Civ Pro
Q1 (100): Plaintiff files in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Post-removal, they amend to add a non-diverse party under Rule 15. Defendant moves to remand.
✅ A: The court must deny joinder or permit it and remand; courts weigh prejudice, motive, and timing under §1447(e).
Q6 (100): A state bans political contributions from public employees but permits union dues deductions.
✅ A: Law likely violates First Amendment; restrictions on speech must meet strict scrutiny and be viewpoint-neutral.
Q11 (100): A seller accepts an offer with “delivery subject to availability.” Buyer sues for breach.
✅ A: Likely no contract formed — acceptance was conditional, functioning as a counteroffer.
Q16 (100): A trespasser is electrocuted on an unfenced utility substation.
✅ A: Landowner may be liable under attractive nuisance if danger was artificial and foreseeably attracted children.
Q21 (100): Police conduct a Terry stop based on anonymous tip of someone “looking suspicious.”
✅ A: Stop invalid — Navarette v. California requires more reliability and predictive info for reasonable suspicion.
Q2 (200): Plaintiff sues in state court; Defendant removes, but fails to include co-defendant’s consent. Plaintiff moves to remand.
✅ A: Removal is improper. The “rule of unanimity” requires all defendants to consent within 30 days.
Q7 (200): Congress passes a statute waiving sovereign immunity of states in employment claims.
✅ A: Invalid unless passed under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment enforcing constitutional rights with congruent and proportional remedies.
Q12 (200): A subcontractor revokes a bid after general contractor relies on it to win a contract.
✅ A: Subcontractor may be estopped — courts may enforce the offer to prevent injustice under Drennan.
Q17 (200): An invitee is injured by a collapsed staircase. The owner claims ignorance of defect.
✅ A: Landowners must inspect and make safe; actual knowledge is not required.
Q22 (200): Defendant asserts insanity under the M’Naghten rule.
✅ A: Must prove he didn’t understand the nature or wrongfulness of the act due to mental illness.
Q3 (300): A state long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over anyone who causes injury in the state. Defendant sells online but has no physical presence.
✅ A: Jurisdiction may be valid if defendant purposefully availed themselves via targeted commercial activity (Zippo test).
Q8 (300): A city funds a religious mural contest open to the public, but censors entries critical of religion.
✅ A: Violates Free Speech; viewpoint discrimination in a limited public forum triggers strict scrutiny and is rarely upheld.
Q13 (300): A buyer rescinds after discovering a unilateral mistake in price.
✅ A: Rescission allowed only if mistake is material, enforcement would be unconscionable, and no reliance by other party.
Q18 (300): A plaintiff sues for defamation over a statement of opinion implying false facts.
✅ A: If the opinion implies undisclosed false facts, it may be actionable despite being phrased as opinion.
Q23 (300): Prosecution suppresses exculpatory evidence that may have altered outcome.
✅ A: Violates Brady v. Maryland — due process requires disclosure of material evidence favorable to the accused.
Q4 (400): A claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) is appealed. On review, the appellate court considers matters outside the pleadings.
✅ A: The dismissal converts to summary judgment under Rule 56; plaintiff must have been given notice and chance to respond.
Q9 (400): A plaintiff sues in federal court alleging injury from federal regulation. The statute bars pre-enforcement review.
✅ A: Under Abbott Labs, pre-enforcement challenges may proceed if ripe and constitutional rights are at stake.
Q14 (400): Under UCC, a seller tenders goods early. Buyer rejects, and seller offers to cure before contract date.
✅ A: Seller has right to cure within time if buyer is given notice; refusal may be breach by buyer.
Q19 (400): A man is injured by fireworks in a crowd after another guest lit them. He sues the event organizer.
✅ A: Vicarious liability applies if organizer had control and guest acted within scope of delegated authority.
Q24 (400): A confession is obtained after invocation of right to counsel.
✅ A: Edwards v. Arizona bars re-initiation of interrogation unless defendant voluntarily re-engages with counsel present.
Q5 (500): A court issues a TRO without notice. Defendant later challenges enforcement.
✅ A: TROs without notice require immediate harm, certification of attempts to notify, and are limited to 14 days.
Q10 (500): A law punishes flag desecration by fines and community service, citing “national unity.”
✅ A: Invalid under Texas v. Johnson; governmental interest tied to content is unconstitutional regulation of expressive conduct.
Q15 (500): Party breaches anticipatorily. Non-breaching party continues performance for weeks before suing.
✅ A: They may have waived the right to sue by affirming contract or failing to mitigate.
Q20 (500): A plaintiff suffers harm from rare allergic reaction to a drug with adequate warnings.
✅ A: Manufacturer likely not liable; unforeseeable idiosyncratic reactions don’t establish defect.
Q25 (500): Under felony murder, defendant is charged though a co-felon was killed by a store owner during a robbery.
✅ A: Defendant not liable under majority “agency theory” — only liable for deaths caused by felons, not third parties.