(I) Municipal bonds that are issued to pay for essential public projects are exempt from federal taxation. (II) General obligation bonds do not have specific assets pledged as security or a specific source of revenue allocated for their repayment.

Which individual, more than any other, was a ‘Godsend’ to the Allies in the early months of the war and was a staunch advocate to fight and not negotiate with the Germans?

Germany’s objective in the Battle of Britain was to destroy the morale of the English people through continuous night raids and they were successful in doing so.

The Phony War

In the early part of the Cold War, Russia blocked access to Berlin from the west and in response the Berlin Airlift provided daily supplies for nearly a year until the Russians allowed access to Berlin.

What was the primary purpose of fighting in Africa?

What was the name of the British Prime Minister who “appeased” Hitler at the Munich Conference of 1938 and returned home thinking he had insured peace?

A suspect was arrested for burglarizing an apartment. He was duly given Miranda warnings, and invoked his right to remain silent. When the suspect was put into the lockup, the police took from him his wallet, watch, and other personal possessions. Following standard procedure, a police officer immediately began to make an inventory of the suspect’s personal effects. During the course of the inventory, the officer noticed that the suspect’s watch bore an inscription with the name of a person whose apartment had been burglarized two days earlier. The officer concluded that the suspect had probably burglarized that apartment as well as the one for which he was arrested. She reported the inscription on the watch to the detective who had arrested the suspect, and the suspect was subsequently charged with the earlier burglary as well. Did the officer violate the suspect’s constitutional rights by reading the inscription?

A woman was planning a vacation in a faraway city. She was hoping to see a certain popular theatre performance while she was in town, but tickets for the show were sold in person at the theater’s box office. She feared that the show would be sold out if she waited to purchase tickets when she arrived in town, so on June 1, the woman mailed a letter to an old friend who lived in the city asking him if he would purchase the tickets for her in exchange for a $100 fee. The friend replied by letter on June 5th that he would do so. But on June 6th, he decided that he didn’t feel like waiting in line for the tickets after all so he sent a text to the woman telling her that her request was too much to ask of him and that he would not get the tickets for her. The woman received the friend’s text immediately. She was disappointed in her friend’s response and did not reply to his text. Still really wanting to see the show, she immediately purchased tickets from an online ticket broker for a $500 fee. On June 7, the woman received her friend’s letter. When the woman did not contact her friend again, he began to feel guilty. On June 8, the friend purchased tickets at the box office and then called the woman to let her know. The woman told her friend that the tickets were no longer needed, and she would not pay him the $100. Insulted, the friend angrily told the woman that he would sue her for breach of contract. Will the friend be successful in his breach of contract action?

A con man and his girlfriend were traveling in the con man’s minivan when they were stopped by a state police officer who noticed that the minivan’s brake lights were not working. Unbeknownst to the girlfriend, the con man had stolen a wallet from a customer at the gas station convenience store that they had stopped at a few towns back. Before the officer came up to the car, the con man told his girlfriend, “Hold my wallet for me, will you?” The girlfriend put the wallet in her purse, saying, “O.K., but I don’t want to know why.” Before the officer even told the couple why he had stopped the minivan, the con man blurted out, “She’s the one who took the wallet,” pointing at his girlfriend. The officer searched the girlfriend’s purse and found the wallet belonging to the customer. The girlfriend was arrested, but the con man was not. Is the evidence found on the girlfriend admissible?