The court should grant the motion with respect to the bank manager’s death, but deny the motion for the death
of the friend.
The court should grant the motion regarding the friend’s death, but deny the motion regarding the death of the
bank manager.
The court should grant the motion regarding the deaths of both the bank manager and the friend.
The court should deny the motion regarding the deaths of both the bank manager and the friend.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3ht… 3/208
Question 3 of 200
ID# 11514
No, because the firefighter’s rule bars recovery against the police department.
No, because the fan was the proximate cause of the man's harm.
Yes, because the defendant had an absolute duty to keep the premises safe.
Yes, because the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3ht… 4/208
Question 4 of 200
ID# 30527
The college student only.
The college student and the visiting professor.
The visiting professor and the athlete.
The athlete only.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3ht… 5/208
Question 5 of 200
ID# 30528
Overrule the objection, because the attorney may refresh the witness’s recollection.
Overrule the objection, because the subject matter is preliminary.
Sustain the objection, because the question was asked on direct examination.
Sustain the objection, because the court may take judicial notice of the matter in question.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3ht… 6/208
Question 6 of 200
ID# 11517
The drug addiction testimony only, because the man’s infidelity was only relevant in the divorce proceeding.
The extramarital affair testimony only, because the woman’s drug use did not result in a conviction.
Both the man and the woman’s proposed testimony, because character is in issue in a child custody matter.
Neither the man nor the woman’s proposed testimony, because character is not in issue in a civil case.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3ht… 7/208
Question 7 of 200
ID# 11518
Admit the defendant’s statement, but exclude the confession.
Admit the defendant’s confession, but exclude the statement.
Admit both the defendant's statement and confession.
Exclude both the defendant’s statement and confession.
The bank may foreclose on the property and hold the buyer personally liable, but cannot hold either the
neighbor or friend personally liable for the debt.
The bank may foreclose on the property and hold the buyer and the neighbor personally liable for the debt.
The bank may not foreclose on the property because it has been sold, but may hold both the buyer and the
friend personally liable for the debt.
The bank may not foreclose on the property because it has been sold, but may hold the buyer, the friend, and
the neighbor personally liable for the debt, in that order.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3ht… 9/208
Question 9 of 200
ID# 11520
Yes, for breach of covenant against encumbrances.
Yes, for breach of covenant of warranty.
No, because he failed to inspect the property before closing.
No, because the landowner was under no duty to inform the investor of the man’s adverse possession.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 10/208
Question 10 of 200
ID# 11521
The notice was a condition precedent that was never agreed to, therefore no contract exists.
His duty to arrive on time was discharged due to impossibility.
The employer, by saying nothing, waived the right to collect the fine.
This is a penalty instead of a reasonable liquidated damages provision.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 11/208
Question 11 of 200
ID# 11522
No, because the parties entered into a goodfaith modification.
No, because the homeowner agreed to a waiver of the builder’s performance of the driveway, it cannot be
reclaimed.
Yes, because the modification was unenforceable inasmuch as it was not supported by consideration.
Yes, because the original contract was in writing, the modification also had to be in writing to be enforceable.
The initial burden is on the plaintiff to show a discriminatory purpose, and, if proven, the burden shifts to the
state to show the measure is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The initial burden is on the plaintiff to show a discriminatory purpose, and, if proven, the burden shifts to the
state to show the measure furthers a compelling state interest.
Since the law discriminates against members of racial and ethnic minorities, the state has the burden to show
that it furthers a compelling governmental interest.
Since the law is designed to protect institutional safety and public welfare, the state has the burden to show
that it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 13/208
Question 13 of 200
ID# 30530
Yes, because the physicianpatient privilege is waived in personal injury lawsuits.
Yes, as an admission, because the paramedic is not a physician.
No, because the statement was made for the purpose of treatment and/or diagnosis.
No, because the statement was hearsay.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 14/208
Question 14 of 200
ID# 62720
The man has a cause of action against the security guard for battery.
The security guard can defend against battery and false imprisonment claims with the shopkeeper’s privilege.
Because the man never left the store with the steak, the security guard’s actions constitute false imprisonment.
Because the security guard left the door open, the man has no claim for false imprisonment.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 15/208
Question 15 of 200
ID# 62721
A defendant has the right to counsel at a postcharge photo array.
Police may not require an accused to provide handwriting samples to compare with a forged check.
A defendant has the right to counsel at a postcharge lineup.
A pretrial photo array that is unduly suggestive is inadmissible at trial absent an independent source.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 16/208
Question 16 of 200
ID# 11527
No, because the guard was in hot pursuit of a fleeing felon.
No, because the store is not responsible for the guard's intentional torts.
Yes, because the shattered glass touched the homeowner.
Yes, because a firearm is an inherently dangerous instrumentality.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 17/208
Question 17 of 200
ID# 11528
No, because the construction company is not liable for economic loss.
No, because the theft was an unforeseeable superseding act.
Yes, because the construction company’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the theft to occur.
Yes, because it was reasonably foreseeable that such an intervening criminal act would be committed in the
vicinity.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 18/208
Question 18 of 200
ID# 11529
Yes, because he has obtained a good and marketable title by adverse possession.
Yes, because the seller's action for specific performance is an action in rem even though the true owner is not
a party.
No, because the buyer cannot be required to buy a lawsuit even if the probability is great that the buyer would
prevail against the true owner of the property.
No, because the seller's failure to disclose his lack of record title constitutes fraud.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 19/208
Question 19 of 200
ID# 11530
The man may testify because he has firsthand knowledge of the transaction.
The man may testify because the best evidence rule only applies to writings.
The man cannot testify because the receipt must be produced.
The man cannot testify because there was no testimony that the receipt was unavailable.
Provision 1 is constitutional under the Supremacy Clause; but Provision 2 is unconstitutional because State
Attorneys General have the discretion to decide which cases to prosecute and which ones not to prosecute.
Provision 2 is constitutional under the Supremacy Clause; but Provision 1 is unconstitutional because federal
regulation of state law enforcement officers violates principles of state sovereignty.
Provision 1 and Provision 2 are both constitutional.
Neither Provision 1 nor Provision 2 is constitutional because the national government may not require state
officials to enforce federal laws.
Yes, because the rock band's parties and practice substantially and unreasonably interfere with the renter's
use and enjoyment of his property.
Yes, because the owner told the rock band they were interfering with the renter's use and enjoyment of the
property.
No, because the rock band cannot be liable to the owner.
No, because the rock band has not intentionally interfered with the renter's use and enjoyment of his property.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 22/208
Question 22 of 200
ID# 11533
One count of burglary only.
One count of burglary and one count of larceny.
One count of burglary and two counts of larceny.
Two counts of burglary and two counts of larceny.
Yes, because the shipment of nonconforming goods was an effective acceptance of the owner’s offer and at
the same time a breach of contract.
Yes, because the shipment of nonconforming goods constituted a counteroffer, which was rejected by the
owner.
No, because the shipment was only intended as an accommodation until the distributor received the 12th
edition from the publisher.
No, because the parties’ contract failed for indefiniteness because no price term for the outlines was ever
agreed upon.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 24/208
Question 24 of 200
ID# 11535
the contract price for the ModelY widgets.
the retail price for the ModelZ widgets.
the fair market value for the ModelZ widgets.
the reasonable price for the ModelZ widgets.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 25/208
Question 25 of 200
ID# 11536
No, because the concession stand passed on to the son following the death of the grantee, the life tenant.
No, because the concession stand could only be utilized during the life tenant’s lifetime.
Yes, because the estate has a reasonable time after the death of the life tenant to remove it.
Yes, because the concession stand is a fixture.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 26/208
Question 26 of 200
ID# 11537
There is no indication of the time set for performance.
No earnest money was deposited.
The land to be conveyed is not sufficiently well identified.
There is no provision as to the kind of title the seller promises to convey.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 27/208
Question 27 of 200
ID# 11538
Yes, because the city’s action resulted in an inverse condemnation.
Yes, because there is not a reasonable fit between the legitimate interest of the city in paving the street and
sidewalks and the property loss suffered by the plaintiff.
No, because the plaintiff’s decreased property value does not constitute a taking.
No, because pavement of the street and sidewalks furthered a legitimate government interest.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 28/208
Question 28 of 200
ID# 11539
Yes, because the city may not make use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another.
Yes, because the use of the property for residential purposes will not create a public use.
No, because the economic growth will benefit the public.
No, because the city paid the owners just compensation for their property.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 29/208
Question 29 of 200
ID# 11540
The vendor, because the equitable conversion doctrine places the risk of loss on the buyer.
The vendor, because he has until closing to cure title defects.
The vendee, because an ILSC is the functional equivalent of a mortgage, he has an equitable right of
redemption.
The vendee, because the outstanding mortgage prevents the vendor from conveying good and marketable
title.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 30/208
Question 30 of 200
ID# 11541
The mortgagor has an equitable right of redemption.
The mortgagor has a statutory right of redemption.
The rancher's purchase at the foreclosure sale clogged the mortgagor's right of redemption.
The rancher did not pay fair market value at the foreclosure sale.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 31/208
Question 31 of 200
ID# 30532
Yes, because the seller is seeking to reform the contract.
Yes, because the parties were mutually mistaken as to a basic assumption of fact.
No, because parol evidence of what the parties said before reducing the contract to writing is inadmissible.
No, because the evidence contradicts the writing.
Yes, because the goods failed to meet the specifications of the contract and thus were a nonconforming
tender.
Yes, because the time for performance had passed and the toymaker had not tendered the contracted goods.
No, because the toymaker has a reasonable time in which to substitute a conforming tender.
No, because the toymaker had reason to believe the nonconformance was suitable and notified the buyer
that he would cure.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 33/208
Question 33 of 200
ID# 11544
Yes, for assault.
Yes, for trespass.
Yes, based on strict liability.
Yes, for arson.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 34/208
Question 34 of 200
ID# 11545
The promise was oral.
The promise was not supported by consideration.
The promise was executory.
The promise was conditioned on the promisor’s reaching the age of 70.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 35/208
Question 35 of 200
ID# 11546
Yes, because the law is invalid as a retroactive ex post facto prohibition.
Yes, because the law violates the obligation of contracts.
No, because the law renders the contract unenforceable.
No, because unforeseen market conditions render the contract oppressive and unduly harsh.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 36/208
Question 36 of 200
ID# 11547
Darlene and Drake are both guilty of attempted murder of Drew.
Drake is guilty of attempted murder of Drew, and Darlene is guilty of solicitation.
Drake is guilty of attempted murder of Drew, and Darlene is not guilty of solicitation.
Neither Darlene nor Drake is guilty of attempted murder of Drew.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 37/208
Question 37 of 200
ID# 11548
Yes, because in federal court a defendant must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
Yes, because the victim was a federal agent.
No, because in federal court the defendant must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
No, because in federal court the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 38/208
Question 38 of 200
ID# 11549
Murder, because the lawyer knew the victim was a police officer.
Murder, because his mistake was unreasonable.
Manslaughter, because his mistake was honest.
No crime, because the lawyer was justified in defending himself.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 39/208
Question 39 of 200
ID# 30533
Yes, because the evidence may be used to impeach the defendant.
Yes, because the defendant testified in his own defense.
No, because the court granted the defendant's motion to suppress.
No, because the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 40/208
Question 40 of 200
ID# 11551
Yes, because the defendant had no opportunity to crossexamine the witness before or at trial.
Yes, because the witness’s 911 call was testimonial in nature as it was made directly to the police.
No, because the witness’s 911 call was not testimonial in nature.
No, because the Confrontation Clause does not apply when evidence is admitted under a firmly rooted
hearsay exception.
Yes, if a person with the race car driver’s skill and expertise should have avoided striking the debris on the
highway.
Yes, if the race car driver was negligent per se in driving across the median strip and causing the accident.
No, if a person with ordinary driving skills could not have avoided striking the debris on the highway.
No, if the race car driver was driving within the posted speed limit when his car struck the debris.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 42/208
Question 42 of 200
ID# 11553
Yes, for negligence and strict liability.
Yes, for negligence only.
Yes, in strict liability only.
The teacher is not liable for either negligence or strict liability.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 43/208
Question 43 of 200
ID# 11554
The cousin, because there was a bargainedfor exchange.
The cousin, because naming the child was a condition of a gift made in consideration of carrying out a moral
obligation.
The man, because naming the child was a mere gift promise unsupported by consideration.
The man, because the cousin did not experience any recognizable detriment in the naming of her child.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 44/208
Question 44 of 200
ID# 11555
The bystander wins, because the woman was mistaken.
The bystander wins, because the doctrine of transferred intent applies.
The woman wins, if her mistake was unreasonable but honest.
The woman wins, if her mistake was reasonable.
The creditor, because the escrow agreement coupled with the deed absolute extinguished the debtor’s right of
redemption.
The creditor, because the debtor failed to incorporate a redemption clause in the mortgage instrument.
The debtor, because the escrow agreement and the deed absolute should not preclude his right to redeem.
The debtor, because the mortgage takes precedence over the deed absolute.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 46/208
Question 46 of 200
ID# 11557
No, because the plaintiff was an invitee.
No, because the plaintiff received medical services.
Yes, because the doctor was an independent contractor.
Yes, because the plaintiff consented to the surgery.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 47/208
Question 47 of 200
ID# 62723
The patio furniture.
The patio furniture and the rose bushes.
The patio furniture, the rose bushes, and the swing.
None of the items.
Deny the motion, because one cannot establish an expectation of privacy for the sole purpose of conducting
illegal activity.
Deny the motion, because the money was in plain view.
Grant the motion, because the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her hotel room.
Grant the motion, because money itself is not per se illegal.
Admit the letter offered by the plaintiff as sufficiently authenticated but exclude the photocopy offered by the
defendant because it violates the best evidence rule.
Admit both the letter and the photocopy and leave to the jury the question as to which is authentic.
Admit neither the letter nor the photocopy since one is a fraud on the court and there is no extrinsic
authentication.
Hear further evidence in order to properly determine whether the letter or the photocopy is the authentic
version.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 50/208
Question 50 of 200
ID# 30535
Yes, because Wyoming must consent to the suit.
Yes, because the Supreme Court lacks original jurisdiction to hear the matter.
No, because Wyoming need not consent to the suit.
No, because the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction vinculum juris.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 51/208
Question 51 of 200
ID# 11562
No, because no contractual agreement was entered into between the father and the cousin.
No, because the daughter was nothing more than an incidental beneficiary of the fathercousin agreement.
Yes, because the cousin’s promise became irrevocable when the father showed her the letter on Thursday.
Yes, because the daughter was aware of the fathercousin agreement when she borrowed the $5,000 on
Wednesday.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 53/208
Question 53 of 200
ID# 11564
Yes, because it does not contradict a material term of the agreement.
Yes, for the purpose of determining the meaning of “house and its contents.”
No, because the terms of the agreement have a plain meaning and are unambiguous.
No, because there was not a subsequent agreement to modify and include these items.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 54/208
Question 54 of 200
ID# 62724
No, because the imposition of a tax on the sale of newspapers violates the First Amendment.
No, because the imposition of a tax on the sale of newspapers violates the Commerce Clause.
Yes, because Congress has the power to tax and spend.
Yes, because the taxpayer standing doctrine does not apply to newspaper publishers.
The motion should be granted, because more than a year and a day passed between the incident and the
officer’s death.
The motion should be granted, because double jeopardy bars reprosecution.
The motion should be granted, because the surgery, not the man’s actions, was the proximate cause of the
officer’s death.
The motion should be denied.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 56/208
Question 56 of 200
ID# 11567
Grant the motion, because the defendant's Fifth Amendment right to counsel was violated.
Grant the motion, because the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated.
Deny the motion, because the defendant voluntarily waived his Miranda right to counsel.
Deny the motion, because the defendant's confession was voluntary and not a product of police coercion.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 57/208
Question 57 of 200
ID# 11568
Yes, because a license is a privilege not a right.
Yes, because the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
No, because the law has a substantial impact on a fundamental right.
No, because there is no rational relationship between the denial of a marriage license and the delinquency of
a student loan.
The city must prove the ordinance is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental purpose, because
the ordinance directly infringes on an employee’s fundamental right to privacy, especially during offduty
hours.
The city must prove the ordinance serves an important governmental purpose and is the least restrictive
means of achieving its objective.
The plaintiff must prove the ordinance is not rationally related to serve a legitimate governmental purpose.
The plaintiff must prove her privacy interest in smoking offduty outweighs the city’s interest in promoting
health care.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 59/208
Question 59 of 200
ID# 11570
Yes, because the robbery was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Yes, because the busboy did not thwart the waiter from committing the robbery.
No, because the purchase of the ski masks was an insufficient overt act in furtherance of the crime.
No, because the busboy’s withdrawal was effective.
The contractor, because the owner didn’t inform him before May 1 that he was hiring someone else to perform
the remodeling work.
The contractor, because his mere expression of doubt regarding his ability to perform did not amount to an
anticipatory repudiation.
The owner, because he hired the carpenter for $3,000 less than the contractor demanded in his April 1 letter.
The owner, because the contractor’s April 1 letter manifested his prospective inability to perform, which
the owner was justified in treating as an anticipatory breach.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 61/208
Question 61 of 200
ID# 11572
Attempted larceny.
Attempted burglary.
Attempted burglary and attempted larceny.
Burglary and attempted larceny.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 62/208
Question 62 of 200
ID# 11573
Franklin must vacate on Turner’s demand.
Franklin must vacate on Turner’s demand, but if Turner ousts Franklin from the land, then Franklin can recover
from Ross’ estate for breach of the covenant of general warranty.
Franklin has the right to remain on the land until the end of the leasehold term, provided timely payment of rent
is made to Turner.
Franklin has the right to remain on the land only until the end of the month for which Franklin has paid rent.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 63/208
Question 63 of 200
ID# 11574
Overrule both the spousal and marital objections.
Overrule the spousal objection, but sustain the marital objection.
Sustain the spousal objections but overrule the marital objection.
Sustain both the spousal and marital objections.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 64/208
Question 64 of 200
ID# 11575
Yes, as a prior consistent statement by the stepdaughter.
Yes, to rebut the defense allegations of recent fabrication by the stepdaughter.
No, because the stepdaughter’s statements did not predate any alleged motive to falsify.
No, because the stepdaughter was not first impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 65/208
Question 65 of 200
ID# 11576
Yes, because the defendant was not a minor at the time of sentencing.
Yes, because the defendant was not a minor at the time of trial.
No, because the sentence violates the Sixth Amendment.
No, because the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 66/208
Question 66 of 200
ID# 11577
Yes, because the salesman was negligent per se by smoking in violation of the federal law.
Yes, because but for the fact that the salesman was smoking, the passenger would not have been injured in
such a manner.
No, because the purpose of the federal law was to prevent inhalation of secondhand smoke by airline
passengers.
No, because it was unforeseeable that an airline passenger would be injured in such a manner.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 67/208
Question 67 of 200
ID# 11578
The man, because the pedestrian was contributorily negligent.
The man, because the pedestrian did not see the incident.
The pedestrian, because the man was negligent per se.
The pedestrian, because the dog was on a leash.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 68/208
Question 68 of 200
ID# 11579
Yes, because the bees intruded on the firefighter’s property.
Yes, because the firefighter cannot make reasonable use of his backyard.
No, because the neighbor's activity has societal value.
No, because the firefighter is hypersensitive.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 69/208
Question 69 of 200
ID# 11580
Whether the alleged error was clearly erroneous as to the complaining party.
Whether the alleged error was an abuse of discretion.
Whether the alleged error violated the Frye doctrine of general acceptance in the relevant scientific
community.
Whether the alleged error affected a substantial right of a party.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 70/208
Question 70 of 200
ID# 11581
No interest, because under the provisions of the will the farmland was devised to the daughter individually.
No interest, because the daughter is entitled to take money from the estate in order to pay off the mortgage
debt.
A security interest providing them with rights similar to that of a mortgagee for the value appropriated by the
estate to pay off the mortgage.
A lien placing them in a position of a creditor to cover the value of the money taken from decedent's personal
property and appropriated to the estate's real property.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 71/208
Question 71 of 200
ID# 11582
Yes, because opening the garage door with the electronic device constituted a breaking and entering.
Yes, because he planned to commit arson on the structure.
No, because there was no breaking into the dwelling of another.
No, because he never actually set fire to the dwelling.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 72/208
Question 72 of 200
ID# 11583
Yes, because state income taxation of salaries of federal employees contravenes the Tenth Amendment.
Yes, because the federal agency is carrying out a noncommercial governmental function.
No, because the federal agency is a market participant.
No, because the immunity from state taxation does not extend to the salaries of federal employees.
The state must prove its racial policy is justified by compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve that
interest.
The state must prove that its racial policy serves an important governmental interest and no reasonable
alternatives are available by the state.
The state must prove the racial policy is reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest.
The inmate must prove that the state policy does not rationally serve a legitimate state interest.
Yes, because the statute places jurisdiction in the federal court in contradiction to the provisions of the
Eleventh Amendment.
Yes, because the statute places authority in a federal court to render an advisory opinion.
No, because the suit involves a federal question within the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
No, because the federal program provides proper guidelines to settle suits involving the loans.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 75/208
Question 75 of 200
ID# 11586
No, because at that distance he lacked the requisite intent to kill the man.
No, because it was legally impossible for the defendant to kill the man.
Yes, because the fact that he could not hit the man was merely a factual impossibility.
Yes, because his actions were premeditated.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 76/208
Question 76 of 200
ID# 11587
No, because the testimony is irrelevant.
No, because the question was beyond the scope of direct examination.
Yes, because the defendant put his character in issue by taking the stand.
Yes, because the defendant put his credibility in issue by taking the stand.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 77/208
Question 77 of 200
ID# 11588
Nothing, because the graduate chose not to hire another tutor.
Nothing, because the graduate was not a party to the contract between her mother and the tutor.
$1,000, or the difference in hiring another tutor.
$165,000, or the equivalent of lost income from losing her job with the law firm.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 78/208
Question 78 of 200
ID# 11589
Yes, because the butcher is entitled to support for his land in its natural condition.
Yes, because the butcher is entitled to support for his land in its improved condition.
No, because the developer is not liable for the peculiar condition of the soil.
No, because strict liability is not appropriate in a suit for damages based on a withdrawal of lateral support.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 79/208
Question 79 of 200
ID# 11590
The buyer, because the seller failed to perform her contractual obligation timely.
The buyer, because the seller has an adequate remedy at law.
The seller, because time is not ordinarily of the essence in a real property sales contract.
The seller, because each piece of real property is considered unique.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 80/208
Question 80 of 200
ID# 11591
The fence line is controlling, because the woman acquiesced to the construction of the fence.
The fence line is controlling, because the period of prescription in this jurisdiction has been satisfied.
The boundary line is controlling, because the construction of the fence was permissive and not adverse.
The boundary line is controlling, because the fence constitutes an actionable encroachment onto the new
owner’s property.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 81/208
Question 81 of 200
ID# 11592
No, because the prepayment penalty charge clogs the equity of redemption.
No, because the prepayment penalty clause constitutes an unlawful restraint against alienation.
Yes, the prepayment penalty clause is valid because the mortgagee will receive diminished interest since the
principal is being prepaid before maturity.
Yes, because the prepayment penalty was less than 25% of the unpaid principal balance.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 82/208
Question 82 of 200
ID# 11593
Yes, because the customs officer did not have probable cause.
Yes, because the customs officer did not obtain a warrant prior to the search.
No, because no search under the Fourth Amendment occurred because the disassembly of the gas tank took
place at the border.
No, because such routine border searches do not require any degree of suspicion.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 83/208
Question 83 of 200
ID# 11594
Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court because of the conflict between the law of the different circuits.
Petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari because of the conflict between the law of the different circuits.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit because the district court is located within that circuit.
Seek mandamus from the Seventh Circuit court of appeals because the Second Circuit district court failed to
apply stare decisis.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 84/208
Question 84 of 200
ID# 11595
The evidence is admissible as an excited utterance.
The evidence is admissible as a statement by a party opponent.
The evidence is admissible as a declaration against interest.
The evidence is admissible as a verbal act.
Uphold the tax credits as not violative of the Commerce Clause, because such economic benefits only impose
a de minimis burden on interstate commerce.
Uphold the tax credits, because the city and the state are acting as market participants under the Commerce
Clause and not as market regulators.
Dismiss the suit as the plaintiffs lack standing to sue as state and municipal taxpayers.
Dismiss the suit under the political question doctrine.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 86/208
Question 86 of 200
ID# 30537
Yes, because the letter is covered by the attorneyclient privilege.
Yes, because the secretary has a Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination.
No, because only spoken communications and acts that convey a message are protected by the attorney
client privilege.
No, because the letter was prepared before the attorneyclient relationship was formed.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 87/208
Question 87 of 200
ID# 11598
A deficiency judgment only.
An action to foreclose only.
Either a deficiency judgment or an action to foreclose.
Neither a deficiency judgment nor an action to foreclose.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 88/208
Question 88 of 200
ID# 11599
Sustain the objection, because the witness is not an expert.
Sustain the objection, because intoxication is the ultimate issue in the case.
Overrule the objection, because the witness had firsthand knowledge and is giving proper lay opinion
testimony.
Overrule the objection, because the witness had firsthand knowledge of the defendant's conduct.
Yes, because the police obtained a valid Miranda waiver and did not have to tell the man that his lawyer was
present.
Yes, because once the man waived his right to remain silent, that right cannot be reclaimed.
No, because the police failed to tell the man that his lawyer was present.
No, because the lawyer invoked the right to remain silent on behalf of his client in the presence of a police
officer.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 90/208
Question 90 of 200
ID# 11601
Yes, because witnesses must take either an oath or affirmation.
Yes, provided she appreciates the obligation to tell the truth.
No, because she has a bona fide religious belief.
No, because adult witnesses are presumed competent.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 91/208
Question 91 of 200
ID# 11602
Because the doctor acted in what he felt was the best interest of the man.
Because failure to disclose all known risks did not constitute a battery.
Because there was less than a 10% risk involved with the surgery.
Because the operation was performed successfully; the man did not suffer any damage.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 92/208
Question 92 of 200
ID# 62725
Deny the motion, because she had firsthand knowledge of the doctor’s statement.
Deny the motion, because it is probative on the issue of the boy’s pain and suffering.
Grant the motion, because the instructions on the bottle would be the best evidence.
Grant the motion, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 93/208
Question 93 of 200
ID# 11604
No, because the prosecution cannot introduce character evidence in a criminal prosecution.
No, because the rule excluding character evidence does not apply to persons other than the accused in
criminal cases.
Yes, because the rule excluding character evidence does not apply in this situation.
Yes, because even though specific acts are not admissible as character evidence, they may be admitted for
the limited purpose of proving the defendant’s intent.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 94/208
Question 94 of 200
ID# 78431
There is no contract as the Statute of Frauds was not satisfied.
There is no contract as there was not a meeting of the minds as to the color of the widgets.
There may be a contract if the wholesaler delivers 100 white widgets before March 1.
There is a contract for 100 black widgets at $5000.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 95/208
Question 95 of 200
ID# 78432
A patdown of the driver’s outer clothing only.
A search of the driver’s clothing including the contents of his pockets.
A search of the driver and the interior passenger compartment of his vehicle.
A search of the driver, the interior passenger compartment of his vehicle, as well as the trunk.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b3… 96/208
Question 96 of 200
ID# 78433
Yes, because the state is acting in loco parentis.
Yes, because the books are furnished at the school’s expense.
No, because the state cannot force an individual to promote speech.
No, because a state cannot prescribe the type of book cover to be placed on schoolbooks.
The school, because attendance was voluntary and the principal used good faith in having the minister’s
participation be specific to no religion.
The school, because the practice had a primary effect that neither advanced nor inhibited religion and
avoided excessive government entanglement.
The student, because the school’s practice reflected a clear nonsecular purpose and served no compelling
state interest.
The student, because the school’s practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Yes, because Congress could determine that it is “necessary and proper” to restrict the President’s unfettered
pardoning power.
Yes, because under the statute, the President still retains the pardoning power; it is simply reviewable by
board members appointed by Congress.
No, because the President’s power to grant pardons is set forth in the Constitution and is not subject to
legislative or judicial review.
No, because Congress itself cannot appoint the members of the Pardoning Review Board, but must delegate
such appointment either to the judiciary or to the head of a department.
Police lawfully arrest a defendant for murder, question him without Miranda warnings, and the defendant
voluntarily informs the police that he shot the victim. The defendant’s statement is offered to impeach his trial
testimony.
Police illegally search the defendant, who is a known parolee, and find cocaine in his pocket. The cocaine is
introduced at the defendant’s parole revocation hearing.
Police enter a defendant’s residence with a warrant to search for drugs, find heroin; but at a hearing regarding
a motion to exclude, the judge finds that the police failed to properly knock and announce before entering the
property.
Police receive an anonymous telephone tip that a defendant is standing on a particular street corner and has
a .38 caliber gun in the red jacket that he is wearing. Police approach the defendant, the only person standing
on that corner wearing a red jacket, frisk him, and seize a .38 pistol. The pistol is introduced at the defendant’s
trial for illegal possession of a gun.
An order form for 200 pairs of roller skates on Buyer’s preprinted order form with Buyer’s letterhead but with
no signature by an employee of Buyer. The lawsuit is against Buyer for refusal to accept the roller skates
delivered by Seller.
A combined set of three writings stapled together by Buyer which, when all three are viewed together, supply
all elements of the agreement. Only one of the three writings is signed by Buyer, who is the party to be
charged.
A telegram sent by Buyer to Seller confirming the deal with Buyer’s name typed by the telegraph company; the
suit is against the Seller of real property.
Owner and Buyer enter into an oral agreement for the sale of a tenacre parcel of land. Buyer, after paying the
full purchase price, takes possession of the land.
The Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth
Amendment.
A defendant has no right to confront witnesses, no right to introduce evidence, and no right to be present.
A grand jury witness has no right to receive Miranda warnings, no right to immunity from perjury if she testifies
falsely, and no right to consult with counsel outside the grand jury room.
The Federal Rules of Evidence are not applicable to grand juries, nor does the Fourth Amendment
exclusionary rule apply, but the Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination does apply.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 102/208
Question 102 of 200
ID# 11613
The defendant only, based on the doctrine of transferred intent.
The defendant only, based on his purposeful intent.
The defendant and his friend, based on their constructive intent.
The defendant and his friend, based on the theory of joint enterprise.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 103/208
Question 103 of 200
ID# 11614
Nothing, because the structure was destroyed by an unexpected force of nature.
$10,000, which reflects the difference between the two building contracts.
$100,000, based on the amount paid to the builder, plus the additional cost to complete.
$110,000, or the amount still owed under the terms of the original contract.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 104/208
Question 104 of 200
ID# 11615
Nothing, irrespective of whether he had completed half of the deck work before the hurricane.
In quasicontract for the reasonable value of the labor expended and materials destroyed by the hurricane.
In quasicontract for the reasonable value of the labor expended and materials destroyed by the hurricane,
minus $6,000.
A proration of the contract price, measured by the percentage of completion before the hurricane, minus what
the builder saved by not having to reconstruct the deck.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 105/208
Question 105 of 200
ID# 62726
One million dollars, because the mother was not negligent.
$700,000, because the son was negligent.
$400,000, because both the father and the son were negligent.
Nothing, because the son and the father’s combined negligence was more than the defendants.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 106/208
Question 106 of 200
ID# 11617
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Contracts Clause, Article I, Section 10.
Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article 4.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 107/208
Question 107 of 200
ID# 11618
No, because character cannot be proven with extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts.
No, because character evidence is inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with the character trait.
Yes, to impeach the girlfriend.
Yes, to prove circumstantially that the defendant has violent tendencies.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 108/208
Question 108 of 200
ID# 11619
The buyer, because he mailed his acceptance before receiving notice of the seller’s revocation.
The buyer, because the seller received his acceptance before receiving notice of the buyer's rejection.
The seller, because the buyer mailed his rejection before depositing his acceptance.
The seller, because he mailed his revocation before receiving notice of the buyer’s acceptance.
The executive agreement supersedes because the President is the commander in chief of all military
operations.
The executive agreement supersedes because it predated the appropriations bill.
The appropriations bill supersedes under the lastintime rule.
The appropriations bill supersedes, because of a conflict with the executive agreement.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 110/208
Question 110 of 200
ID# 11621
Yes, as a vicarious admission.
Yes, as a declaration against interest.
Yes, as former testimony.
No, because two different plaintiffs are bringing two different lawsuits against the same defendant.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 112/208
Question 112 of 200
ID# 11623
The lack of a delivery term would render the contract unenforceable.
The place of delivery will be deemed to be the retailer's place of business.
The place of delivery will be deemed to be the manufacturer’s place of business.
The respective parties will share the cost of delivery.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 113/208
Question 113 of 200
ID# 11624
No, because the assignment from Auburn was not recorded.
No, because an assignment effectuates a subrogation.
Yes, because the cousin failed to record his mortgage.
Yes, because it was executed earlier in time and it was recorded by the original mortgagee.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 114/208
Question 114 of 200
ID# 78434
The cousin, because he has the right to use all of the water impounded on his land.
The cousin, because the use of the water touches and concerns the land.
The rancher, because he has acquired riparian rights to use the water.
The rancher, because the farmer is estopped to claim all of the surface water on his land.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 115/208
Question 115 of 200
ID# 11626
No duty, because the lawyer was a trespasser.
A duty to inspect and make safe.
A duty to warn of known dangerous conditions.
An absolute duty of care, because the store was open to the public.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 116/208
Question 116 of 200
ID# 11627
No, if the warning on the box cover was adequate.
No, if the plaintiff was negligent in knocking the light into the bathtub.
Yes, if failure to install the rubberized coating made the light unreasonably dangerous.
Yes, if the manufacturer was aware of the danger associated with placing these devices in electrical sockets
near bathtubs.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 117/208
Question 117 of 200
ID# 11628
The man, because the investor is responsible for all injuries sustained from ultrahazardous activities.
The man, because his injuries were foreseeable.
The investor, because the man was not a foreseeable plaintiff.
The investor, because the blasting company was an independent contractor.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 118/208
Question 118 of 200
ID# 11629
the renter is liable for $2,000 and the friend is liable for $2,000.
the renter and his friend are jointly and severally liable for $4,000.
the friend is liable for $4,000.
the friend is liable for $2,000 and the renter is liable for $4,000.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 119/208
Question 119 of 200
ID# 30539
A modern approach.
Common law.
The English Rule.
The American Rule.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 120/208
Question 120 of 200
ID# 11631
No, because the defendant’s attorney is asking the question of his own witness.
No, because the defendant was on crossexamination.
Yes, because leading questions are improper on crossexamination.
Yes, because the defendant was called as an adverse witness.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 121/208
Question 121 of 200
ID# 11632
Yes, because Lender accepted the offer by loaning the money to Niece.
Yes, because Lender loaned the money to Niece and notified Uncle of the acceptance before he died.
No, because Uncle’s promise was oral and thus unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
No, because upon Uncle’s death, Niece is primarily liable for the loan.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 122/208
Question 122 of 200
ID# 11633
Nothing, because the father's promise was not bargained for.
Nothing, because the father's promise to act as surety was not in writing.
$7,000, for the future treatment, which the doctor rendered to the fan.
$10,500, which represents the full amount of the father's promise.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 123/208
Question 123 of 200
ID# 11634
Yes, because a state restriction on voting rights may be more stringent than federal restrictions.
Yes, because it bears a reasonable relationship to its objectives and to this class of citizens, and it does not
serve any other governmental function.
No, because the right to vote is a fundamental right.
No, because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires equitable apportionment
under the oneperson, onevote principle.
$250,000 from the first doctor and $250,000 from the second doctor, because each party was equally
negligent.
$500,000 from the first doctor only, because the amputation was proximately related to his antecedent
negligence.
$500,000 from the second doctor, because his negligence caused the infection that necessitated the
amputation.
$500,000 from either doctor, because each is jointly and severally liable for the full amount of damages.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 125/208
Question 125 of 200
ID# 11636
Yes, for negligence.
Yes, for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Yes, for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Yes, for reckless infliction of emotional distress.
Yes, taking judicial notice is mandatory in this case, and the jury must be instructed that the fact judicially
noticed is conclusive and binding.
Yes, taking judicial notice is mandatory in this case, whether requested or not by a party.
No, judicial notice is taken at the discretion of the trial court, even though the court is supplied with sources
that are capable of accurate and ready determination.
No, because the boiling temperature of sulfuric acid is not a proper subject for judicial notice and may only be
proved by expert testimony.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 127/208
Question 127 of 200
ID# 11638
The man and the woman are joint tenants, with onehalf of the property subject to the man’s mortgage.
The man and the woman are joint tenants, with the entire property subject to the man’s mortgage.
The man and the woman are tenants in common, with onehalf of the property subject to the man’s mortgage.
The man and the woman are tenants in common, with the entire property subject to the man’s mortgage.
Nonresident aliens are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as United States citizens and resident
aliens.
Nonresident aliens are not protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, which
prevents states from discriminating against outofstate individuals.
The inspections unduly burden interstate commerce and commerce with foreign nations.
Canadian grain producers are being denied the equal protection of the laws.
No, because it unfairly discriminates in favor of residents of the state against nonresidents as to the basic
right to employment, without a substantial right to do so.
No, because it authorizes employers to arbitrarily dismiss some nonresidents while retaining others.
Yes, because a state is permitted to treat nonresidents differently from residents whenever it sees fit.
Yes, because the man was discharged in compliance with the ordinance and was not otherwise discriminated
against by his employer.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 130/208
Question 130 of 200
ID# 11666
No, because the company did, in fact, lose $11,000,000 during her tenure.
No, based on a qualified privilege, because the spokesman's statement was made at a news conference.
Yes, because the spokesman's statement reflected adversely on the woman’s professional competence.
Yes, if the spokesman acted with malice and knew that the company’s losses were not her fault.
Yes, because expert witnesses may base an opinion on facts or data reasonably relied upon by other experts
in the particular field.
Yes, provided there is an opportunity at some point to crossexamine the lab technician.
No, because an expert witness may not give an opinion on the ultimate issue in the case.
No, because an expert cannot base his opinion on evidence not presented to the jury.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 132/208
Question 132 of 200
ID# 11643
Yes, because the patron had a duty to retreat.
Yes, because the boyfriend did not make a verbal threat when he raised his fist.
No, because the duty to retreat only applies when deadly force is being threatened.
No, because the patron used reasonable force and was not required to leave the premises.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 133/208
Question 133 of 200
ID# 11644
The landowner is the owner of the entire one hundredacre tract.
The friend is the owner of the fiftyacre section that he fenced in and the landowner is the owner of the 50
acres that remain in its natural condition.
The friend is the owner of the entire one hundredacre tract by virtue of the conveyance from the man.
The friend and the landowner own the property as coowners in joint tenancy.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 134/208
Question 134 of 200
ID# 30540
The doctor, because the statute of limitations tolled when he went to prison.
The doctor, because the neighbor's possession was not hostile.
The neighbor, because periods of possession may be tacked onto each other.
The neighbor, because the statute of limitations did not toll when the doctor went to prison.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 135/208
Question 135 of 200
ID# 11646
The painter, because the woman should have realized that the painter would paint Apartment 433.
The painter, because even though no contract existed, he is entitled to quasicontractual relief under the
circumstances.
The woman, because there was no contract inasmuch as she expressly instructed the painter to paint her
apartment.
The woman, because no contract existed due to the mutual mistake of the parties.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 136/208
Question 136 of 200
ID# 11647
Yes, as nonhearsay.
Yes, as a statement against interest.
No, as hearsay not within any recognized exception.
No, as a remedial measure to prove negligence.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 137/208
Question 137 of 200
ID# 11648
Yes, under the completeness doctrine.
Yes, under the public records exception to the hearsay rule.
No, because the officer is not an expert.
No, because it is hearsay not within any recognized exception.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 138/208
Question 138 of 200
ID# 30541
The CEO, because she did not disclose her statement to the public.
The CEO, because she will be able to successfully argue the affirmative defense of truth.
Samuels, because he stole $9,780.25, not $10,000.
Samuels, because the CEO knew that her statement was false.
The expungement in State Red should be recognized by the judge in State Blue under the Full Faith and
Credit provision of Section 1 of Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
The expungement of the prior conviction precludes any subsequent review under the doctrine of double
jeopardy.
The crimes are unrelated and occurred in different states.
Evidence of a prior conviction occurring more than 10 years ago is not admissible at a sentencing hearing,
which is a quasijudicial proceeding.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 140/208
Question 140 of 200
ID# 62727
Yes, because there are no conflicting state or federal laws.
Yes, because the President has broad powers to regulate domestic policy.
No, because the order exceeds the executive powers of the President.
No, because the order violates the Contracts Clause.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 141/208
Question 141 of 200
ID# 11652
Yes, because it unconstitutionally burdened the defendant’s right not to testify.
Yes, under an abuse of discretion standard.
No, because the defendant introduced evidence of her prior conviction on direct examination.
No, because adverse in limine rulings are generally not subject to appellate review absent plain error.
Yes, because a hearing is required before the property interest in continued welfare benefits can be
terminated.
Yes, because discrimination against a person from another state violates the Fourteenth Amendment
Privileges or Immunities Clause.
No, because welfare payments are a governmental benefit, not a right.
No, because a posttermination hearing is adequate due process.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 143/208
Question 143 of 200
ID# 30542
The police power granted to the state through the 10th Amendment.
Because the law only regulates commercial speech, State A need only demonstrate that the law is rationally
related to a legitimate state interest.
The law is narrowly tailored toward achieving State A's substantial interest in protecting the privacy of
veterans.
A 60 day restriction is a reasonable regulation of time, place, and manner.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 144/208
Question 144 of 200
ID# 11655
Nothing, because the debt was discharged by the statute of limitations.
$5,000, because the man’s letter revived the entire debt.
$5,000, because that was the amount of the original debt.
$3,500, because that was the amount that the man promised to pay.
None of the parties, because although Heather may bring a negligence action, only Anne may bring a strict
products liability action.
Engines Inc. only.
Engines Inc., Eagle, and Jim's Auto Sales.
Sparks Inc., Engines Inc., Eagle, and Jim's Auto Sales.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 146/208
Question 146 of 200
ID# 11657
Larceny as an accessory after the fact.
Larceny.
False pretenses.
Receiving stolen property.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 147/208
Question 147 of 200
ID# 11658
Yes, the programmer can sue under a promissory estoppel theory, because he can show detrimental reliance.
Yes, the contract may be enforced, because it is not illusory.
No, because the shopkeeper’s right to cancel made the contract illusory.
No, because the reasonable fee provision rendered the contract too uncertain to enforce.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 148/208
Question 148 of 200
ID# 62728
For the builder, because the new agreement lacks consideration.
For the builder, because the agreement is unconscionable.
For the homeowner, because there has been a valid modification.
For the homeowner, because there has been a valid accord and satisfaction.
The life tenant, because under the open mines doctrine, a life tenant is permitted to make full use of existing
mines and is not accountable to the remainderman.
The life tenant, because although the drilling operations may continue unabated, he must provide an
accounting and reimburse the cousin for the diminished value of his remainder interest.
The cousin, because removal of the oil causes physical damage to the land and thus constitutes waste, which
may be enjoined.
The cousin, although under the election of remedies doctrine, he must choose either to permanently enjoin
the oil drilling operations or recover damages for waste, but not both alternatives.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 150/208
Question 150 of 200
ID# 11661
Lions and tigers kept as pets do not constitute federal property under Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution.
Prohibiting a person from keeping a pet as personal property constitutes a due process violation, because it
deprives individuals of a property right.
The keeping of a domesticated pet, regardless of its species, is not an economic activity subject to government
regulation under the Commerce Clause.
The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states exclusive authority over matters affecting personal property in
one’s home or domicile.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 151/208
Question 151 of 200
ID# 11662
Yes, because the police did not have a search warrant to justify entering the house.
Yes, because the police did not have probable cause to believe that drugs were inside the house.
No, because the search was incident to a lawful arrest.
No, because the defendant lacks standing to challenge the search and seizure.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 152/208
Question 152 of 200
ID# 11663
Yes, because the dog sniff resulted from an anonymous tip that cannot be the basis for issuing a warrant.
Yes, because the dog sniff was unlawful in this situation.
No, because no expectation of privacy was violated by sniffing the door and a positive alert by a trained dog
may provide probable cause for a search.
No, because even though a reasonable expectation of privacy was violated by sniffing the door, the positive
alert by the trained dog justified issuance of the warrant.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 153/208
Question 153 of 200
ID# 11664
recover, because the farmer is strictly liable as engineless flight is unsafe.
recover, because the farmer was negligent in operating the plane.
not recover, because the farmer was privileged to make an emergency landing.
not recover, because he was a trespasser.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 155/208
Question 155 of 200
ID# 11641
Yes, because the representative was not a federal legislator.
Yes, because the statement had no reasonable relationship to a matter at hand.
No, because the legislature could not have reasonably believed that the statement related to a matter at hand.
No, because the representative was absolutely privileged to make the statement.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 156/208
Question 156 of 200
ID# 11667
"The juror failed to make eye contact as I was asking her questions."
"The juror has not maintained a job for the past four years."
"The juror is a female, and the victim and defendant are both male."
"The juror was a member of the same religion as the defendant."
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 157/208
Question 157 of 200
ID# 11668
The opera singer, because the lease is excepted by the Statute of Frauds.
The opera singer, because the lease was a separate agreement.
The opera company, because the lease and the writing were contemporaneous.
The opera company, because the apartment was leased to the opera singer for the same duration as the
employment contract.
The farmer remains bound to deliver 5,000 bushels on October 15, and the wholesaler has the right on and
after September 4 to recover damages for partial breach of contract.
The farmer remains bound to deliver 5,000 bushels on October 15, and will be liable on and after that date for
partial breach of contract if he delivers a lesser quantity.
The farmer is bound to deliver 2,500 bushels.
The farmer’s September 2 telegram was, in legal effect, an anticipatory repudiation, on account of which, if not
first retracted, the wholesaler could recover damages for total breach of contract in a suit brought any time
thereafter.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 159/208
Question 159 of 200
ID# 11670
Yes, because the manager’s statement is a vicarious admission.
Yes, because the rule excluding offers to pay medical expenses does not extend to statements of fault.
No, because the statement was made in the context of a settlement offer.
No, because the manager denied the slick condition of the sidewalk was the cause of man’s fall.
Yes, because the defendant’s due process rights were violated because federal authorities delayed filing the
indictment for over two months after his initial arrest.
Yes, because the defendant is being indicted for offenses that occurred before the law went into effect; thus,
there is an ex post facto violation.
No, because the defendant was not charged with violating the statute when he was first arrested.
No, because the alleged criminal acts occurred after Congress enacted the law.
Yes, because it is within the President's power as CommanderinChief of the United States and there is a
clear and present national emergency.
Yes, because executive agreements may pertain to any subject.
No, because the President does not have the power to declare war.
No, because a supermajority vote by Congress is required to declare war.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 162/208
Question 162 of 200
ID# 11673
The man, because a partition action does not give the equity court power to order a forced sale of the property.
The man, because the property can physically be divided twothirds and onethird.
The woman, because partitioning the property would be inequitable and unfair since it would prevent the
woman from constructing on her section of the land.
The woman, because a partition would be tantamount to a compensable taking since the woman’s property
would have no viable economic use.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 163/208
Question 163 of 200
ID# 62729
The son, as successor to the man’s possibility of reverter.
The son, as successor to the man’s right of reentry.
The Boy Scouts of America, because the conveyance violated the Rule Against Perpetuities.
The Boy Scouts of America, because under the cy pres doctrine, the wealthy man’s intent should be carried
out by the land’s continued use for scouting purposes.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 164/208
Question 164 of 200
ID# 11675
Yes, because it is circumstantial evidence of defendant’s guilt.
Yes, but only for purposes of impeachment.
No, because the probative value of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice.
No, because the monies deposited may be from the defendant’s own legitimate funds.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 165/208
Question 165 of 200
ID# 11676
O’s heirs.
A.
A’s heirs.
S.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 166/208
Question 166 of 200
ID# 11677
Yes, because the plaintiff bears the burden of proof in a civil case.
Yes, because expert testimony is necessary for a jury to determine whether the surgeon was negligent in this
case.
No, because expert testimony is not necessary for a jury to determine whether the surgeon was negligent in
this case.
No, because the proper procedure would be to allow the patient to present further testimony.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 167/208
Question 167 of 200
ID# 62730
Yes, because the loss of business was proximately caused by the defendant’s actions.
Yes, because these types of economic losses are foreseeable.
No, because purely economic losses are not recoverable.
No, because businesses have a duty to insure against such losses.
The buyer, because as a judgment creditor, the contractor is not considered a subsequent purchaser for value
under a recording statute of this type.
The buyer, because his interest in Debtacre arose before the contractor's judgment lien attached.
The contractor, because judgment creditors are treated as subsequent purchasers for value under a recording
statute of this type.
The contractor, because he purchased Debtacre at the execution sale.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 169/208
Question 169 of 200
ID# 30546
For the mother, because there has been no satisfaction of the debt.
For the mother, because the stepsister's agreement was not in writing.
For the son, because the mother is merely a donee beneficiary.
For the son, because there was a novation.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 171/208
Question 171 of 200
ID# 11682
Burglary and larceny.
Solicitation and burglary.
Solicitation, conspiracy, burglary, and larceny.
Conspiracy and larceny.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 172/208
Question 172 of 200
ID# 11683
Yes, because they caused the false report to be made.
Yes, because they are accomplices to Gamma.
No, because they did not report the information to the police themselves.
No, because they did not knowingly believe that Gamma would report the information to the police.
If the electric company is 75% negligent, the boyfriend is 20% negligent, and the girlfriend is 5% at fault, then
plaintiff can recover $75,000 from the electric company.
If the electric company is 40% negligent, the boyfriend is 40% negligent, and the girlfriend is 20% at fault, then
plaintiff can recover $40,000 from each defendant.
If the electric company is 40% negligent, the boyfriend is 40% negligent, and the girlfriend is 20% at fault, then
plaintiff can recover up to $80,000 from either defendant.
If the electric company is 25% negligent, the boyfriend is 25% negligent, and the girlfriend is 50% at fault, then
plaintiff is precluded from recovering from either defendant.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 174/208
Question 174 of 200
ID# 11685
Yes, because the engineer knew that the value of the stock was greater than the price she offered.
Yes, because the engineer did not inform the plaintiff of the true value of the inventory.
No, because the engineer made no representation as to the value of the stock.
No, because only people with an interest in the company can be liable for misrepresentation.
Deny the motion, because res ipsa loquitur allows for all those connected with the operation to be liable for
negligence.
Deny the motion, because res ipsa loquitur provides a presumption of negligence.
Grant the motion, because the woman presented no evidence as to how she was injured.
Grant the motion, because res ipsa loquitor is not applicable in multiparty situations.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 176/208
Question 176 of 200
ID# 11687
No, because no evidence was presented that the defendant was engaged in negligent conduct.
No, because the manufacturer presented evidence that it used reasonable care in bottling and delivery.
Yes, based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
Yes, because no evidence is presented that the bottle was damaged during delivery by an independent
shipper.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 177/208
Question 177 of 200
ID# 11688
None, because the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
The contract price minus the cost of replacement.
$6,000.
$5,500.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 178/208
Question 178 of 200
ID# 11689
No, because the rancher’s lack of usage constituted an abandonment of the easement.
No, because the rancher’s failure to use the easement resulted in a conveyance of the easement.
Yes, because as the owner of the dominant tenement, he has the right to use the easement in any way he
deems necessary.
Yes, because the grant of an easement included the right to use the path to cross the farm free of any
obstruction.
Yes, for rehabilitation of the witness’ credibility but inadmissible as substantive evidence because it is
hearsay.
Yes, for rehabilitation of the witness’ credibility and admissible as substantive evidence.
Yes, as substantive evidence, but not for rehabilitation.
No, not for rehabilitation or substantive purposes.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 180/208
Question 180 of 200
ID# 11691
admissible only for impeachment purposes.
admissible as substantive evidence.
admissible, because the best evidence rule does not apply to documents used to refresh recollection.
inadmissible, because the writing constitutes hearsay not within any exception.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 181/208
Question 181 of 200
ID# 11692
12yearold conviction for perjury.
10yearold conviction for larceny by trick.
7yearold conviction for firstdegree murder.
2yearold conviction for misdemeanor theft.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 182/208
Question 182 of 200
ID# 11693
No, because the defendant had permission to be in the home on previous occasions.
No, because the jury instruction shifted the burden of proof of an element of the crime onto the defendant.
Yes, because the defendant had the neighbor's money and watch in his possession.
Yes, because the defendant did not get permission to enter the home from the neighbor for this occasion.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 183/208
Question 183 of 200
ID# 11694
Yes, because the therapist did not adequately warn the girlfriend.
Yes, because the therapist did not report the threat to the police.
No, because the therapist did not owe a duty to the girlfriend.
No, because the therapist’s warning was adequate.
The state, because the regulation is viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government
interest.
The state, because the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest.
The religious group, because the regulation violates its rights under the First Amendment.
The religious group, because the regulation is overly broad.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 185/208
Question 185 of 200
ID# 11696
The teacher, because conduct carried out in furtherance of one’s religious beliefs may not be regulated.
The teacher, because the law was not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.
The state, because it has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from dangerous drugs and has
employed the least restrictive means to do so.
The state, because the law applies to everyone and the burden on the teacher’s religious practice is merely
incidental.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 186/208
Question 186 of 200
ID# 30548
The duchess’s sister is personally liable to Bank One for $600,000.
Bank One will receive no distribution of the proceeds.
Bank One and Bank Two will receive pro rata distributions of the proceeds.
Bank Three will maintain a mortgage on Abbeyacre in the amount of $100,000.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 187/208
Question 187 of 200
ID# 30549
The first cousin, because he recorded his mortgage note first.
The first cousin, because the mortgage modification would not be considered prejudicial to junior lienholders.
The second cousin, because the mortgage modification would be considered prejudicial to junior lienholders.
The second cousin, because his loan enabled the playwright's acquisition of Oceanacre.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 188/208
Question 188 of 200
ID# 11699
No, because character is not in issue in a civil case.
No, because she was not home on the day the fire occurred.
Yes, as substantive evidence of the man’s routine practice.
Yes, to rehabilitate the man on redirect.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 190/208
Question 190 of 200
ID# 11701
The contractor, because he rejected the homeowner’s counteroffer.
The contractor, because the homeowner made a counteroffer to the contractor.
The homeowner, because he accepted within the seven days provided in the offer.
The homeowner, because an acceptance does not need to be communicated in the same manner as the
offer.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 191/208
Question 191 of 200
ID# 11702
No, because the caterer learned from a reliable source that the partyplanner had hired someone else.
No, because the caterer’s initial email reply constituted a counteroffer.
Yes, because she had a reasonable time to accept the partyplanner’s offer.
Yes, because the partyplanner is a merchant.
The court should reverse the conviction, because under the circumstances, the defendant's guilty plea could
not have been voluntary and intelligent.
The court should reverse the conviction, because a defendant cannot waive her right to a jury trial in the
absence of legal counsel.
The court should affirm the conviction, because the right to a jury trial exists only as to felony offenses.
The court should affirm the conviction, because the defendant was not incarcerated.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 194/208
Question 194 of 200
ID# 62733
Freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
Protection against unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
The right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment.
The privileges and immunities granted under the Fourteenth Amendment.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 195/208
Question 195 of 200
ID# 30550
Yes, because the right to redeem before a foreclosure sale may not be waived.
Yes, because the amount of money proffered was not enough for a valid redemption.
No, because the right to redeem was waived.
No, because the amount of money proffered was enough for a valid redemption.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 196/208
Question 196 of 200
ID# 11707
Yes, because the husband did not object prior to the wife’s consent.
Yes, because consent by any occupant of jointly owned property satisfies the Fourth Amendment.
No, because the husband objected to the search.
No, because the wife’s statement to the officer provided probable cause for a search warrant which is required
prior to a search of a residence.
In favor of the purchaser, because the manufacturer had a duty to inquire further as to what the purchaser
meant by its response.
In favor of the purchaser, because his reply provided adequate assurances.
In favor of the manufacturer, because the purchaser’s response was too vague to provide adequate
assurances.
In favor of the manufacturer, because requirements contracts require good faith at all times and from all
parties.
The state will prevail, because regulation of the group, or its members, does not implicate interstate
commerce.
The state will prevail, because a license is a privilege that can be revoked without procedural due process.
The member will prevail, because the revocation constitutes a bill of attainder.
The member will prevail, because the revocation violates members' right to work under the Privileges and
Immunities Clause.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 199/208
Question 199 of 200
ID# 11710
He will be entitled to all damages he sustained because of the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
He will be entitled to all damages he sustained as a result of the accident because a tortfeasor is liable for the
full consequences of the injury she causes.
He will be entitled to damages that a normal person would have sustained in a similar accident.
He will only be entitled to damages for the traction, not the paralysis.
7/25/2014 Print Quiz
http://kbr.kaplan.com/Student/PrintQuiz.aspx?containerId=U2BmZOh0IMqTr2lhnaDnIg%2c%2c&isReviewMode=5b3htzR5A88%2c&ShowExplanation=5b… 200/208
Question 200 of 200
ID# 11711
Yes, because a shark is a wild animal.
Yes, because the guest was an invitee.
No, because there was a fence around the pool.
No, because her damages were not caused by the shark or by the dangerous propensities associated with its
captivity.