Julia, a chemist of international reputation, was working on new plastic explosives in the laboratory in the basement of her home. The laboratory was duly licensed both to carry on explosives research and to possess all of the chemicals on hand. One evening, after she placed a new plastic explosive which she was preparing for the CIA into its shipping container, she left and locked her laboratory, but through inadvertence, forgot to set the elaborate burglar alarm system. While she was out of the house on an overnight visit with a friend, terrorists broke into her laboratory and stole the plastic explosive, a feat which they could not have accomplished if the alarm system had been activated.
Two weeks later, the terrorists concealed the plastic explosive in a tape recorder, which was in turn hidden in luggage placed aboard an airplane owned by Transcontinental Airlines. The bomb exploded prematurely while it was still on the ground, destroying the airplane.
Transcontinental Airlines has brought suit against Julia, seeking damages for the loss of the airplane. In that lawsuit,
A. Transcontinental will prevail, because the explosive is an ultrahazardous substance.
B. Transcontinental will prevail, because Julia’s conduct in making the explosive made it possible for the terrorists to destroy the airplane.
C. Julia will prevail, because she is not responsible for the deliberate criminal acts of the terrorists.
D. Julia will prevail, unless the possession of such highly dangerous material should have led Julia to maintain a higher level of security in the laboratory than was maintained the night the explosives were stolen.
The victim was the leader of a cult and the defendant was a member of that cult. For 30 consecutive days, the victim preached a sermon in which he proclaimed that he had the power to call lightning down from the heavens to strike down followers whom he considered to be sinners. The defendant believed he had this power. One day, the victim saw the defendant’s 6-year-old daughter take a tomato from the vine in the garden. The victim summoned the defendant and the defendant’s daughter before him and proclaimed that he was about to strike the daughter with lightning for her misdeed. The defendant took a knife and stabbed the victim killing him.
If charged with a homicide crime, the defendant’s defense of defense of others will:
A. Not be sustained, because his daughter was not in fact threatened.
B. Not be sustained, because the defendant’s belief that his daughter was in danger was not reasonable.
C. Be sustained, because he actually believed his daughter was in danger.
D. Be sustained, because reflection is not required when there is an imminent threat of death to others.
A statute of the state of Kiowa provided state monetary grants to private dance, theater, and opera groups located in that state. The statute required recipients of such grants to use the granted monies for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of appropriate facilities for the public performance of their performing arts. The last section of the statute conditioned the award of each such grant on the recipient’s agreement to refrain from all kinds of political lobbying calculated to secure additional tax support for the performing arts.
The strongest constitutional basis for an attack upon the validity of the last section of the statute would be based upon the:
A. Commerce Clause.
B. Obligation of Contracts Clause.
C. Fifth Amendment.
D. First and Fourteenth Amendments.
