The mayor of a town received several complaints from residents regarding the growing number of adult theaters and nude dancing establishments in a nearby town. To allay fears, the mayor asked the town’s attorney what could be done to prevent or at least limit such establishments from setting up business in their town, which currently follows a zoning plan that provides for residential, commercial, and light industrial uses.  Which of the following most correctly describes the town’s constitutional options?

A vintner divided his vineyard into two parcels, drawing the boundaries so that the single well that had irrigated the entire vineyard fell on the border of the two properties. The vintner then conveyed the eastern parcel to his friend by a deed that contained the following covenant:  If the well located on the boundary of the eastern and western parcels continues to be used for irrigation purposes and becomes in need of repair or replacement, the grantee, his heirs, and assigns and the grantor, his heirs, and assigns each promise to pay one-half of the cost of such repair or replacement. This covenant shall run with the land. The deed from the vintner to the friend was not recorded, and the vintner did not record a copy of the deed with the records for the western parcel.  The friend later sold the eastern parcel to a farmer. The farmer’s deed did not contain the covenant about the well. After 15 years of use by the owners of both the eastern and western parcels, the well began to fail. The farmer took it upon himself to have the well repaired at a cost of $30,000. About two weeks later, the farmer discovered the deed from the vintner to the friend in some old files. By this time, the western parcel had passed to the vintner’s son by inheritance and again to the son’s daughter by inheritance from the now deceased son. The daughter knew nothing of the covenant concerning the well. The farmer presented the daughter with the bill for the well repair with a copy of the vintner/friend deed and a note that said he expected to be reimbursed for $15,000. The daughter refuses to pay, and the farmer sues.  The jurisdiction has a 10-year statute of limitations for acquiring property by adverse possession, and the following recording statute: “Any conveyance of an interest in land shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice thereof, unless the conveyance is recorded.” For whom is the court most likely to rule?

A shareholder bought 1,000 shares of a global energy company on August 20. At the time, there were 100,000 shares of the company’s stock outstanding. Unfortunately for the shareholder, on August 21 it came to light that the company’s management was artificially inflating the company’s earnings the past year in order to inflate the company’s stock price. By August 27, the stock was worthless. It is unquestioned that the shareholders who owned the stock during the week of August 21-27 were harmed. The shareholder filed a class action lawsuit in the federal district court.  Must she give notice to other absent class members?

A landowner and her neighbor owned adjoining parcels of land. The landowner’s property was situated to the west of the neighbor’s property. A highway ran along the east of the neighbor’s property. Twelve years ago, the landowner asked the neighbor if it would be all right for the landowner to use an eight-foot strip along the northern part of the neighbor’s land to access the highway. The only other way for the landowner to get to the highway was to use a one-lane unpaved road that meandered through the woods for two miles. The neighbor agreed, and the landowner used the strip of land regularly to access the highway. The statutory period for adverse possession in this jurisdiction is 10 years. What is the landowner’s interest in the neighbor’s eight-foot strip of land?

The defendant was on trial for driving while intoxicated and injuring a pedestrian. The pedestrian claimed that the defendant was driving the car; however, the defendant’s spouse testified at trial that she had been driving the car at the time of the accident and had not consumed any alcohol that evening. In response, the prosecution calls a friend of the defendant’s spouse to testify that the spouse told the friend that she and the defendant had changed seats in the car after the incident and that she remained in the driver’s seat until the police arrived.  Is the testimony admissible?

Congress authorized an oil sand refining plant to be built on federal park land within a state. The refinery was built in compliance with federal pollution regulations. However, the plant did not comply with the more restrictive standards the state enacted to better protect state citizens from pollution associated with refineries. Therefore, a state inspector refused to give the plant’s manager a permit to run the refinery. The refinery manager, a federal employee, nevertheless began to run the refinery and was fined by the state.  Which of the following is the manager’s best defense against imposition of the fine?

The state has the following homicide statutes:  Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature. It is implied when no considerable provocation appears or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart. All murder that is perpetrated by willful, deliberate, or premeditated killing or committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate arson, rape, robbery, or burglary is murder of the first degree. All other kinds of murders are of the second degree. The defendant and her associate entered a jewelry store to shoplift a diamond bracelet. Just as the defendant put the bracelet into her pocket, a sales clerk saw her and grabbed her by the wrist. The associate grabbed a knife from one of the silver displays and lunged at the sales clerk, but then a store guard shot and killed her. The defendant is charged with the first degree murder of her associate. Which of the following is the defendant’s strongest argument?

A homeowner contracted for construction of a custom-built, elevated deck in his backyard. The deck’s designer supervised the construction, which was carried out by several employees of a local building company. The homeowner was pleased with the appearance of the deck, but the first time he stepped on it, a support on one side of the deck gave way, causing the homeowner to fall and be injured. The homeowner brought an action joining the building company and the deck’s designer as defendants, alleging negligence. In his complaint, he alleged that he does not know which of the defendants is responsible for the damages.  Which of the following doctrines would be most helpful against the designer?

A bookie testified before a grand jury regarding allegedly illegal gambling activities. As a result, the bookie was indicted and a warrant was issued for the bookie’s arrest, along with a search warrant for the bookie’s home. The police went to the bookie’s home, informed him of the charges against him, and placed him in handcuffs. The officers then conducted a search of the bookie’s home and found a desk calendar, which had possibly incriminating information written on it relating to appointments. They seized the desk calendar and one of the officers asked the bookie what he had to say about their find. The bookie made an incriminating statement in response. Before trial, the prosecutor obtained an exemplar of the bookie’s handwriting to compare it with the handwriting on the calendar.  If introduced at trial, which of the following would most clearly violate the bookie’s Fifth Amendment self-incrimination rights?

On December 6, the owner of an electronics store sent a written request to a computer manufacturer asking for the price of a certain laptop computer. The manufacturer sent a written reply with a catalog listing the prices and descriptions of all of his available computers. The letter stated that the terms of sale were cash within 30 days of delivery. On December 14, by return letter, the store owner ordered the computer, enclosing a check for $4,000, the listed price. Immediately on receipt of the order and check, the manufacturer informed the store owner that there had been a pricing mistake in the catalog, which should have quoted the price as $4,300 for that computer. The store owner refused to pay the additional $300, arguing that his order of December 14 in which the $4,000 check was enclosed was a proper acceptance of the manufacturer’s offer.  In a suit for damages, will the manufacturer prevail?