When the highest court of a state court issues a binding ruling on a matter of law, who must follow the precedent set by the state court?


1) When the highest court of a state court issues a binding ruling on a matter of
law, who must follow the precedent set by the state court?
A) The United States Supreme Court
B) The U.S. Congress
C) State legislatures
D) Lower courts within the same state
E) All lower courts in the United States
Reason? Rule and/or definition
For questions 2,3,4 Devin has several full gas cans in the bed of her pick-up truck,
because she runs a landscaping company and needs the gas for her mowers. On
the way home from the gas station, Devin stops at her bank and exits her truck.
Teresa pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Devin’s pick-up. The truck
explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues
Teresa for negligence claiming that Teresa should have to pay for the entire bank
building. The bank claims that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa
loquitur doctrine.
2) Does actual cause exist in the bank’s action against Teresa?
A) Actual causation exists because the bank would not have been destroyed if
Teresa had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
B) Actual cause is present because as a matter of policy, it is believed that
someone who rear- ends a vehicle should be responsible for damages.
C) Actual cause is present because Teresa was the legal cause of the bank burning.
D) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the legal cause of the bank
E) Actual cause is not present because Teresa is not the proximate cause of the
bank burning.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
3) Is Teresa the proximate cause of the bank burning?
A) Teresa is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not
foreseeable that Devin would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would
result in such a fire.
B) Teresa is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not
the cause in fact
C) Teresa’s actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual
causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a
D) Teresa’s actions were the proximate cause of the bank’s burning because
actual cause is
E) Teresa’s actions were the proximate cause ofthe bank’s burning because cause
in fact can be established.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
4) Claiming that recovery under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine is an option, do you
believe the bank is correct?
A) Yes, the bank is correct because under that doctrine defendants are liable for
any harm caused.
B) Yes, the bank is correct only if Teresa has sufficient insurance to cover the bank
burning. C) Yes, the bank is correct only if it can be established that Teresa was a
repeat driving offender.
D) No, the bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether
there was a breach of duty of care.
E) No, the bank is incorrect because res ipsa loquitur is a defense.
For questions 5,6 Emilia filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that her employer,
MegaTron, failed to promote her because of her nationality and gender. The
EEOC had already received several discrimination charges from other employees
alleging similar conduct by MegaTron. When Emilia was hired, she signed an
employment contract with MegaTron that included a clause stating that all workrelated claims must be resolved through arbitration.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
5) If, after filing her charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Emilia then filed a
discrimination lawsuit against MegaTron, what would the court most likely do?
A) Dismiss the lawsuit, because of Emilia’s poor performance.
B) Dismiss the lawsuit because of the binding arbitration clause in her
employment contract.
C) Allow the lawsuit to move forward because employees have a right to file a
D) Allow the lawsuit because Emilia did not foresee she might suffer
E) Allow the lawsuit because arbitration clauses in employment contracts are not
binding on employees.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
6) Assume Emilia opted to arbitrate her claim against MegaTron, and the
arbitrator awarded her in punitive damages. MegaTron’s officers were appalled
and filed a lawsuit seeking to set aside the arbitrator’s award. On what basis could
a court ovenurn the arbitrator’s award?
A) That Emilia may have been lying when she testified during the arbitration.
B) That Emilia did not want to arbitrate.
C) That the arbitrator misused his authority in making the award.
D) That the parties agreed in advance not to give closing statements.
E) That the arbitrator told the parties in advance that he worked at MegaTron
thirty years ago and disclosed this fact in writing.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
7) The ……………stipulates that if a state tries to pass a law that conflicts within an
area that has federal legislative jurisdiction it will be found unconstitutional.
A) State powers doctrine
B) Bill of Rights
C) State preemption doctrine
D) Privileges and immunities clause
E) Federal preemption doctrine
Reason? Rule and/or definition
8) Sana, the president of a company that makes paper, has an interest in the
environment. She recently went to a seminar on environmental dangers and has
decided to take steps to clean things up. She started at home and has now feels
compelled to change things at work. Sana had to face the fact that her company
has been cheating and is not in compliance with applicable environmental
regulations due to dumping in a nearby river. Her Company has never been cited
because it employs a very large number Of people in the community, including
the mayor’s husband and the chief-of- police’s brother. On her mission to clean
things up, Sana has decided to go even further than the law requires and
implement the very latest environmental protections. When she announced her
plan, the chair of the company’s board of directors, Jessica, had a meeting with
Sana. Jessica told Sana to analyze the situation carefully because the cost of the
additional equipment would mean no dividend to shareholders and no raise for
employees. Furthermore, Jessica told Sana that installing all the new equipment
would result in higher prices for the company’s paper product and could bankrupt
the company because of foreign competition. Jessica hinted that Sana could be
fired if she persisted. Jessica also suggested that Sana should just be concerned
with a minimal standard Of ethics. Sana decides to go forward with her plan to
clean things up under the theory’ that she wants to treat others in the same
manner that she wants to be treated. Under Sana’s theory, if she did not
understand the importance of the environmental improvements, she would want
them to be thrust upon her.
Sana’s idea is best referred to as
A) The Golden Rule
B) The Disclosure Principle
C) Help Peers Test
D) The Sarbanes-Oxley Rule
E) The Greenhouse Rule
Reason? Rule and/or definition
9)Coleman owns a sporting goods store and has purchased top-quality, brandname athletic shoes from Jade’s Shoe Distribution for many years, but they have
no written contract in place. Last month, Coleman learned that the latest
shipment from Jade’s are not authentic, brand-name shoes but instead a knockoff brand that costs a fraction of the price that Coleman pays. Coleman cannot
sell these shoes because his customers would know the difference. Coleman
demanded that Jade refund him. Jade sent Coleman a written request for
arbitration within thirty days. In response, Coleman called Jade, threatening to file
a lawsuit against Jade and exposing her company as a fraud. Jade laughs, saying
Coleman is required to arbitrate their dispute within thirty days.
Is Jade correct that they are required to arbitrate their dispute?
A) Yes, because Jade demanded in writing that they arbitrate their dispute.
B) Yes, but only because Jade’s written demand had a thirty-day deadline.
C) No, because a party is never required to arbitrate.
D) No, because arbitration is voluntary and Coleman never signed an agreement
to arbitrate their disputes.
E) No, because a party cannot enter a contract that requires them to arbitrate
instead of filing a lawsuit.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
For questions 10,11,12 Leaf, an employee of the alifomia Department of Forestry,
insisted on signing inter-office memoranda with his name and the initials “FOJT,”
an abbreviation for his church “Followers of Jesus’ Trees”. Leafs supervisor, Milo,
told Leaf that there was a rule prohibiting displays of religion at work and insisted
that Leaf cease placing the initials of his church on government paperwork. When
Leaf refused to follow the work rule, he was terminated.
10) Leaf wants to file a lawsuit against the Department challenging his
termination. What would
A) For the because the work rule did not substantially burden
B) For the Department because it was only a work rule, and not a law.
C) For the Department because it did not violate the First Amendment.
D) For Leaf, because the work rule violated his free exercise of religion.
E) For Leaf, because the work rule violated the establishment clause.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
11) Before his termination, Leaf tells Milo that he is drafting a California law that
would provide funding to his church because the church serves to protect trees
and the environment in general. Milo tells Leaf that such a law would violate the
establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under what circumstances would a
state law be permissible under the establishment clause?
A) If it has a secular purpose.
B) If it has a secular purpose and does not foster an excessive government
entanglement with religion.
C) If the government can prove either ( 1) it has a secular legal purpose, (2) has a
primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religion, or (3) does not foster
an excessive government entanglement with religion.
D) Ifthe government can prove it does not foster an excessive government
entanglement with reli gion.
E) If it has a secular legal purpose, has a primary effect of neither advancing nor
inhibiting religion, and does not foster an excessive government entanglement
with religion.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
12) After his termination, Leaf returned to his office to pack his belongings. He
uploaded a message on the Department’s website, which stated that Milo Mlas a
thief and has stolen thousands of dollars from the State of California. Milo, who
had not stolen money from the State and is not a thief, later sued Leaf for
defamation. How would a court likely rule?
A) For Leaf because he has an absolute right to free speech under the First
B) For Leaf because the rational-basis test applies.
C) For Leaf because he did not use any lewd, profane, or obscene words.
D) For Milo because the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech. E)
For Milo, but only if Leaf also used fighting words.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
For questions 13,14,15 Shaun, who is a bit eccentric, is fed up with the way a
certain employer in his town treats employees and decides to sue on behalf of all
those employees. Shaun also says that he is going to start his case at the appellate
court level, skipping over all those “lesser” judges. Shaun says that the Appellate
justices will surely hear him out and that he will also seek a jury.
13)Will an appellate court hear Shaun’s case?
A) Yes, so long as a state trial court judge approves and certifies the case for the
appellate court
B) Yes, but only if Shaun can prove that he would have had to wait at least a year
for a trial at
C) Yes, but only if Shaun files his case in state court as opposed to federal court.
D) Yes, but Shaun is not entitled to a jury.
E) No, because Shaun is required to first file the case in the appropriate trial court.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
14) Regardless Of the court involved, can Shaun act as plaintiff for the
A) Yes, so long as he gets permission slips from all of them.
B) Yes, so long as no employee files an objection.
C) Yes, so long as he gives any money he receives to them.
D) No, because he lacks standing.
E) No, because venue is lacking.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
15) Assuming Shaun eventually ends up at the appellate level, is he entitled to a
jury at the appellate level?
A) No, jurors are not used at the appellate court level.
B) Yes, but only if he had a jury first at the trial court level.
C) Yes, if he satisfies the requirements to initially bring the case in appellate court,
he is entitled to a jury.
D) Yes, but only if the employer agrees to a jury.
E) Yes, because appellate courts decide questions of fact while questions of law
are decided at the trial court level.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
16) Trudy has moved from Texas to Alabama. The state does not allow
nonresidents to seek employment without first passing a loyalty test to Alabama.
Alabama’s law violates which clause under the U .S. Constitution?
A) The right employment clause
B) The privileges and immunities clause
C) The non-resident’s rights clause
D) The commerce clause
E) The dormant commerce clause
Reason? Rule and/or definition
17) George is riding his skateboard down the street while listening to music with
earbuds in. George does not see Martha, a store owner, who is putting flowers
out in front of her store. He looks up just in time and swerves to miss Martha but
knocks her flower display down, shattering it to pieces. Is he liable?
A) No, Martha was not injured.
B) No, because property is not a compensable loss.
C) No, Martha had a duty not to be on the sidewalk. D) Yes, Martha suffered a
compensable loss.
E) Yes, because George had the intention of being on the sidewalk which is always
a breach of his duty of care.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
18) Montana implemented a new law that determined that males could not
obtain their drivers licenses until they are 18. Females, on the other hand, could
obtain their licenses at 16. If this law is challenged, what level of scrutiny would
the courts use?
A) Rational basis scrutiny
B) Intermediate scrutiny
C) Strict scrutiny
D) Popular scrutiny
E) Systemic scrutiny
Reason? Rule and/or definition
19) Louisa decides to go on a zip line adventure. She signs a contract before she
begins to go on the zip line, which says that she assumes the risks of accident or
injury. While walking up the steps to grab the zip line, Louisa falls down due to a
broken hand rail on the stairs. Could the property owner be held responsible?
A) No, because of Louisa’s express assumption of the risk.
B) No, because of Louisa’s implied assumption of the risk.
C) No, because Louisa fell on her own.
D) Yes, because a fall due to a faulty handrail was not the type of risk Louisa had
assumed in the contract.
E) Yes, because she had not yet started zip lining but after she actually grabbed
the line, the company would no longer be held responsible.
Reason? Rule and/or definition
For questions 20,21 Felicia invented a new type of mask that was not subject to
fogging for scuba divers and obtained a patent on it. She agrees to allow Mei to
manufacture and sell the mask. She receives a sum of money for every mask that
Mei sells. Felicia also entered into an agreement with Evan to allow him to sell the
masks, but only if he also purchased non-patented diving suits from Felicia. All
parties proceeded to do very well with their sales.
20) Felicia’s agreement with Mei allowing Mei to sell the mask is referred to as
which of following?
A) A license
B) A patent agreement
C) A trade agreement
D) An illegal agreement
E) A franchise agreement
Reason? Rule and/or definition
21) The agreement between Felicia and Evan is what type of agreement?
A) It is a legal tying arrangement.
B) It is a legal cross-licensing agreement.
C) It is an illegal tying arrangement.
D) It is an illegal cross-licensing agreement.
E) A legal contractual agreement.
Reason? Rule and/or definition

The post When the highest court of a state court issues a binding ruling on a matter of law, who must follow the precedent set by the state court? appeared first on mynursing homeworks.


Source link