This problem, with the model answer, should be used to get an idea of how I would analyze an exam problem that I have posed.
While it is true that John wished to give Susan "something tangible" to remember him by, John was not entirely clear just what that something was to be.
Peter can also argue contributory negligence against both David for swerving and Kevin for running into the street. Barbara now seeks a judicial order of sale and the creation of a trust whose corpus would be the net proceeds after taxes, etc.
This is in stark contrast to the remainderpersons in Baker, who had essentially no personal ties at all to the property in question. Here, however, David can claim two defenses. This court adopts that rule here. The common law rule on accessory after the fact requires that a defendant have knowledge that a felony was committed and aided or assisted the felon in some way to avoid being caught by the authorities.
Courts of equity have long assumed the power to order a sale of property subject to a life estate where there was a showing of waste or other physical threat to the value of the property.
Barbara asked Susan to agree to a sale, but Susan flatly refused, on the ground that her father wanted her to have something tangible to remember him by, and by that he meant Susan believes the very house he built and lived in so long.
Susan lived in the house in question for the first 10 years of her life, and she argues that it constitutes her primary tangible tie to her deceased father.
However, Kevin's claim against David probably loses on the issue of proximate cause. Here the issue probably hinges on intent. Their income from this business was sufficient to enable them to live comfortably, but not luxuriously, in Carefree. On the other hand, if a sale is ordered, Susan presents two fallback positions: You are the judge.
David, however, probably breached a duty of care by not looking before he changed lanes. I think it is likely that Kevin, or his parents, will bear some responsibility for Kevin's injuries since he did not belong in the street. David Although David may have breached a duty in not looking when changing lanes, he has a defense in the emergency doctrine.
That, she feels, would be enough to rent a "decent place" and also to cover her other expenses.
Conspiracy The agreement to commit rape gives rise to the issue of whether any of the students are guilty of conspiracy to commit rape. This court adopts that rule here.
Her first choice, which she claims is fair, is to use the proceeds of sale to buy Barbara a "decent place" such as a condominium, and give the rest of the proceeds to Susan. Weedon from our sister state Mississippi recognizes that, at least under unusual circumstances, a sale can be ordered when that is in the best interest of all the parties.
Nevertheless, a decision must be made. SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE POTENTIAL EXAM QUESTIONS CHAPTER 2 Question: The UK not only has a constitution, it has a written constitution.
Discuss In normal constitutional language it is certainly correct to say that the UK does not.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ESSAY QUESTION #2. MODEL ANSWER. Sophie, a police officer, out of uniform, showed up at Mariah’s house, knocked, and asked if she.
Database of example Law essays - these essays are examples of the work produced by our professional essay writers. Criminal Law Sample Answer. The following is a sample answer to the Criminal Law Practice elleandrblog.com you have not already done so, take the exam and then compare your answer to this sample.
Scott Pearce’s Master Essay Method - Constitutional Law Approach IV. What Constitutional right has been violated?
A. 1st Amendment Freedom of Expression 1. Freedom of Speech (time place and manner) 2. Freedom of Association. Law model paper with answers 1. Answer all questions. Mark the most suitable answer in the given space in the answer elleandrblog.comonLaw essay model answers