Essay Rule Statements Flashcards (82 Cards)

To establish negligence, the plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty of care owed by the defendant, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) actual and proximate causation, and (4) damages. The absence of any single element defeats the claim.

A defendant owes a duty of care to all foreseeable plaintiffs within the zone of danger. The default standard is that of a reasonably prudent person acting under similar circumstances, measured objectively without regard to the defendant’s individual shortcomings.

Under res ipsa loquitur, breach may be inferred where (1) the accident is of a type that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, and (2) the instrumentality was within the exclusive control of the defendant. The doctrine permits, but does not compel, an inference of negligence.

A commercial seller is strictly liable for harm caused by a product that was defective when it left the seller’s control. The plaintiff must show the defendant is a merchant, a defect (manufacturing, design, or warning), that the defect existed when it left the defendant, and that it caused the plaintiff’s injury while being used in a foreseeable manner.

Defamation requires (1) a defamatory statement of or concerning the plaintiff, (2) publication to a third party, (3) fault on the defendant’s part, and (4) damages. Matters of public concern additionally require proof of falsity and the constitutional fault standard.

Negligence per se substitutes a statutory standard for the reasonable-person standard where the plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect and the harm is of the type the statute meant to prevent. Violation establishes duty and breach as a matter of law.

IIED requires (1) extreme and outrageous conduct, (2) intent or recklessness, (3) causation, and (4) severe emotional distress. The conduct must exceed all bounds tolerated by a civilized society.

A private nuisance is a substantial and unreasonable interference with another’s use and enjoyment of land. Unreasonableness is assessed by balancing the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant’s conduct.

An offer is a manifestation of present willingness to enter a bargain, made so that a reasonable person would understand that assent closes the deal. It must convey definite and certain terms and create a power of acceptance in the offeree.

An acceptance is an unequivocal manifestation of assent to the terms of the offer in the manner invited. Under common law, acceptance must mirror the offer, and it is generally effective upon dispatch under the mailbox rule.

Consideration is a bargained-for exchange in which each party incurs a legal detriment or confers a legal benefit. A promise to perform a pre-existing duty is not valid consideration at common law.

The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be evidenced by a writing signed by the party to be charged. Covered agreements include those for the sale of land, that cannot be performed within one year, suretyship, marriage, and the sale of goods for $500 or more.

Under UCC §2-207, a definite acceptance forms a contract even with additional or different terms. Between merchants, additional terms become part of the contract unless they materially alter it, the offer limited acceptance to its terms, or the offeror objects within a reasonable time.

The parol evidence rule bars prior or contemporaneous extrinsic evidence offered to contradict a writing the parties intended as a final and complete integration. It does not bar evidence offered to show fraud, mistake, a condition precedent, or to interpret an ambiguous term.

Under the UCC, a merchant who deals in goods of the kind impliedly warrants that the goods are merchantable — fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. This warranty arises by operation of law and may be disclaimed only by conspicuous language.

An implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises when the seller has reason to know the buyer’s particular purpose and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select suitable goods.

An anticipatory repudiation is an unequivocal manifestation that a party will not perform before performance is due. The non-repudiating party may treat it as an immediate breach, suspend its own performance, and sue at once, or await performance for a commercially reasonable time.

Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within an exclusion or a recognized exception.

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a material fact more or less probable. Even relevant evidence may be excluded under Rule 403 if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.

Character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity. However, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts may be admitted for a non-character purpose such as motive, intent, identity, or absence of mistake.

A witness may be impeached by a prior conviction. Crimes involving dishonesty or false statement are automatically admissible, while other felonies are admissible subject to balancing the probative value against prejudicial effect.

A present sense impression describes an event made while or immediately after perceiving it. An excited utterance relates to a startling event made while the declarant is still under the stress of excitement it caused. Both are exceptions admissible regardless of declarant availability.

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident only if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the forum that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The contacts must reflect purposeful availment of the forum’s benefits.

Federal diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. A natural person is a citizen of the state of their domicile.

Under federal question jurisdiction, a district court has original jurisdiction over claims arising under federal law. The federal issue must appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, not merely as an anticipated defense.

Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court sitting in diversity applies federal procedural law but the substantive law of the forum state. Where a valid Federal Rule is on point, it governs; otherwise courts weigh the outcome-determinative test and the twin aims of Erie.

Strict scrutiny requires a law to be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Intermediate scrutiny requires substantial relation to an important interest. Rational basis requires only a rational relation to a legitimate interest.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show (1) a concrete and particularized injury in fact, (2) causation traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and (3) that a favorable decision will redress the injury.

The Dormant Commerce Clause bars state laws that unduly burden interstate commerce. A law that discriminates against interstate commerce is virtually per se invalid unless it serves a legitimate local purpose with no less-discriminatory alternative; a non-discriminatory law is upheld unless its burden clearly exceeds the local benefits.

The Constitution’s individual-rights protections apply only to governmental action. Private conduct constitutes state action only when the private party performs a public function or is significantly entangled with the government.

Procedural due process requires fair process before the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Courts determine what process is due by balancing the private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government’s interest under the Mathews test.

The Equal Protection Clause bars the government from treating similarly situated persons differently without adequate justification. Classifications based on race or national origin trigger strict scrutiny, gender triggers intermediate scrutiny, and all others trigger rational basis review.

Common-law murder is the unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought. Malice exists where the defendant acts with intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, a depraved-heart disregard for human life, or in the course of a qualifying felony.

Under the felony-murder rule, a death caused during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony is murder, regardless of intent to kill. The death must be a foreseeable result and occur during the felony or immediate flight.

A person may use reasonable force in self-defense when reasonably believing it necessary to repel an imminent unlawful threat. Deadly force is justified only against a threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the defender generally must not be the initial aggressor.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. A search occurs when the government intrudes upon a reasonable expectation of privacy. Warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless a recognized exception applies, and the defendant must have standing.

Under Miranda, statements obtained from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect was first warned of the right to remain silent and to counsel. Custody means a restraint on freedom akin to formal arrest, and interrogation includes words or conduct likely to elicit an incriminating response.

The exclusionary rule bars the prosecution from using evidence obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights. The rule extends to fruit of the poisonous tree, subject to the independent source, inevitable discovery, and attenuation exceptions.

Under the Rule Against Perpetuities, a contingent future interest is void unless it must vest, if at all, within 21 years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest. The rule applies to contingent remainders, executory interests, and certain options.

A fee simple determinable automatically ends upon a stated event, leaving a possibility of reverter in the grantor. A fee simple subject to a condition subsequent gives the grantor a right of entry that must be exercised to terminate the estate.

An easement is a non-possessory right to use another’s land. An easement may be created by express grant, implication, necessity, or prescription. An easement appurtenant benefits a dominant parcel and runs with the land.

A recording act determines priority among competing claimants to land. Under a notice statute, a subsequent bona fide purchaser for value without notice prevails. Under a race-notice statute, that purchaser must also record first.

Adverse possession ripens into title where possession is (1) actual, (2) open and notorious, (3) hostile, (4) exclusive, and (5) continuous for the statutory period. The possession must be sufficient to put a reasonable owner on notice.

A mortgage is a security interest in land given to secure a debt. Upon default, the lender may foreclose; foreclosure terminates interests junior to the foreclosing mortgage but leaves senior interests intact. Priority generally follows the order of recording.

Under respondeat superior, an employer is vicariously liable for torts an employee commits within the scope of employment. Conduct is within scope if it is of the kind the employee was hired to perform and serves the employer’s purposes, even if partly motivated by personal reasons.

A general partnership is an association of two or more persons to carry on a business for profit as co-owners. Each partner is an agent of the partnership, and partners are jointly and severally liable for all partnership obligations.

The business judgment rule presumes that directors act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief the action serves the corporation’s best interests. A court will not second-guess such decisions absent fraud, illegality, or a conflict of interest.

The duty of loyalty requires directors to act in the corporation’s best interest and refrain from self-dealing. A conflicted transaction is sustained only if it was fair to the corporation or approved after full disclosure by disinterested directors or shareholders.

A court may pierce the corporate veil and hold shareholders personally liable where the corporation is an alter ego of its owners or is used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. Factors include undercapitalization, commingling of funds, and disregard of corporate formalities.

A valid express trust requires (1) a settlor with capacity and intent, (2) trust property (the res), (3) an ascertainable beneficiary, and (4) a valid trust purpose. A trustee is required, but a trust will not fail solely for lack of one.

A valid attested will requires that the testator have capacity and testamentary intent, that the will be signed by the testator, and that it be witnessed by the required number of competent witnesses who sign in accordance with the governing statute.

In a community property jurisdiction, property acquired during marriage through the labor of either spouse is presumptively community property, while property acquired before marriage or by gift, devise, or descent is separate property. Characterization is determined by the time and source of acquisition.

Proximate cause limits liability to harms that are a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach. An intervening force breaks the chain of causation only if it is unforeseeable, rendering it a superseding cause.

Promissory estoppel enforces a promise without consideration where (1) the promisor should reasonably expect to induce reliance, (2) the promisee justifiably relies to their detriment, and (3) injustice can be avoided only by enforcement.

A statement against interest is a hearsay exception for a statement that, when made, was so contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest that a reasonable person would not have made it unless true. The exception requires the declarant to be unavailable.

Trigger: An agent signs a contract and the third party either does not know the principal exists or knows one exists but not who it is.
When a principal is disclosed, only the principal is a party to the contract and the agent is not personally bound. When the principal is partially disclosed (the third party knows a principal exists but not its identity) or undisclosed (the third party believes the agent is acting for himself), both the principal and the agent become parties and each may be held liable. An undisclosed principal is bound only if the agent acted with actual authority, and the third party may elect to enforce against either the principal or the agent.

Trigger: An employee causes harm while running a personal errand or deviating from an assigned route during the workday.
Under respondeat superior, an employer is liable only for torts committed within the scope of employment, and a deviation from assigned duties is analyzed as a frolic or a detour. A detour is a minor, foreseeable departure that remains within the scope of employment, so the employer stays liable. A frolic is a substantial departure undertaken for the employee's own purposes that falls outside the scope of employment, relieving the employer of liability until the employee returns to the employer's business.

Trigger: A partner assigns his interest to an outsider or a creditor seeks to reach a partner's interest to satisfy a personal debt.
A partner's only transferable interest is the right to receive distributions of profits and losses; the right to participate in management and to inspect partnership records is not transferable. A transferee receives only the economic right to distributions and does not become a partner or gain management or information rights absent the consent of the remaining partners. A personal creditor of a partner may obtain a charging order against that partner's transferable interest, which acts as a lien entitling the creditor to distributions but not to control or dissolve the partnership.

Trigger: A partner who has left the firm enters a transaction with a third party shortly after leaving.
A dissociated partner loses the right to participate in management but retains lingering apparent authority to bind the partnership for up to two years after dissociation. The partnership remains bound to a third party who reasonably believed the departing partner was still a partner and lacked notice of the dissociation. The partnership can cut off this exposure by filing a statement of dissociation, which gives constructive notice to third parties ninety days after filing.

Trigger: A limited partnership has a defective certificate, or a limited partner takes part in managing the business.
A limited partnership requires at least one general partner and one limited partner and is formed only upon filing a certificate of limited partnership with the state; if no certificate is filed, the entity defaults to a general partnership in which all participants face personal liability. A general partner is personally liable for all partnership obligations, while a limited partner ordinarily risks only his capital contribution. Under the modern RULPA/ULPA approach, a limited partner does not forfeit limited liability merely by participating in management, though he remains personally liable for his own tortious conduct.

Trigger: A director sued for conduct in his corporate role seeks reimbursement of litigation costs and judgments from the corporation.
A corporation may grant permissive indemnification to a director who acted in good faith and reasonably believed his conduct was in or not opposed to the corporation's best interests, but it may not indemnify a director adjudged liable to the corporation itself or who received an improper personal benefit. Mandatory indemnification is required for a director who is wholly successful on the merits in defending the proceeding. Many statutes also permit advancement of litigation expenses upon the director's written undertaking to repay if indemnification is ultimately found improper.

Trigger: Shareholders attempt to remove a director before the end of his term or the board fills an empty seat.
Under the modern rule, shareholders may remove a director with or without cause unless the articles provide that removal may be only for cause. Where cumulative voting is in place, a director may not be removed if the votes cast against removal would have been sufficient to elect him. A vacancy on the board, whether from removal, resignation, or an increase in board size, may generally be filled by either the shareholders or the remaining directors.

Trigger: Action is taken at a shareholder meeting where notice or attendance is challenged.
Shareholders must receive notice of the date, time, and place of any meeting, generally between 10 and 60 days in advance, and notice of a special meeting must state its purpose, limiting business to that purpose. A quorum requires a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote unless the articles set a higher or lower threshold, and once a quorum is present it is generally not broken by departures. A defect in notice is waived by a shareholder who attends without objecting or who signs a written waiver.

Trigger: A corporation declares a dividend or repurchases shares when its finances are strained.
A corporation may not make a distribution if, after giving it effect, the corporation would be unable to pay its debts as they come due in the ordinary course of business (the equity insolvency test) or its total assets would be less than its total liabilities plus any preferential liquidation amounts (the balance-sheet test). Directors who vote for an unlawful distribution are personally liable to the corporation for the amount exceeding what could lawfully have been distributed. A director may rely in good faith on financial statements and the opinions of competent officers or experts.

Trigger: Spouses execute a contract resolving property, support, and custody as part of separating or divorcing.
A separation agreement is a contract by which spouses settle property division, spousal support, and custody, and it is enforceable if entered voluntarily, with fair disclosure, and free of fraud, duress, or unconscionability. Provisions governing property and spousal support are generally binding and may be merged into the divorce decree or survive as an independent contract. Terms affecting child custody and child support are never binding on the court, which always retains authority to modify them according to the child's best interests.

Trigger: A person enters an invalid marriage believing in good faith that it is valid.
Under the putative spouse doctrine, a person who participates in a marriage ceremony with a good-faith belief that the marriage is valid acquires the rights of a lawful spouse, including property division and support, despite a legal impediment that renders the marriage void or voidable. Protection continues only so long as the good-faith belief persists and ends once the putative spouse learns of the impediment. The doctrine prevents unjust enrichment and protects the reasonable expectations of the innocent party.

Trigger: A party seeks to undo a marriage on the basis of a defect existing at its inception.
An annulment declares that a valid marriage never existed because of a defect present at the outset, distinguishing it from divorce, which ends a valid marriage. A void marriage, such as one that is bigamous or incestuous, is invalid from inception and may be challenged by anyone at any time, even after a party's death. A voidable marriage, arising from defects like fraud going to the essentials, duress, nonage, or incapacity, is valid until one of the parties obtains a decree and may be ratified by continued cohabitation after the impediment is removed.

Trigger: A child is placed for adoption and a biological parent's consent or its absence is disputed.
An adoption severs the legal parent-child relationship between the child and the biological parents and creates a new one with the adoptive parents, and it ordinarily requires the consent of both biological parents. Consent may be dispensed with where parental rights have been terminated for cause, such as abandonment, neglect, abuse, or unfitness, always measured by the child's best interests. An unwed biological father is entitled to notice and an opportunity to object only if he has demonstrated a commitment to parental responsibilities, such as by establishing a substantial relationship with the child.

Trigger: A trust generates receipts and expenses that must be split between income and remainder beneficiaries.
A trustee must allocate every receipt and disbursement between income and principal so as to treat the present and future beneficiaries fairly, unless the trust instrument directs otherwise. Ordinary receipts such as interest, rent, and cash dividends are income payable to the life beneficiary, while proceeds from the sale of trust assets, stock splits, and stock dividends are principal preserved for the remainder beneficiaries. Under the Uniform Principal and Income Act, the trustee has an adjustment power to reallocate between the two categories when necessary to administer the trust impartially.

Trigger: Specifically devised property is no longer in the estate, or a beneficiary received a lifetime transfer of the gift.
Under ademption by extinction, a specific devise of property that is not in the testator's estate at death fails, and the beneficiary takes nothing, though many states now apply an intent-based approach allowing the beneficiary to take replacement property or remaining sale proceeds. Ademption by satisfaction occurs when the testator makes a lifetime gift to a beneficiary intending it to satisfy a devise, which is generally shown by a contemporaneous writing. Ademption by extinction applies only to specific devises, not to general or demonstrative gifts.

Trigger: The estate is insufficient to pay debts and satisfy all the gifts in the will.
When estate assets are insufficient to pay debts, taxes, and all devises, the gifts abate to make up the shortfall in a statutory order. Property passing by intestacy abates first, followed by the residuary estate, then general legacies, and finally specific devises, with gifts within the same class abating proportionately. A testator may alter this order by expressing a contrary intent in the will.

Trigger: A child or spouse is unintentionally left out of a will, often because born or married after execution.
A pretermitted child statute protects a child omitted from a will, typically one born or adopted after the will was executed, by giving that child an intestate share unless the omission appears intentional or the testator provided for the child outside the will. The presumption is that the omission was accidental rather than a deliberate disinheritance. An omitted spouse who married the testator after execution is similarly entitled to an intestate share unless the will shows the omission was intended or the spouse was provided for by other transfers.

Trigger: A testator revokes a will based on a mistaken belief that a substitute disposition is valid.
Under dependent relative revocation, a court may disregard a revocation that was premised on a mistake of law or fact where the testator would not have revoked but for that mistaken belief. The doctrine typically applies when a testator destroys an old will believing a new one is valid, but the new will fails, so the court revives the revoked will to avoid an unintended intestacy. It applies only when reviving the earlier disposition comes closer to the testator's intent than intestacy.

Trigger: A beneficiary or heir feloniously and intentionally kills the decedent.
Under the slayer rule, a person who feloniously and intentionally brings about the death of the decedent forfeits any benefit from the decedent's estate, whether by will, intestacy, life insurance, or survivorship. The killer is treated as having predeceased the victim, so the property passes as if the slayer were dead, often to the slayer's own issue under anti-lapse principles. A criminal conviction conclusively establishes the bar, but in its absence the issue may be proved in the probate proceeding by a preponderance of the evidence.

Trigger: An heir or beneficiary refuses to accept a gift or inheritance.
A beneficiary or heir may disclaim an interest in an estate or trust, and a valid disclaimer must be in writing, signed, and, for federal tax purposes, generally made within nine months of the transfer or the disclaimant turning twenty-one. A disclaimant is treated as having predeceased the decedent, so the disclaimed interest passes as if he had died first, frequently to his own issue. A disclaimer is barred once the beneficiary has accepted the interest or its benefits.

Trigger: A will directs that estate assets be added to a trust created during the testator's life.
A pour-over will devises probate assets into a trust established during the testator's lifetime, allowing a single trust instrument to govern the disposition of both lifetime and testamentary property. Under the Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act, the gift is valid even if the trust is unfunded during life and even if the trust is amended after the will is executed, so long as the trust is identified in the will and executed before or concurrently with it. The poured-over assets are administered according to the trust terms as they exist at the testator's death.

Trigger: A creditor takes a security interest in the debtor's bank account or securities.
A security interest in a deposit account as original collateral can be perfected only by control, not by filing. Control exists when the secured party is the depositary bank itself, when the bank, debtor, and secured party sign a control agreement giving the secured party rights to direct the funds, or when the secured party becomes the bank's customer on the account. A secured party with control of a deposit account or investment property generally takes priority over a competing security interest perfected by filing, and the depositary bank's own interest by control outranks other control parties.

Trigger: A security agreement covers later loans or collateral the debtor acquires after signing.
A security agreement may secure future advances, so a single agreement can cover loans the secured party makes later, and the priority of a perfected interest securing future advances generally relates back to the original filing date. A security interest may also attach to after-acquired property if the agreement so provides, automatically reaching collateral the debtor obtains later. After-acquired clauses do not, however, reach consumer goods acquired more than ten days after the secured party gives value, absent the limited PMSI context.

Trigger: A secured party proposes to keep the collateral in full or partial satisfaction of the debt after default.
Through strict foreclosure, a secured party may accept the collateral in full or partial satisfaction of the obligation after sending an authenticated proposal and obtaining the debtor's consent. Acceptance is barred and a sale is required where the debtor or other interested party objects within twenty days of the notice, and partial satisfaction is not permitted in consumer transactions. If the debtor has paid 60% or more of the obligation on consumer goods, the secured party must dispose of the collateral within ninety days of repossession rather than retain it.

Trigger: A judicial lien attaches or the debtor files bankruptcy while a security interest is unperfected.
A lien creditor, including a judgment creditor who has levied and the trustee in bankruptcy, takes priority over a security interest that is unperfected at the time the lien arises. A secured party who perfects before the lien creditor's interest attaches prevails, and a PMSI perfected within the grace period after the debtor receives the collateral relates back to defeat an intervening lien creditor. In bankruptcy, the trustee assumes the status of a hypothetical lien creditor as of the petition date and can avoid any security interest unperfected at that moment.

Trigger: A single case presents multiple legal issues that may be governed by the laws of different states.
Under depecage, a court applies separate choice-of-law analyses to distinct issues within the same case, so that the law of one state may govern one issue while the law of another governs a different issue. This issue-by-issue approach is characteristic of interest-analysis and the Second Restatement's most-significant-relationship test, which evaluate each question in light of the states' contacts and policies as to that specific issue. The result can be that no single state's law controls the entire dispute.

Trigger: A true conflict exists between two states' laws and the forum must choose among modern methodologies.
Under Leflar's better-law approach, a court resolves a conflict by weighing five choice-influencing considerations, including predictability, maintenance of interstate order, simplification of the judicial task, advancement of the forum's governmental interests, and application of the better rule of law. Under California's comparative-impairment method, when two states each have a legitimate interest in applying their law, the court applies the law of the state whose interest would be more impaired if its law were not applied. Both approaches are responses to the true conflicts that governmental-interest analysis leaves unresolved.