Question 1

On July 1, 1993, the day of his tenth birthday, Juan lost the sight in his right eye because a soft drink exploded.The drink was bottled on December 23, 1992, and Juan's parents purchased it on July 1, 1993.Assume that in this state the statute of limitations for this type of action is two years and the age of majority is 18.Juan and his parents want to sue the bottler of the soft drink.The parents want money damages for the loss of Juan's services and medical bills.Juan wants damages for the loss of the sight of his eye and pain and suffering.When will the statute of limitations run under these circumstances?

Accepted Answer

The statute of limitations is two years and begins to run on the date of the injury or when the injury is discovered. In this case, the injury occurred on July 1, 1993, so the two-year statute of limitations would expire on July 1, 1995. Since Juan was only 10 years old at the time, he would have until his 20th birthday to file a lawsuit, which would be July 1, 2001. However, the parents' claims for loss of Juan's services and medical bills would also be subject to the two-year statute of limitations and would also expire on July 1, 1995. Therefore, the correct answer is B, July 1, 1995, for both the parents and Juan.

Question 2

The requirement that a litigant bringing a court action must have a legally sufficient personal interest in the dispute in order to bring the complaint is known as

Accepted Answer

Standing is the requirement that a litigant must have a legally sufficient personal interest in the dispute in order to bring the complaint. Ripeness relates to whether a case is ready for judicial review, while mootness refers to a case where there is no longer an actual controversy to resolve. Case or controversy is a broader concept that encompasses standing, ripeness, and mootness.

Question 3

The federal prosecutor is interested in having more defendants plead guilty.She has come up with a procedure to make plea requests more equitable and thus more appealing to the defendants.However, she is not sure that the process is completely legal.She sends a letter to the local Circuit Court requesting its opinion.How should the Circuit Court respond?

Accepted Answer

As there is no current case or controversy, the Circuit Court does not have jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion. Therefore, the court should deny the request.

Question 4

A brought suit against B in state court, saying that B had stolen an idea on which she had a patent.The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over patent law actions.One year later, before the statute of limitations had run out, A again brought suit, but in federal court.Which of the following is a true statement?

Accepted Answer

The fact that the state court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction over patent law actions means that the federal court does have jurisdiction to hear the case. The principle of res judicata only applies when a final judgment has already been made on the same issue between the same parties, which is not the case here. The question is not moot because the statute of limitations has not run out yet. There is no indication that the state court was in error; it simply lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case. Therefore, the case is ripe for the federal court to hear.

Question 5

A trespasses on B's land.Almost two years later, one day before the statute of limitations runs out on the trespass, B brings suit.The case will not come to trial for at least six months.Which of the following is true?

Accepted Answer

The cause of action accrues when the trespass occurs, not when the suit is filed. Filing the suit before the statute of limitations expires tolls, or pauses, the statute, allowing the case to proceed even if the trial occurs after the limitations period has ended.

Question 6

The plaintiff brought a small claims action against the defendant for failing to maintain his premises in a safe condition and won a money judgment in the amount of $163.95.Five months later, the plaintiff brought a second lawsuit against the same defendant in district court alleging the same set of circumstances, but seeking more money.The defendant should make a motion to dismiss on what grounds?

Accepted Answer

The doctrine of bar and merger (res judicata) prohibits relitigation of the same cause of action between the same parties when a final judgment on the matter has been entered. In this case, the plaintiff already brought a small claims action against the defendant for the same set of circumstances and won a judgment. Therefore, the defendant can argue that the second lawsuit should be barred based on the principle of res judicata.

Question 7

If a court concludes that the plaintiff does not have a legally sufficient personal interest in a dispute, the court will dismiss the action because of

Accepted Answer

The concept of standing requires that a plaintiff must have a legally sufficient personal interest in the dispute in order to bring a lawsuit. If a court determines that the plaintiff lacks standing, it will dismiss the action. Mootness refers to a situation where the issue presented in the case is no longer relevant, lack of ripeness refers to a situation where the issue is not yet ripe for adjudication, and lack of privity refers to a situation where there is no legal relationship between the parties.

Question 8

What legal doctrine(s) does a court use to determine whether a case is justiciable?

Accepted Answer

A court uses all of the legal doctrines listed (ripeness, standing, and res judicata) to determine whether a case is justiciable. Ripeness refers to whether a dispute has developed to a point where the court can make a decision that will have a concrete impact on the parties. Standing refers to whether the plaintiff has a sufficient stake in the outcome of the case to justify the court's involvement. Res judicata refers to whether the case has already been decided by another court and therefore cannot be heard again.

Question 9

The American Postal Worker's Union brought suit to challenge the constitutionality of a U.S.Postal Service requirement that all applicants for employment must submit to drug tests.No union members were required to submit to a drug test as a condition of continued employment, nor were any applicants, by definition, members of the union, since none had been hired yet.The Postal Service should move to dismiss the case on what grounds?

Accepted Answer

The American Postal Worker's Union likely lacks standing to sue on behalf of non-members (applicants) since the union itself is not directly affected by the drug testing requirement, and none of its members are subjected to these tests as a condition of continued employment. Standing requires a party to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is actual or imminent.

Question 10

The basis of the political-question doctrine is

Accepted Answer

The political-question doctrine is based on the constitutional separation of powers. It holds that some issues, such as those involving foreign policy and national security, are better left to the political branches of government (i.e. the Executive and Legislative branches) rather than the courts to resolve. This doctrine ensures that each branch of government can carry out its duties without undue interference from the other branches.

Question 11

On June 10, 1993, Fireman Bob ran into Ruby's burning house and found her lying in a hallway, overcome by smoke.He picked her up and carried her out to safety.Unfortunately, in his haste Bob was not careful.Ruby's ankle struck a doorway and was broken in several places.This required extensive surgery, so that Ruby was in the hospital for several weeks.On July 1, 1993, Fireman Bob went to visit her in the hospital.While he was talking to her, he accidentally bumped the intravenous needle in her hand, causing her hand to bleed.Infection subsequently developed.The statute of limitations for acts of negligence is two years.On June 18, 1995, Ruby filed suit against both the city fire department, for injury to her ankle, and Fireman Bob, for injury to her ankle and for causing the infection in her hand.Which of the following statements is false?

Accepted Answer

The statute of limitations for negligence is two years, and Ruby filed the suit within two years of the incident causing the infection in her hand. Therefore, the statute of limitations would not bar this part of the suit.

Question 12

The rationale behind claim preclusion is that

Accepted Answer

Claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, prevents a plaintiff from bringing a claim against a defendant that has already been adjudicated in a previous lawsuit between the same parties. This principle is based on the idea that repeating lawsuits on the same issue is both inefficient and unfair to the defendant. By preventing a litigant from being sued multiple times for the same claim, claim preclusion alleviates the burden on the judicial system and promotes judicial efficiency. Moreover, parties know that they have only one chance to win, so they make their best effort.

Question 13

In many states, if the executive or legislative branches have a legal question, they should ask

Accepted Answer

The State Attorney General is the chief legal officer in most states and is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive and legislative branches of the government. As such, the Attorney General is the most appropriate person to turn to when legal questions arise. The State Supreme Court may be consulted if there is a need for a legal opinion on a constitutional question, but for general legal questions, the Attorney General is the first point of contact. Private counsel may also be consulted, but this can be expensive and is not necessary in most cases when the Attorney General is available to provide legal advice. The U.S. Supreme Court is irrelevant to state legal questions as it only deals with federal law.

Question 14

An advisory opinion

Accepted Answer

All of the options are correct.

A) An advisory opinion is given when there is no actual dispute between parties, and instead, a party seeks an opinion or advice from a court or other official body. 
B) The constitution of some states permits advisory opinions to be issued by their courts. 
C) An advisory opinion does not have the same force and effect as a judicial opinion, as it does not resolve an actual controversy or dispute between parties.

Question 15

Once the statute of limitations has run

Accepted Answer

Once the statute of limitations has run, the defendant can plead the statute as a defense, meaning they can argue that the claim is time-barred and therefore cannot be pursued. The other options are not correct in relation to the statute of limitations.

Question 16

Mohammed had a 5 year contract with the local grocery store to deliver specially prepared meats.Mohammed heard the store was having financial trouble and he was worried the store might breach the contract.Mohammed went to his attorney, wanting to sue the store.What should the attorney advise?

Accepted Answer

The attorney should advise Mohammed to wait as the case is not yet ripe. This means that the store has not yet breached the contract, and Mohammed cannot sue until a breach has occurred. In addition, it may be possible for the store to recover financially and fulfill its obligations under the contract. Therefore, it is best to wait and see what happens before taking legal action.

Question 17

A case is ripe when

Accepted Answer

A case is ripe when the parties have developed enough to have distinct, adverse positions. This means that the case is ready to be heard and decided by a court or other legal authority. While agreement on the forum and completion of discovery may contribute to the readiness of a case, they are not necessarily determinative.

Question 18

Peter filed a suit against St.Paul Church.Before trial the church offered Peter $10,000 to settle the claim outside of court.Peter accepted the money.Peter and the church agreed that the trial should take place even though neither would consider the results binding.Peter wants to find out if he would have won and what amount of damages the jury would have come up with.The church wants the court to define the limits of charitable immunity.What should the court do under these circumstances?

Accepted Answer

Since the parties settled outside of court, the case is now moot and there is no longer a live controversy for the court to decide on. The court cannot issue an advisory opinion or rule on charitable immunity as there is no longer a case or controversy. The option for a JNOV is not applicable as the case was settled out of court.

Question 19

Which of the following disputes should an American court decline to hear on the basis of the act of state doctrine?

Accepted Answer

The act of state doctrine suggests that an American court should decline to hear cases that would require it to question the validity of public acts committed by a recognized foreign sovereign within its own territory, as in the case of a foreign dictator confiscating property.

Question 20

Former Iranian hostages and two of their wives filed suit against the United States seeking compensation because the Algiers Accord, the agreement made between the president and Iran that secured their release, deprived them of the right to sue Iran for injuries sustained while being held hostage.The federal appeals court determined that the case involved a policy decision made during a crisis situation by the president and was not subject to judicial review.The court should refuse to adjudicate this dispute based on

Accepted Answer

The case involves a policy decision made by the president during a crisis situation, which falls under the political-question doctrine. This doctrine prohibits the court from adjudicating cases involving political questions that are better left to the other branches of government.

Quiz 6: Limitations in Seeking Relief