Question 1

Officials with the U.S.Department of Homeland Security search the laptops and smart phones of Diego, a Mexican citizen, and Ethan, a U.S.citizen, when they cross the border between the United States and Mexico.Diego and Ethan object to the search.The most likely basis for their objection is that the search constitutes

Accepted Answer

The answer of Officials with the U.S.Department of Homeland Security...

Question 2

Recent advances have fostered the growth of a relatively new industry to profit from crime.Statistics show that criminals have learned it is easier, less risky, and more profitable to

Accepted Answer

The passage states that recent advances have fostered the growth of a relatively new industry to profit from crime. It then goes on to give statistics that criminals have learned it is easier, less risky, and more profitable to steal via the Internet. Therefore, choice B is the best answer.

Question 3

According to the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v.Arizona, an individual must be apprised of certain of his or her rights whenever the individual is

Accepted Answer

The individual must be apprised of certain rights when taken into custody, as stated in the Miranda warning. These rights include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the warning that anything the individual says can be used against them in court.

Question 4

Jack initiates a sequence of events that results in an injury to Kay.According to the New York Court of Appeals in Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad Co., the question of whether Jack was negligent with respect to Kay depends on whether Kay's injury was reasonably foreseeable to

Accepted Answer

According to the principle of proximate cause established in Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad Co., for an individual to be held liable for negligence, the harm caused must be reasonably foreseeable. In this case, the focus is on whether Jack could reasonably foresee the injury to Kay. Therefore, the answer is C because Kay's injury must have been foreseeable to Jack to hold him liable for negligence. The others, a bystander, an insurance company, and Kay herself, are irrelevant in determining Jack's negligence.

Question 5

Lora initiates a sequence of events involving Mike that results in an injury to Nell.According to the New York Court of Appeals in Palsgraf v.Long Island Railroad Co., if Lora was negligent with respect to Mike, Lora

Accepted Answer

According to the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. case, a defendant (Lora in this case) is only liable for injury to a plaintiff (Nell in this case) if the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and breached that duty, causing the injury. However, the case also established that liability is limited to those within the "zone of danger" created by the defendant's negligent conduct. Therefore, whether Lora may be liable for Nell's injury depends on whether Nell was in the foreseeable "zone of danger" created by Lora's negligence with respect to Mike. This is a separate issue from Lora's negligence towards Mike.

Question 6

Grace hosts Harvest, a social networking site.Idle Fields, a competitive site, hires Jeb to anonymously post on Harvest stories that question its privacy practices.Harvest might most successfully sue Idle Fields for

Accepted Answer

The answer of Grace hosts Harvest, a social networking site.Idle...

Question 7

According to the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v.Arizona, an individual must be apprised of certain of his or her rights

Accepted Answer

The United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona held that individuals must be informed of their rights prior to any questioning so that they may make an informed decision about whether or not to waive those rights. This is often referred to as the Miranda warning or the Miranda rights. The warning advises individuals of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the fact that anything they say can be used against them in court.

Question 8

In the United States, the freedoms of speech and press are strongly protected.To have a complaint heard by a sympathetic court and effect a greater chance of winning, a plaintiff might file a defamation lawsuit in

Accepted Answer

England and Wales are known for having stricter defamation laws compared to the United States, making it easier for plaintiffs to win defamation cases there.

Question 9

When Maja, an attorney and a U.S.citizen, crosses the border between the United States and Canada, she expects the U.S.Department of Homeland Security to search her laptop.To avoid disclosing confidential client data during the search, Maja could

Accepted Answer

By keeping client files on a device that she does not take abroad, Maja can eliminate the risk of disclosing confidential client data during the border search. This is the best option to ensure the protection of client confidentiality.

Question 10

Libel tourism is

Accepted Answer

Libel tourism refers to the practice of forum shopping on an international scale, where individuals or entities file defamation lawsuits in a jurisdiction where the laws are favorable to them, regardless of whether the defendant resides in that jurisdiction or not. This can be used as a tactic to silence critics or opponents and restrict freedom of speech.

Question 11

An extensive hacking operation uncovered in 2013 and linked to the "Comment Crew" involved the theft of hundreds of terabytes of data and intellectual property.The goal of the attacks was to

Accepted Answer

The goal of the attacks was to steal data and intellectual property in order to help Chinese companies compete with foreign firms. This is supported by the fact that the "Comment Crew" is believed to be associated with the Chinese government and has been linked to attacks on companies in a variety of industries, including defense, finance, and technology.

Question 12

Chad hosts Durango, a social networking site.Eagle's Nest, a rival site, hires Frank to pepper Durango with stories that raise questions about the site's privacy policy.Durango might most successfully sue Eagle's Nest for

Accepted Answer

Eagle's Nest intentionally hired Frank to spread false stories about Durango's privacy policy, which aims to harm Durango's reputation and attract its users. As a result, Durango may be able to pursue a claim for wrongful interference with a business relationship, as the actions of Eagle's Nest and Frank interfere with Durango's ability to conduct its business.

Quiz 25: How to Brief Cases and Analyze Case Problems