1. A defendant went to a convenience store intending to rob it. The defendant had a gun inside his coat pocket. When the defendant entered the store, the owner saw that he had his hand in his coat pocket. Although the owner did not actually see the gun, he noticed a bulge in the defendant's coat pocket. Paranoid because of a rash of recent robberies, the owner said, "Please don't hurt me 11 do anything you want. " The owner then fainted and fell to the floor. The defendant walked behind the counter and opened the cash register. He took the money from the register and left the store. If the defendant is charged with robbery, he should be found
2. Alice owned Greyacre, a one-acre piece of property, in fee simple. Alice sold the property to Barbara who moved into the only residence on the land. Barbara neglected to record the deed, and three years later, Alice conveyed the same property to Charlene who immediately filed the deed she received from Alice. Greyacre's jurisdiction has a race-notice statute and a tract index system. If an action is filed for title to the property, the likely outcome would be for
3. A mail carrier was on a homeowner's premises delivering the mail when he was bitten by a large dog owned by the next door neighbor. Although the owner used due care in keeping the animal in a securely fenced area, he knew of one prior incident where the animal got loose and bit someone. Is the dog's owner liable for the injuries to the mailman?
4. During the final days of his presidency, many of the President's Cabinet members began leaking rather embarrassing stories about the President to the press. In one such story, which appeared in a newspaper, an unidentified Cabinet member was quoted as saying that the President pardoned the owner of a professional baseball team, for a previous felony conviction because the owner promised to give the President a lifetime pass to all future games. Upset by these news "leaks," the President, in his last official act, issued an executive order banning all executive employees from having conversations with members of the press unless prior permission had been obtained from an administrative supervisor. The executive order called for the dismissal of any employee willfully in violation of that order. After the President left office, the press made repeated references to the executive order and derisively referred to it as the President's legacy. Nonetheless, after the new President took office he promised to abide by the order. Thereafter one of the Vice President's senior advisers, leaked a story to a magazine stating that the Vice President told staff members that the only reason he visited a city following an earthquake was because he wanted to play golf at a nearby golf course. The magazine printed the story and named the senior adviser as the source. In compliance with civil service regulations, a hearing was conducted and the senior adviser was found to have violated the executive order barring unauthorized conununications with print media. Subsequently, the senior adviser was summarily dismissed from his executive staff position. The senior adviser brings an appropriate action seeking reinstatement and challenges the constitutionality of the executive order. If this case reaches the U. S. Supreme Court, the justices should rule the executive order is
5. A landlord is the owner in fee simple of a tract of land on which is situated a large office building. The landlord leases the land and building thereon to a tenant for a term of seven years, commencing on August 1, 2001, and terminating at midnight on July 31, 2008. The lease contains the following provisions"(1) The tenant covenants to keep the building on the leased premises insured against fire in the amount of $100,000. "After three years of the lease had expired, the tenant assigned the entire balance of the lease period to a doctor, who took immediate possession of the leased property. Then in 2005, the doctor assigned his leasehold interest to a dentist. The dentist went into possession, but failed to pay any rent for two months. Soon afterwards, a fire spread from an adjoining building to the leased property, completely destroying the building thereon. While the tenant was in possession of the leased property, he carried a fire insurance policy on the premises in the amount of $100,000. However, the tenant allowed the policy to lapse after his assignment to the doctor. The doctor did carry insurance on the leased building, but only in the amount of $50,000. When the dentist took possession of the building, he did not obtain any fire insurance. The landlord learned that the building was not insured at the time of the fire as per the original agreement. In an action by the landlord against the tenant to recover for the fire loss, the landlord will most probably
