ES2: The Legal Breakdown (Law school style questions and model answers)
Criminal Law Exam Question:
Sarah discovers Mark embezzling funds from their company.
Sarah confronts Mark and threatens to report him.
Mark offers Sarah a share of the stolen money if she remains silent.
Sarah accepts the money and keeps quiet.
Jane, unaware of Mark's actions, discovers a discrepancy and reports it.
Mark and Sarah are arrested.
Analysis:
Actus Reus:
Mark: Unauthorized taking and use of company funds.
Sarah: Acceptance of stolen money and agreement to remain silent.
Mens Rea:
Mark: Intent to permanently deprive the company of its money.
Sarah: Intention to benefit from the crime and conceal it.
Concurrence:
Mark: Coincidence of actus reus and mens rea.
Sarah: Agreement to the deal and acceptance of money.
Principal, Accomplice, or Accessory:
Mark: Principal in the embezzlement.
Sarah: Accomplice after the fact and accessory after the fact.
Causation and Harm:
Mark: Direct causation of financial loss to the company.
Sarah: Indirect perpetuation of harm by concealing the crime.
Conclusion:
Mark is criminally liable for embezzlement.
Sarah is criminally liable as an accomplice and accessory after the fact.
The principles of actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, and parties to a crime apply.
Civil Procedure Law Exam Question:
Sarah files a lawsuit in California against John (Nevada resident) and XYZ Corp. (incorporated in Delaware, principal place of business in California).
Sarah seeks $150,000 for breach of contract and a federal civil rights violation.
John and XYZ Corp. want to remove the case to federal court.
Analysis:
Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
Federal question jurisdiction over civil rights claim.
Potential supplemental jurisdiction over state law claim.
Diversity Jurisdiction:
Lack of complete diversity due to XYZ Corp. being a California citizen.
Removal:
Removal not proper based on diversity jurisdiction.
Supplemental Jurisdiction:
Federal court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Remand:
Federal court may remand the state law claim.
Conclusion:
Federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.
Diversity jurisdiction is lacking.
Case can be partially removed, with the state claim potentially remanded.
Więcej odcinków z kanału "Law School"
Nie przegap odcinka z kanału “Law School”! Subskrybuj bezpłatnie w aplikacji GetPodcast.