LEB 320F Final Exam Questions and Answers
Adam sues Brenda and claims that Brenda's dog bit his leg. Brenda receives a copy of Adam's complaint, and in her answer, she alleges that her dog bit Adam when he was trespassing in her yard late at night, that he destroyed her fence when he ran away from
the dog, and that he should pay $500 to compensate her for the fence repairs. Characterize the components of Brenda's answer.
A. It contains a denial
B. It contains a defense
C. It contains a counterclaim
D. A and C
E. B and C - Answer -Answer: E. She does not deny that Adam's claim of a dog bite is true. She asserts instead that there exists a legal justification for the bite. So, she raises
a defense and does not make a denial. And, by asking for money to repair the fence, she raises a counterclaim.
Sam sues AlphaCo, his former employer. In his case, he alleges that AlphaCo illegally discriminated against him. During discovery, Sam's lawyer asks AlphaCo for its employment records over the last 10 years. The lawyer also wants to talk to Sam's former supervisor under oath and ask him about Sam's termination.
The demand for the employment records is a(n) _______________ . The lawyer would like to talk to the former supervisor as part of a(n) ______________ .
A. interrogatory; interrogatory
B. interrogatory; deposition
C. request for production of documents; interrogatory
D. request for production of documents; deposition - Answer -ANSWER: D. The demand for business records is a request for production of documents. The questioning of the supervisor will be a deposition because the lawyer will be talking to him in person,
and not by submitting a written request for information, which would be an interrogatory.
Max sues the Houston Police Department after he is arrested during a protest. He claims his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution have been violated.
Jack sues MegaCorp over crop losses after MegaCorp dumps toxic chemicals into a river that eventually runs across his farm. He sues based on the federal Clean Water Act and also under Texas tort law.
Which of these two plaintiffs could bring their case to federal court?
A. Max
B. Jack
C. Both A and B
D. None of the above - Answer -ANSWER: C. Max's case is based on the federal Constitution, so it's in. And, although Jack's lawsuit is based on both state and federal law, since one of his claims raises a federal question a federal court would also have subject matter jurisdiction over his case.
Max, a resident of Texas, sues the Houston Police Department after he is arrested during a protest. He claims his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution have been
violated. He seeks $50,000. Can he bring his claim to federal court?
A. Yes
B. No - Answer -ANSWER: A. Don't be too distracted by the "above or below $75000" issue. The number of dollars involved is relevant only in a diversity of citizenship situation. Max can sue no matter how much he is seeking because his case is based on
federal law and jurisdiction is based on federal question. Had Max's suit been a claim based on state law, he could successfully file in federal court only if he and he defendant were citizens of different states and more than $75000 was a stake.
Paul Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, files a lawsuit in Texas against Don Defendant, a resident of California. Don receives notice of the lawsuit, and tells his lawyer, "I don't want to travel to Texas to be sued by this guy." Don's lawyer says, "Maybe you don't have to." The lawyer argues that the Texas court lacks personal jurisdiction over Don. Don's lawyer asserts in a court filing that the court does have personal jurisdiction, and that the case should not proceed. He does not say anything else about the case in the filing.
Don's lawyer has filed a(n) _____________________. This action ______________ give the Texas court personal jurisdiction over Don.
A. appearance; does
B. appearance; does not
C. special appearance; does D. special appearance; does not - Answer -ANSWER: D. Don's lawyer has limited his claim to a lack of jurisdiction, and so it counts only as a special appearance and is not considered a "formal step to defend a lawsuit".
Paul Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, files a lawsuit in Texas against Don Defendant, a resident of California. Don receives notice of the lawsuit, and tells his lawyer, "I don't want to travel to Texas to be sued by this guy." Don's lawyer says, "Maybe you don't have to." The lawyer argues that the Texas court lacks personal jurisdiction over Don. Don's lawyer asserts in a court filing that the court does have personal jurisdiction, and that the case should not proceed. Six months before, Don travelled to Texas, signed a contract with Paul while he was there, and returned to California. In Paul's lawsuit he alleges that Don has breached that contract. Which of the following types of jurisdiction does the Texas court have over Don? A. General personal jurisdiction B. Specific personal jurisdiction
C. Both A and B
D. None of the above - Answer -ANSWER: B. Don engaged in a specific act (signing the contract) in the forum state (Texas), and the lawsuit arises out of that specific act. Don has no long term residence in Texas or regular Texas activities, and so there is no general personal jurisdiction.
Fred is a prospective juror in a case in which Al Attorney will be asking for $10,000,000 in damages. During voir dire questioning, Al gets the feeling that Fred will be unlikely to award such a large sum. He does not have a good argument that Fred will be biased or will fail to be impartial, but he would still like to keep him off the jury. To do so, Al will probably have to use which type of challenge?
A. challenge for cause
B. peremptory challenge
C. neither would be effective for keeping Fred off the jury - Answer -ANSWER: B. Judges will grant challenges for a cause only if a prospective juror seems likely to be biased. But peremptory challenges can be used for most reasons as long as they are not used in a discriminatory way.
Jack loses a huge sum in a lawsuit with Pat Plaintiff, and he does not pay Pat for a long time. Pat's lawyer goes back to court and seeks the court's help in collecting what is owed.
The court issues a document that empowers a sheriff to seize Jack's car and sell it at auction to raise part of the money. The court issues a second document that orders Jack's bank to deliver some of Jack's deposits into the custody of the court. The first document is a writ of ______________, and the second document is a writ of __________________.
A. execution; execution
Adam sues Brenda and claims that Brenda's dog bit his leg. Brenda receives a copy of Adam's complaint, and in her answer, she alleges that her dog bit Adam when he was trespassing in her yard late at night, that he destroyed her fence when he ran away from
the dog, and that he should pay $500 to compensate her for the fence repairs. Characterize the components of Brenda's answer.
A. It contains a denial
B. It contains a defense
C. It contains a counterclaim
D. A and C
E. B and C - Answer -Answer: E. She does not deny that Adam's claim of a dog bite is true. She asserts instead that there exists a legal justification for the bite. So, she raises
a defense and does not make a denial. And, by asking for money to repair the fence, she raises a counterclaim.
Sam sues AlphaCo, his former employer. In his case, he alleges that AlphaCo illegally discriminated against him. During discovery, Sam's lawyer asks AlphaCo for its employment records over the last 10 years. The lawyer also wants to talk to Sam's former supervisor under oath and ask him about Sam's termination.
The demand for the employment records is a(n) _______________ . The lawyer would like to talk to the former supervisor as part of a(n) ______________ .
A. interrogatory; interrogatory
B. interrogatory; deposition
C. request for production of documents; interrogatory
D. request for production of documents; deposition - Answer -ANSWER: D. The demand for business records is a request for production of documents. The questioning of the supervisor will be a deposition because the lawyer will be talking to him in person,
and not by submitting a written request for information, which would be an interrogatory.
Max sues the Houston Police Department after he is arrested during a protest. He claims his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution have been violated.
Jack sues MegaCorp over crop losses after MegaCorp dumps toxic chemicals into a river that eventually runs across his farm. He sues based on the federal Clean Water Act and also under Texas tort law.
Which of these two plaintiffs could bring their case to federal court?
A. Max
B. Jack
C. Both A and B
D. None of the above - Answer -ANSWER: C. Max's case is based on the federal Constitution, so it's in. And, although Jack's lawsuit is based on both state and federal law, since one of his claims raises a federal question a federal court would also have subject matter jurisdiction over his case.
Max, a resident of Texas, sues the Houston Police Department after he is arrested during a protest. He claims his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution have been
violated. He seeks $50,000. Can he bring his claim to federal court?
A. Yes
B. No - Answer -ANSWER: A. Don't be too distracted by the "above or below $75000" issue. The number of dollars involved is relevant only in a diversity of citizenship situation. Max can sue no matter how much he is seeking because his case is based on
federal law and jurisdiction is based on federal question. Had Max's suit been a claim based on state law, he could successfully file in federal court only if he and he defendant were citizens of different states and more than $75000 was a stake.
Paul Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, files a lawsuit in Texas against Don Defendant, a resident of California. Don receives notice of the lawsuit, and tells his lawyer, "I don't want to travel to Texas to be sued by this guy." Don's lawyer says, "Maybe you don't have to." The lawyer argues that the Texas court lacks personal jurisdiction over Don. Don's lawyer asserts in a court filing that the court does have personal jurisdiction, and that the case should not proceed. He does not say anything else about the case in the filing.
Don's lawyer has filed a(n) _____________________. This action ______________ give the Texas court personal jurisdiction over Don.
A. appearance; does
B. appearance; does not
C. special appearance; does D. special appearance; does not - Answer -ANSWER: D. Don's lawyer has limited his claim to a lack of jurisdiction, and so it counts only as a special appearance and is not considered a "formal step to defend a lawsuit".
Paul Plaintiff, a resident of Texas, files a lawsuit in Texas against Don Defendant, a resident of California. Don receives notice of the lawsuit, and tells his lawyer, "I don't want to travel to Texas to be sued by this guy." Don's lawyer says, "Maybe you don't have to." The lawyer argues that the Texas court lacks personal jurisdiction over Don. Don's lawyer asserts in a court filing that the court does have personal jurisdiction, and that the case should not proceed. Six months before, Don travelled to Texas, signed a contract with Paul while he was there, and returned to California. In Paul's lawsuit he alleges that Don has breached that contract. Which of the following types of jurisdiction does the Texas court have over Don? A. General personal jurisdiction B. Specific personal jurisdiction
C. Both A and B
D. None of the above - Answer -ANSWER: B. Don engaged in a specific act (signing the contract) in the forum state (Texas), and the lawsuit arises out of that specific act. Don has no long term residence in Texas or regular Texas activities, and so there is no general personal jurisdiction.
Fred is a prospective juror in a case in which Al Attorney will be asking for $10,000,000 in damages. During voir dire questioning, Al gets the feeling that Fred will be unlikely to award such a large sum. He does not have a good argument that Fred will be biased or will fail to be impartial, but he would still like to keep him off the jury. To do so, Al will probably have to use which type of challenge?
A. challenge for cause
B. peremptory challenge
C. neither would be effective for keeping Fred off the jury - Answer -ANSWER: B. Judges will grant challenges for a cause only if a prospective juror seems likely to be biased. But peremptory challenges can be used for most reasons as long as they are not used in a discriminatory way.
Jack loses a huge sum in a lawsuit with Pat Plaintiff, and he does not pay Pat for a long time. Pat's lawyer goes back to court and seeks the court's help in collecting what is owed.
The court issues a document that empowers a sheriff to seize Jack's car and sell it at auction to raise part of the money. The court issues a second document that orders Jack's bank to deliver some of Jack's deposits into the custody of the court. The first document is a writ of ______________, and the second document is a writ of __________________.
A. execution; execution
