- | P a g e
BUSFIN 3500 FINAL EXAM NEWEST 2025
ACTUAL EXAM COMPLETE 200 QUESTIONS
AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS
(VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED
A+||BRAND NEW!!
Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict - CORRECT ANSWER-is ordinarily made by the losing party after the return of an unfavorable verdict. It states in essence that the case should never have been sent to the jury because reasonable minds could not differ on the facts, and as applied to the law, the movant should win. In effect this gives the judge another opportunity to rule in favor of the movant, whose motion for directed verdict was previously overruled. It is rare that the court would upset the jury verdict and enter a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but it does happen from time to time.
Motion for a new trial - CORRECT ANSWER -is ordinarily made by the losing party. It basically calls attention to an alleged harmful error that was made, for example, a misstatement of the law in the court's jury instructions, the exclusion of relevant testimony of a witness, or the failure of the court to grant a 1 / 4
- | P a g e
party's motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that reasonable minds could not differ. The motion for a new trial is not normally interposed immediately after the court or jury's verdict but rather within a period permitted by the rules of the court, which may be 30 days or more.
Mediation - CORRECT ANSWER -The act of a third person who attempts to persuade disputing parties to adjust their positions so as to resolve their dispute.
Arbitration - CORRECT ANSWER -A process wherein a dispute is submitted to a mutually acceptable person or board, each party to the dispute having agreed beforehand to comply with the decision.
Injunction - CORRECT ANSWER -An order of the court directing someone to do or not to do something
Design Strategies, inc. v. Marc Davis - CORRECT ANSWER - Design (provides trained personnel to companies in need of tech support) sued its former employee, Marc Davis, alleging that Davis wrongfully diverted a lucrative business opportunity to Info Technologies Web Solutions & subsequently benefited from that diversion by accepting an offer of employment with IT 2 / 4
- | P a g e
Web· Court concluded that Design provided its claim against Davis for breach of fiduciary duties· Davis must forfeit his salary for the 2 pay periods in which he had disloyal acts ($6,538). A case where a man was sued because he was promoting another company that was not the company that he was currently working for for a job with Microsoft. Fiduciary Obligation
Knudsen v. Lax - CORRECT ANSWER -good faith breach issue- 3 girls lived in an apartment that became adjacent to a level three sex offender, would not let girls terminate lease facts- in lease states right to peaceful and quiet environment holding- tenants allowed out of lease to move to different location
Knick v. Township of Scott - CORRECT ANSWER -court- agree that violate 5th amendment when take property without payment right away dissenting- say compensation should be provide later, nothing in fifth amendment say that need to pay prior to take land as long as paid.Ability to decide who is allowed on personal property.
- / 4
- | P a g e
Under the Williamson precedent, a takings violation could not occur until this procedure was completed, because the denial of compensation is what ripens a claim of a takings clause violation
- the issue is that takings are often covered by doctrine of
- So Knick wanted the Supreme Court to overrule Williamson
- How ill the Court rule? Our guess is the eight who heard it are
preclusion, which prevents re litigation of a decided state issue in federal courts
and allow takings claims to be ripened for federal purposes before all adjudication is complete on the state level
deadlocked at moment because its been set for reargument
Abramski v. United States - CORRECT ANSWER -Abramski purchased a gun for his uncle but lied and said that it was for himself and then his uncle paid him a check for the amount in exchange for the gun (against the law, you have to honestly fill out documents). Interpretation of the law. Language says that "person" or "transferee", not specifically middleman in buying a gun for someone else. However, purpose of the law is to avoid people buying guns for others. Conviction, appealed to US supreme court (upheld previous decision).
- / 4