This quiz will test your knowledge of pleading requirements, subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and other topics tested on law school and bar examinations.

You can contact the author of the quiz at [email protected]  Also, please visit the USLawEssentials blog.

If you need tutoring for a JD or LLM course, or for help with your Bar preparation, please get in touch.
 

5 Sample Questions

After attending a small lecture given by an attorney at the local library, Barry asks the attorney a few questions about the legal ramifications of some of his business decisions.  If a court determines that the communication between the attorney and Barry are not privileged and subject to disclosure under Rule 26, which of the following would be the most likely reason?

  • A. The attorney responded to Barry's questions in the presence of several other people who had also attended the lecture.
  • B. The attorney began his lecture earlier that day by expressly stating that he was not acting as anyone's attorney.
  • C. Barry did not reasonably anticipate litigation at the time that he asked the questions.
  • D. The attorney clearly had not engaged in any legal research before responding to Barry's questions.

Phil sues Dudley in federal court for breach of contract after Dudley fails to deliver jewelry valued at $100,000.  Phil is a citizen of New York and Dudley is a citizen of New Jersey.  Indigo seeks leave to intervene in the action as of right, as a third party plaintiff.   She seeks intervention on grounds that, among other things, Phil will not adequately represent her rights.  Her lawsuit and the original lawsuit concern the same jewelry.  Assume Indigo is a citizen of New York and she alleges $100,000 in damages.  Would the federal court have jurisdiction over Indigo's claim?

  • A. No, the federal court cannot assert jurisdiction because Indigo is seeking to intervene as a plaintiff and she may only intervene as a defendant.
  • B. No, the federal court cannot assert jurisdiction because Indigo is seeking to intervene as a plaintiff and she and Phil are citizens of the same state.
  • C. Yes, the federal court may assert jurisdiction because Indigo is intervening as of right and the court lacks discretion to decline jurisdiction.
  • D. Yes, the federal court may assert jurisdiction because Indigo is diverse from Dudley and she meets the amount in controversy requirement.

Darren, while test driving a motorboat manufactured by Turtle Boats, crashes into Patricia, injuring both Patricia and himself.  Darren is a citizen of Delaware and Patricia is a citizen of New Jersey.  Patricia sues Darren for $80,000 in federal court.  Can Darren implead Turtle Boats, incorporated and headquartered in Delaware, as a third party defendant on grounds that Turtle Boats is liable to him if he is liable to Patricia?

  • A. No. Although the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, Darren and Turtle Boats are not diverse.
  • B. No. Although the amount in controversy is satisfied. Patricia and Turtle Boats are not diverse.
  • C. Yes, there is no need for diversity between Darren and Turtle Boats because Darren is impleading Turtle Boats.
  • D. Yes, because there is diversity between Patricia and Turtle Boats the Court may assert jurisdiction.

Porgy sues Declan for breach of an oral contract in federal court.    Following discovery, Declan moves for summary judgment on grounds that there is no evidence that the parties actually entered into a contract.  Among other things, he demonstrates that there is no evidence that the parties ever spoke to or even knew of each other prior to the litigation.   Opposing the motion, Porgy cites to her Complaint which pleads an offer, acceptance, and consideration, thereby establishing the elements of a contract.  Should the court grant or deny the motion?

  • A. Deny the motion, because the well-pleaded allegations of the contract, accepted as true, create an issue of fact for the jury.
  • B. Deny the motion, because defendant cannot “prove a negative,” therefore, the jury should determine whether the parties entered into a contract.
  • C. Grant the motion, because Porgy, as the nonmoving party, must introduce evidence that there is an issue of material fact as to an element of her case.
  • D. Grant the motion provided Declan's motion raises arguments with which a rational juror could agree.

Following a car accident, Penelope sue Dennis in California for $135,000.  The jury awards her $60,000.  Penelope then sues Dennis for $76,000 in New York based on the same accident.  If the New York federal court dismisses the claim it will most likely be because

  • A. Penelope has a good-faith claim of only $75,000 in damages.
  • B. the lawsuit is precluded by the prior litigation in California.
  • C. if Dennis prevails in the New York lawsuit the California court will need to reconsider its judgment.
  • D. California is a better venue for this case.

More by Daniel Edelson

USLawEssentials Civ Pro Essentials 1

This quiz will test your knowledge of pleading requirements, subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and other topics tested on law school and bar examinations.You can contact the author of the quiz at [email protected]  Also, please visit the USLawEssentials blog.If you need tutoring for a JD or LLM course, or for help with your Bar preparation, please get in touch.