Voltaic deliberately used that distributor to reach State C. The "at home"/general-jurisdiction option misstates the standard: even continuous and systematic contacts are not enough unless the company is essentially at home in the forum, and the injury here arises directly from the product sold in State C, so specific jurisdiction is the relevant theory. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a separate inquiry; diversity may exist, but Voltaic's motion challenges personal jurisdiction. Study tip: on personal jurisdiction questions, first ask "specific or general?" Then focus on the defendant's deliberate contacts with the forum, not the plaintiff's contacts or mere foreseeability of injury.

Question 10

A shopper slipped on a puddle in a grocery store and sued the store. At trial, the shopper called a stock clerk who testified that, immediately after the fall, the store's produce manager said to an assistant, 'I saw that puddle this morning and decided not to clean it up until after the delivery truck left.' The store objected to the statement.

What is the most likely ruling on the objection?

The statement will be admitted as a present sense impression describing the puddle while the manager was observing it.
The statement will be admitted as an opposing party's statement made by the store's employee about store operations. (correct answer)
The statement will be excluded because the produce manager was not authorized to speak for the store.
The statement will be excluded because the produce manager is not a defendant in the case.

Explanation: Whenever you see an out-of-court statement offered for its truth, your first question is whether it falls under a hearsay exception or exclusion. Here, the stock clerk is repeating what the produce manager said to an assistant, and the store has objected. The statement is admissible as an opposing party's statement. Under the rules, a statement made by an employee of a party is not hearsay if it concerns a matter within the scope of that employment and is made during the employment relationship. The produce manager is discussing store operations—whether to clean a puddle in the produce area—so his statement about the puddle falls squarely within that rule. The store is the party, and the manager is its employee acting about store matters. The other choices are traps. The statement is not a present sense impression because the manager is describing something he saw that morning, not the fall itself or a contemporaneous event. The statement is not excluded for lack of authority to speak; Rule 801(d)(2)(D) does not require that the employee have speaking authority, only that the subject be within the scope of employment. Finally, the manager need not be a named defendant; an opposing party's statement can come from an employee whose statement is offered against the employer. Remember: for employee admissions, focus on scope of employment and timing, not authorization or party status.

Question 11

After a worker was injured at a packaging plant, the worker sued the plant. The plant's lawyer interviewed several employees and then prepared a memorandum for her own file. The memorandum evaluated the believability of each witness, noted weaknesses in the plant's defense, and outlined a trial strategy. The worker requested the memorandum in discovery. The plant refused, and the worker moved to compel.

What is the most likely result of the motion to compel?

The memorandum must be produced because it contains factual information learned from witnesses.
The memorandum must be produced because it was prepared before trial and is relevant to the worker's claims.
The memorandum is protected from disclosure because it is attorney work product reflecting the lawyer's mental impressions. (correct answer)
The memorandum is protected from disclosure because it is an attorney-client communication.

Explanation: Whenever you see a discovery dispute over materials a lawyer prepared, think first about work product doctrine—not just relevance or whether the document mentions facts. The work product doctrine protects materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, and the key distinction is between ordinary work product (factual investigation, which may be discoverable upon a showing of substantial need) and opinion work product (the lawyer's mental impressions, strategies, and evaluations), which receives near-absolute protection. Here, the memorandum was prepared by the plant's lawyer after interviewing employees and before trial, and it evaluates witness believability, defense weaknesses, and trial strategy. That is the core of opinion work product: the lawyer's subjective analysis and thought process. Requiring production would expose the lawyer's strategic thinking, so the memorandum is protected. The choice saying the memorandum must be produced because it contains factual information learned from witnesses is wrong: while underlying facts may be discoverable, the lawyer's mental impressions in this memo remain protected. The prepared before trial and relevant choice is also wrong—relevance and timing do not defeat work product protection. Finally, the attorney-client communication choice is wrong: the memorandum is an internal lawyer file, not a confidential communication with the client, so work product is the applicable protection. On the exam, when you see a lawyer's notes about strategy, witness assessments, or case evaluation, expect work product—especially if the wording emphasizes the lawyer's mental impressions.

Question 12

For 28 years, the Nelsons drove a gravel path across the Parkers' farm to reach their own back pasture. The path was first used after the senior Mr. Parker told Nelson, 'You're welcome to cross my land whenever you need to.' The Parkers never objected, and the Nelsons occasionally filled ruts on the path. When the Parkers sold the farm to a developer, the developer fenced off the path. The Nelsons sued, claiming the right to continue using the path.

Who is most likely to prevail?

The Nelsons, because their open, continuous use for 28 years created a prescriptive easement.
The Nelsons, because the path is reasonably necessary for access to their back pasture.
The developer, because the original use was permissive and never became adverse. (correct answer)
The developer, because a prescriptive easement cannot be established against a purchaser of the servient land.

Explanation: Whenever you see an easement-by-prescription question, your first job is to ask whether the use was adverse or merely permissive. A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, continuous, and hostile use for the statutory period. "Hostile" means without permission. Here, the senior Mr. Parker expressly invited Nelson to cross the land, so the original use was permissive. Unless the Nelsons later did something clearly inconsistent with that permission, the clock never started running. Their open use and occasional filling of ruts show continuity but not adversity. Therefore, the developer prevails. The choice that 28 years of open, continuous use created a prescriptive easement is tempting but incomplete: it ignores the missing adverse-use requirement. The choice about the path being reasonably necessary for access to the back pasture invokes easement by necessity, but that doctrine requires severance from a common owner and strict necessity, not mere convenience—and neither is present here. Finally, the idea that a prescriptive easement cannot be established against a purchaser of the servient land is simply wrong: purchasers take subject to already-established easements, and prescription can run against successive owners. The developer's status is not the problem; the Nelsons' lack of adversity from the start is. Study tip: whenever you see long, open use, immediately ask "permission or protest?" Permissive use never becomes prescriptive unless the user later makes a clear, hostile break.