1. Which US state uses a different legal system than the other 49 US states? Name the legal system it uses. (5 pts)

2. What type of jurisdiction could the government use to handle assets that were obtained using criminal means? (5 pts)

3. T or F An act is not negligent if the result is not foreseeable. (5 pts)

4. Describe the argument of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the case we studied, Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In your opinion, was the argument an example of Natural Law Theory? Explain. (15 pts)

5. If there is a conflict between a state law and a federal law, which law will govern? Explain. (5 pts)

6. What is the source of this law? (5 pts)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

7. Explain the impact of the case of Gideon v Wainwright on the criminal procedure process. (10 pts)

8. Would the following lawsuit be heard in a court? Why or why not? (5 pts)

Megatron hit Optimus Prime for no reason. Bumblebee saw what happened and was appalled. Bumblebee tells Optimus to file a lawsuit alleging battery against Megatron. Optimus refuses to file a lawsuit. Bumblebee tells Optimus that he, Bumblebee, is going to file a lawsuit instead.

9. List 3 crimes. Then name and describe a possible defense to each crime you listed. (10 points)

10. T or F A Tennessee state trial court would have subject matter jurisdiction over a case involving the vandalization of a US Postal Service mailbox. (5 pts)

11. Identify the 7 sources of laws that we discussed in this course. Give an example of 3 of the sources of laws you identified. (10 pts)

12. Find a law (any law is fine) in the California Fish and Game Code. Cut and paste the law here. Include the link to the law. (5 pts)

13. Name and describe the 3 theories of tort liability and give an example of each. (10 pts)

14. Read the following facts and answer the 4 questions below. (20 pts)

Snow White was walking in the woods when she came upon an old lady selling what appeared to be juicy red apples. The old lady told Snow White she could have an apple for free but that the old lady couldn't guarantee the apple would be a good apple because she hadn't tried them herself. Snow White decided to eat the apple because it looked so good. As soon as she bit into the apple, she fell to the ground in a deep sleep because the apple was rotten inside. The old lady shrugged her shoulders and walked off. A few hours later, Prince Charming came by. He saw Snow White and thought she was the most beautiful person he had ever seen. He decided to kiss her. After being kissed, Snow White woke up.

After talking to Prince Charming and figuring out what happened to her, Snow White was beyond mad. She decided to sue both the old lady and Prince Charming.

A. For what reason could Snow White sue the old lady? Explain.

B. What defense could the old lady use in response? Explain.

C. For what reason could Snow White sue Prince Charming? Explain.

D. What defense could Prince Charming use in response? Explain.

15. We read about the Liebeck v McDonalds case. Describe McDonalds defense. (10 pts)

16. Provide 1 example of a substantive law and 1 example of a procedural law. (10 pts)

17. Name and describe one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. (5 pts)

18. What is the current World Justice Project rule of law ranking for India? (5 pts)

19. Describe the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas decision in the Keystone Pipeline case. (5 pts)

20. T or F A Nebraska federal district court would have subject matter jurisdiction over a breach of contract dispute involving 2 Nebraskan residents where the amount in controversy is $100,000. (5 pts)

21. Describe 2 examples of when the US Supreme Court may hear a case by a writ of certiorari. (5 pts)

22. Draft a complete contract using the following words: Harry Potter, Hermione, Hogwarts, wand, owl. (10 pts)

23. You have been convicted of retail larceny in California Superior Court. To which court would you appeal your conviction? (5 pts)

24. Are the following contracts valid or invalid? Explain. (15 points)

A. Cinderella and Prince Charming sign an agreement whereby Cinderella will sell Prince Charming her silver coach in exchange for $500. At the time the agreement is signed, Cinderella knows but does not disclose to Prince Charming that the silver coach will turn into a pumpkin at midnight.

B. Lady and Tramp sign an agreement whereby Lady will make Tramp a spaghetti dinner in exchange for Tramp killing the Siamese cats.

C. Mufasa and Scar sign an agreement whereby Mufasa agrees to give up his throne to Scar. Mufasa signs the agreement only because Scar threatens to hurt Mufasas son, Simba.

25. T or F Two parties located in California entering into a contract involving shipments of stuffed animals from Georgia to Montana can agree to use New York state law to govern their contract. (5 pts)

26. Of the 3 types of legal systems we studied, which is based on the use of precedent? (5 pts)

27. Read the following facts and answer the 4 questions below. (20 pts)

You are the owner of a very successful Porsche dealership located in San Bruno. One day a young woman comes to your dealership wanting to purchase a 2022 Porsche 911 Carrera. You show her different colors and she chooses the red one. She says she is willing to pay the price you quote her without haggling. In addition, she is willing to pay all cash. You quickly draw up a purchase agreement and have it executed by both of you before she changes her mind. You are enormously pleased with your sales skills until you try to deposit the cash at the bank and find that it is counterfeit.

A. For what reason could you sue the young woman?

B. In the course of suing the young woman, you discover that she was 17 years old at the time of sale. Is the purchase agreement valid or invalid? Explain.

C. For what reason could the State of California bring suit against the young woman?

D. In the course of bringing suit against the young woman, the State of California discovers that she stole the money used to buy the Porsche from her employer, Chipotle. For what reason could Chipotle bring suit against the young woman?

28. In which US appellate court circuit is South Carolina located? (5 pts)

29. Describe the US Supreme Court's ruling and reasoning in Hollingsworth v Perry. (10 pts)

30. T or F A losing party can appeal a decision made by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (5 pts)

31. T or F A criminal case can be brought by an individual citizen. (5 pts)

32. Give an example of a mala prohibita contract. (5 pts)

33. Describe 4 ways an offer to enter a contract can be terminated. (10 pts)

34. Name a country that has a civil legal system. (5 pts)

35. List the 4 possible reasons why a court may not have judicial power to hear a case. (10 pts)

36. T or F A Maine state trial court would have personal jurisdiction over a California resident charged with a driving under the influence (DUI) felony committed in Maine. (5 pts)

37. Explain the courts holding in the case of Grace v McArthur. (10 pts)

38. Describe the rule of law. (5 pts)

39. In which federal district is Los Angeles located? (5 pts)

40. Read the following case and FIRAC it. (50 pts)

Jordan v. Idaho, U.S. Supreme Court

On May 23, 1957, three Boise police officers arrived at Miss Jordans residence. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance, but Miss Jordan, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant.

The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four or more additional officers arrived on the scene. Miss Jordan demanded to see the search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. Miss Jordan, in handcuffs, was then forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. The obscene materials for possession of which she was charged were discovered in the course of the search.

At the trial, no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for.

Miss Jordan was ultimately convicted of knowingly having had in her possession certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of Idaho state law. The Supreme Court of Idaho found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home . . . ."

The State of Idaho says that, even if the search were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial. Miss Jordan has appealed the decision of the Supreme Court of Idaho to this Court.

This Court, in Weeks v. United States (1914), stated that "the Fourth Amendment . . . put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints [and] . . . forever secure[d] the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law . . . , and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws."

Specifically dealing with the use of the evidence unconstitutionally seized, the Court concluded, "If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land." Finally, this Court in that case clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved "a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused." Thus, in the year 1914, in the Weeks case, this Court "for the first time" held that, "in a federal prosecution, the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure." This Court has ever since required of federal law officers a strict adherence to that command which this Court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required--even if judicially implied--deterrent safeguard.

In 1949, 35 years after Weeks was announced, this Court discussed the effect of the Fourth Amendment upon the States through the operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It said: "[W]e have no hesitation in saying that, were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy, it would run counter to the guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government. Were it otherwise, the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and seizures would be "a form of words," valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule, the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to merit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." At the time that the Court held that the Amendment was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause, the cases of this Court, as we have seen, had steadfastly held that as to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation of its provisions.

This Court has not hesitated to enforce as strictly against the States as it does against the Federal Government the rights of free speech and of a free press, the rights to notice and to a fair, public trial, including, as it does, the right not to be convicted by use of a coerced confession, however logically relevant it be, and without regard to its reliability. We find that, as to the Federal Government, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and, as to the States, the freedom from unconscionable invasions of privacy and the freedom from convictions based upon coerced confessions do enjoy an "intimate relation" in their perpetuation of "principles of humanity and civil liberty [secured] . . . only after years of struggle."

Having recognized that the right to privacy embodied in the Fourth Amendment is enforceable against the States, and the right to be secure against rude invasions of privacy by state officers is, therefore, constitutional in origin. It is enforceable in the same manner and to like effect as other basic rights secured by the Due Process Clause.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.