Reference no: EM131412837

QUESTION 1
Wk08.EVIDENCE ONLY 3MC. Joaquin installed new plumbing in Owen's home. A few days later Owen noticed leaks and water damage on the walls. Owen said the leaks and damage were caused by Joaquin's faulty work. Joaquin said he checked it after it was done and everything was done correctly, it must have been something else.
What evidence does Joaquin have the support his version of the facts?
a. His testimony.
b. Joaquin's testimony.
c. None
d. Faulty work is a breach of the contract.
e. Joaquin is liable for faulty workmanship.

QUESTION 2
Wk08.Property. Easement.FIRST.
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
mc002-1.jpg
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip. (3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996). (5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App.341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
EASEMENT ARGUMENT QUESTION. Which of the following is the issue raised in the case?
a. Did the trial court judge make an error?
b. What does the law say or mean?
c. What law applies?
d. Did the jury make an error?

QUESTION 3
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. What was the value issue before the trial court?
What was the decision of the trial court judge?
Is Killip entitled to an easement by prescription?
Did Killip use the land for 15 years as a driveway?
What is an easement by prescription?

QUESTION 4
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. What was the legal issue before the trial court?
What is an easement by prescription?
What was the decision of the trial court judge?
Is Killip entitled to an easement by prescription?
Did Killip use the land for 15 years as a driveway?

QUESTION 5
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. Another name for the judges' conclusions to the legal issues raised is?
fact
rule
litigation
opinion

QUESTION 6
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. Where is this case in the legal system? Another way of asking this is. What is the procedural posture of the case.
United States Supreme Court
trial court
appeal court
it is impossible to tell

QUESTION 7
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. Sentence labeled (3) and beginning with "We do." in the passage is ________________.
conclusion
fact
issue
rule

QUESTION 8
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. Sentence labeled (4) with "An easement is a right." is a _________.
rule
conclusion
issue
fact

QUESTION 9
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. You might not be able to tell from the case citation, but it is filed in the Michigan state court system. If the parties wanted, could the U.S. Supreme Court hear this case?
No, this is a matter of state law and the US Supreme Court cannot make state law.
Yes, all cases involving land can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Yes, any case can be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Yes because this case involves a US Constitutional law issue and therefore the US Supreme Court can hear it.

QUESTION 10
Killip v. Mannisto , 624 N.W.2d 224, 244 Mich. App. 256, (Michigan state court) (2001) (Shortened, simplified, all internal cites omitted.)
This action arises out of a dispute over a strip of land situated between the lots of two neighbors. Plaintiff Killip has been using this strip of land since approximately 1975 as a portion of Killip's driveway but is in fact titled in defendant Mannisto's name. Mannisto told Killip to tear up the portion of the driveway on Mannisto's land and stop using it. Killip sued Mannisto and asked the lower court to determine Killip had an easement by prescription in the disputed strip. The trial court ruled in Killip'sfavor saying an easement by prescription had arisen and Killip had the right to continue to use the area as a driveway.
(1) Defendant Mannisto appeals the trial court's judgement to us. We affirm the trial court's decision.
(2) Defendant Mannisto argues that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff Killip had acquired rights to use the triangular strip.
(3) We do not agree.
(4) An easement is a right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. Bowen & Buck v Fur Hunting Club, 217 Mich. App. 191 at 191-192; 550 N.W.2d 850 (1996).
(5) An easement by prescription arises from a use of [another's land] that is open, notorious, adverse, and continuous for a period of fifteen years. Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club, 208 Mich. App. 642, 645; 528 N.W.2d 221 (1995); Dyer v Thurston, 32 Mich. App. 341, 343; 188 N.W.2d 633 (1971). ..."
(6) Because Killip used the strip of land for longer than fifteen years, he obtained an easement by prescription.
Wk08.Property. Easement. Same passage as above. This case was filed in the Michigan state court system. If a similar case arose in the Florida state court system but with different parties, would the Florida state court have to follow this case?
Yes, because this case involves a US Constitutional law issue.
Yes, all cases involving water are federal cases.
No, this is a matter of state law and each state makes its own state law.
No, because this case involves an issue of Washington state constitutional law.

QUESTION 11
Wk08.Property.Odor #1. Ashley rented a house from Montoya in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Shortly after moving in she discovered numerous defects in the dwelling, the principle one was that within a few weeks, the toilet worked slowly possibly because of a leak in the plumbing someplace.The house contained a foul odor in some spots. She notified the landlord of the problems and he did attempt to fix the toilet however it is still broken. He told her the odor is not bad and she should be happy since the rent is very low. Ashley wonders if there is anything she can do legally about this problem.
mc011-1.jpg
What is the value issue raised?
a. Has the owner violated the law of warranty of habitability?
b. What law applies to landlords about maintaining rental property?
c. Is the odor bad or not?
d. Owners of residential real estate must keep the residence habitable and if not are liable for damages.
e. Did Ashley rent a house from Montoya?

QUESTION 12
Ashley rented a house from Montoya in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Shortly after moving in she discovered numerous defects in the dwelling, the principle one was that within a few weeks, the toilet worked slowly possibly because of a leak in the plumbing someplace. The house contained a foul odor in some spots. She notified the landlord of the problems and he did attempt to fix the toilet however it is still broken. He told her the odor is not bad and she should be happy since the rent is very low. Ashley wonders if there is anything she can do legally about this problem.
Wk08.Property.Odor. Same as above. What evidence below will help Ashley the most in proving her version of the facts?
The landlord's testimony.
She can have a plumber look at the toilet, evaluate it, and testify.
Pictures
Her testimony.

QUESTION 13
Ashley rented a house from Montoya in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Shortly after moving in she discovered numerous defects in the dwelling, the principle one was that within a few weeks, the toilet worked slowly possibly because of a leak in the plumbing someplace. The house contained a foul odor in some spots. She notified the landlord of the problems and he did attempt to fix the toilet however it is still broken. He told her the odor is not bad and she should be happy since the rent is very low. Ashley wonders if there is anything she can do legally about this problem.
Wk08.Property.Odor. Same as above. What law applies to this situation? Even if you do not know what law applies you should be able to pick out the correct answer from the choices below because only one of the statements below is a law, the others are conclusions or analysis.
Ashley should have checked out the residence more carefully before she rented it so she cannot recover.
The apartment is habitable.
The owner has not kept the apartment habitable.
Owners of residential real estate must keep the residence habitable and if not are liable for damages.
Ashley rented the residence not knowing about the problems.

QUESTION 14
Ashley rented a house from Montoya in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Shortly after moving in she discovered numerous defects in the dwelling, the principle one was that within a few weeks, the toilet worked slowly possibly because of a leak in the plumbing someplace. The house contained a foul odor in some spots. She notified the landlord of the problems and he did attempt to fix the toilet however it is still broken. He told her the odor is not bad and she should be happy since the rent is very low. Ashley wonders if there is anything she can do legally about this problem.
Wk08.Property.Odor. Same as above. What is a factual issue raised?
Did Ashley rent a house from Montoya?
What law applies to landlords about maintaining rental property?
Owners of residential real estate must keep the residence habitable and if not are liable for damages.
Has the owner violated the law of warranty of habitability?
Is the odor bad or not?

QUESTION 15
Ashley rented a house from Montoya in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. Shortly after moving in she discovered numerous defects in the dwelling, the principle one was that within a few weeks, the toilet worked slowly possibly because of a leak in the plumbing someplace. The house contained a foul odor in some spots. She notified the landlord of the problems and he did attempt to fix the toilet however it is still broken. He told her the odor is not bad and she should be happy since the rent is very low. Ashley wonders if there is anything she can do legally about this problem.
Wk08.Property.Odor. Same as above. What is the legal issue raised?
Did Ashley rent a house from Montoya?
What law applies to landlords about maintaining rental property?
Has the owner violated the law of warranty of habitability?
Owners of residential real estate must keep the residence habitable and if not are liable for damages.
Is the odor bad or not?

QUESTION 16
According to the video clip, the original purpose of government was to protect protect [x] rights against aggression.
True
False

QUESTION 17
Hi-Yield Agriculture, Inc., makes a pesticide with a one-in-a-million risk to people of developing cancer from exposure. This substance must be
a. taken off the market and placed in temporary storage.
b. used only in a way that avoids exposure to people.
c. disposed of before anyone develops cancer.
d. registered before it is sold.

QUESTION 18
Property Management Corporation (PMC) owns several apartment buildings in two states. Regarding standards for maintenance of the buildings, PMC should consult
a. the long-term tenants.
b. the previous owners.
c. the Uniform Landlords' Maintenance Manual.
d. the applicable city ordinances and state statutes.

QUESTION 19
For a party to take by adverse possession, the party's possession must not be open or visible.
True
False

QUESTION 20
Lucky owns Mud Flats Ranch, which is situated on certain Nevada acreage. The exterior boundaries of the land extend
a. 100 feet into the earth and 100 feet into the atmosphere.
b. one mile into the earth and one mile into the atmosphere.
c. to the center of the earth and up to the farthest reaches of the atmosphere.
d. to infinity and beyond.

QUESTION 21
A profit is the right to make limited use of another person's real property without taking anything from the property.
True
False

QUESTION 22
An item cannot be a fixture if it is physically attached to the land.
True
False

QUESTION 23
Fact Pattern 24-1
Nika owns land in Ohio. Her ownership rights include the right to sell or give away the property without restriction, and the right to commit waste, if she chooses.
Refer to Fact Pattern 24-1. Nika's ownership interest is
a. a fee simple absolute.
b. a fixed-term tenancy.
c. a life estate.
d. an easement.

QUESTION 24
An environmental impact statement is required for every major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the environment.
True
False

QUESTION 25
Vending Products Company operates a vending machine manufacturing plant on Wandering River. Discharging pollutants from the plant into the river can result in
a. civil penalties and criminal penalties.
b. civil penalties only.
c. criminal penalties only.
d. no penalties.

QUESTION 26
Ski Resorts, Inc., wants to add a new run to its facility in a national park on federal land. For this action, an environmental impact statement is
a. prohibited.
b. required.
c. unnecessary.
d. voluntary.

QUESTION 27
Metro City operates its own municipal public drinking water system for which the Environmental Protection Agency has set maximum levels of pollutants. Metro does not use any equipment to meet these standards. With regard to any contamination of the water, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, this is most likely
a. not a violation because Metro does not set the standards.
b. not a violation because water is not a stationary source.
c. not a violation because Metro does not use any equipment.
d. a violation.

QUESTION 28
Fact Pattern 24-1
Nika owns land in Ohio. Her ownership rights include the right to sell or give away the property without restriction, and the right to commit waste, if she chooses.
Refer to Fact Pattern 24-1. Nika deeds some of her land to Polly. The deed states, "To Polly, for life, then to Quay." Nika has given Polly
a. a fee simple absolute.
b. a fixed-term tenancy.
c. a life estate.
d. an easement.

QUESTION 29
The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide emissions, do not constitute a public danger.
True
False

QUESTION 30
Bakri owns a house. In the house, on a tile floor is a throw rug. Most likely to meet the definition of a fixture is
a. the house.
b. the throw rug.
c. the tile floor.
d. none of the choices.

QUESTION 31
Plant life is not considered to be real property.
True
False

QUESTION 32
Metal Smelting, Inc., operates a plant¾a "major source"¾that emits hazardous air pollutants for which the Environmental Protection Agency has set maximum levels of emission. The plant does not use any equipment to reduce its emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, this is most likely
a. a violation.
b. not a violation because the plant is not a mobile source.
c. not a violation because a "major source" is exempt.
d. not a violation because the plant does not use any equipment.

QUESTION 33
Alf rents an apartment. The lease does not specify how long it will last, but it does specify that Alf must pay rent every month. Alf has
a. a fixed-term tenancy.
b. a periodic tenancy.
c. a tenancy at will.
d. no tenancy.

QUESTION 34
Any point source emitting pollutants into water must have a permit.
True
False

QUESTION 35
Those who knowingly violate the Clean Air Act are exempt from criminal penalties.
True
False

QUESTION 36
The Environmental Protection Agency periodically updates the air pollution standards.
True
False

QUESTION 37
The operations of Metal Refining Industries, Inc., are major sources of air pollution. These operations must use
a. the best available filter technology.
b. the most affordable scrubbing technology.
c. the maximum achievable control technology.
d. the absolutely cleanest air technology.

QUESTION 38
Sid rents an apartment from Town Properties, Inc. The lease, which ends on May 31, does not include an option for renewal, and Sid and Town do not discuss whether Sid can stay on at the end of the term. On June 1, Sid has
a. an implied option to renew the term.
b. a right to remain contingent on notice from Town.
c. a right to remain subject to notice to Town.
d. no right to remain.

QUESTION 39
NuTown Construction, Inc., wants to build a parking ramp to connect to its NuTown Mall, both of which are on private land. For this action, an environmental impact statement is
a. prohibited.
b. required.
c. unnecessary.
d. voluntary.

QUESTION 40
The implied warranty of habitability does not apply to substantial physical defects that a landlord has had a reasonable time to repair.
True
False

QUESTION 41
A barge owned by Oceanic Shipping Company discharges some of the oil contained in its hold into the sea and onto the shore. Under the Oil Pollution Act, this is most likely
a. a violation.
b. not a violation because a floating barge is not a stationary source.
c. not a violation because an oil discharge is not pollution.
d. not a violation because a ship's hold is not a point source.

QUESTION 42
With respect to Egor's land, Fig has an easement, Gabe has a profit, and Huck has a license. A right to possess the land is owned by
a. Egor.
b. Fig.
c. Gabe.
d. Huck.

QUESTION 43
Marshall owns a piece of land, but James owns the mineral rights to Marshall's land. James wishes to sell the mineral rights. James
a. cannot sell the mineral rights.
b. must give Marshall 30 percent of the proceeds of the sale of the mineral rights.
c. can only sell the mineral rights if Marshall agrees.
d. can sell the mineral rights without consulting Marshall.