Colorado Bar Examination (UBE)

# Colorado Bar Examination (UBE) Study Notes
## GROUNDED - generated from real us_cases (US corpus)

Citations are real database records; holdings extracted from opinions.

---

## CONTRACTS & SALES (UCC Article 2)

### Offer and Acceptance / Contract Formation
**Rule:** A finance company's acceptance of an assignment of a conditional sales contract in a financing arrangement establishes the company's interest in the underlying property, subject to conditions set by statute (e.g., the company must have acquired the interest in good faith and without reason to believe the property was being used to transport illegal goods).

**Authority:** *Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. United States*, 350 U.S. 488 (1956) — Supreme Court of the United States

**Rule:** In contract disputes involving construction work and patent infringement claims, the court examines whether parties formed a binding agreement for services and whether performance was completed according to contract terms.

**Authority:** *Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. Ulen Contracting Corp.*, 12 F.2d 929 (S.D.N.Y. 1925) — United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

---

## CIVIL PROCEDURE

### Personal Jurisdiction / Service of Process
**Rule:** Jurisdiction over a foreign corporation doing business in a state may be obtained by personal service of summons on a director of the corporation when the corporation has designated no one to accept service within the state. An unincorporated association with members residing within the state may be served by personal service on an officer corresponding to the president.

**Authority:** *B. K. Bruce Lodge, Inc. v. Sub-Committee of Management of the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America*, 208 A.D. 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924) — New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

### Subpoena / Compulsory Process
**Rule:** A court may issue a subpoena to compel witness testimony under civil procedure rules, and appellate courts review orders denying subpoena applications for abuse of discretion.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of the Petition of Phil Gleichman*, 209 A.D. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1924) — New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

### Condemnation / Eminent Domain
**Rule:** In eminent domain proceedings, courts confirm reports of official referees regarding property awards and compensation when proper procedural requirements are met.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of Acquiring Title by The City of New York to Certain Lands*, 228 A.D. 699 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930) — New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

### Mandamus / Extraordinary Writs
**Rule:** Mandamus will not issue to compel a county judge to take jurisdiction in a matter where the judge lacks statutory authority to do so.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of the Application of Roy H. Sloane*, 230 A.D. 710 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930) — New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division; Reversed, 255 N.Y. 112

---

## CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

### Extraordinary Trial Term / Constitutional Due Process
**Rule:** A court may apply for a prohibitive order to challenge the constitutionality and jurisdiction of an extraordinary trial term established by gubernatorial proclamation when fundamental due process rights may be at issue.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of the Application of Sidney G. Harnett*, 227 A.D. 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1929) — New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

---

## REAL PROPERTY

### Wills / Testamentary Disposition
**Rule:** When a testator devises land but uses imprecise descriptions, a court will construe the devise to give effect to the testator's intent by reference to the testator's own property lines and natural boundaries, even if the description is initially ambiguous.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of the Estate of John J. Peters*, 101 Wash. 572 (1918) — Washington Supreme Court

**Rule:** A devisee who accepts specific devises under a will makes an election and ratifies the entire will, precluding challenge to other devises on the ground of a parol trust agreement.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of the Estate of Mary M. Parkes*, 101 Wash. 659 (1918) — Washington Supreme Court

### Guardianship / Incompetency
**Rule:** A person need not be adjudged insane or an idiot to warrant guardianship; evidence of mental incompetency to manage business affairs—including improvident transactions and irrational conduct—is sufficient to authorize appointment of a guardian.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of the Guardianship of the Estate of Martha E. Bayer*, 101 Wash. 694 (1918) — Washington Supreme Court

### Principal and Surety / Contractor's Bonds
**Rule:** A surety on a subcontractor's bond retains liability despite the principal contractor's assumption of control and completion of work, provided the surety suffered no burden or liability as a result. Overpayments during progress that do not prejudice the surety do not release the surety from liability.

**Authority:** *O. N. Finne v. Maryland Casualty Co.*, 102 Wash. 651 (1918) — Washington Supreme Court

---

## TORTS

### Contract Disputes and Claims
**Rule:** In maritime salvage contract disputes, a party seeking recovery for breach must establish that it was ready, willing, and able to perform; unreasonable delay or limited use by the defendant may support a claim for damages for the charter hire lost.

**Authority:** *Tortuga Marine Salvage Co.*, 152 Ct. Cl. 864 (1961) — United States Court of Claims

---

## EVIDENCE

### Witness Testimony / Hearsay
**Rule:** When a witness is absent, courts may use a subpoena to compel testimony. The court maintains jurisdiction over absent witnesses through proper subpoena processes.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of Benjamin Chittenden and William Watson, Absent Witnesses*, 1 Blume Sup. Ct. Trans. 174 (Mich. 1809) — Michigan Supreme Court

**Rule:** A law firm and its custodian of records may be held in contempt for refusing to obey a district court order to produce documents in response to a valid subpoena duces tecum, absent a recognized privilege protecting the documents.

**Authority:** *In re Subpoenas Duces Tecum Dated March 16, 1992*, 978 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1992) — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

---

## CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

### Legislative Apportionment / State Constitutional Provisions
**Rule:** The state legislature may pass legislation for apportionment that does not conflict with the state constitutional requirement for enumeration and reapportionment on ten-year intervals following the decennial census.

**Authority:** *In the Matter of House Resolution Relating to Constitutionality of Legislation Redistricting the State*, 12 Colo. 186 (1888) — Colorado Supreme Court

**Rule:** A bill for reapportionment is constitutional where it follows the state constitutional mandate to revise and adjust apportionment based on enumeration and ratios fixed by law.

**Authority:** *In re Senate Resolution Relating to Constitutionality of Proposed Re-apportionment Bill*, 12 Colo. 187 (1888) — Colorado Supreme Court

### Intermediate Courts / Appellate Jurisdiction
**Rule:** An intermediate court with appellate and final jurisdiction may be constitutionally created, provided that in cases within the supreme court's appellate jurisdiction, the intermediate court's judgment remains subject to review by the supreme court.

**Authority:** *In re Constitutionality of a Court of Appeals*, 15 Colo. 578 (1890) — Colorado Supreme Court

### Regulatory Authority / Rates
**Rule:** Under a special charter that expressly reserves legislative power, the legislature may prescribe rates for the carriage of freight and passengers by a railroad company without violating constitutional provisions, once the charter period has expired.

**Authority:** *In re the Constitutionality of Senate Bill No. 69*, 15 Colo. 601 (1890) — Colorado Supreme Court

---

## BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS / CORPORATIONS

### Corporate Status and Liability
**Rule:** A corporation may be named as a defendant in legal proceedings, and the substantive rights and obligations of corporate parties are determined by applicable law (contract, tort, statutory, or regulatory).

**Authority:** *Ken Leahy Construction, Inc. v. City of Gladstone*, 52 F. App'x 10 (9th Cir. 2002) — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

**Rule:** Corporate parties may assert contract and tort claims, and damages are awarded based on the evidence supporting breach of contract or tortious conduct; appellate courts review damage awards for abuse of discretion.

**Authority:** *Cable & Computer Technology Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders Inc.*, 52 F. App'x 20 (9th Cir. 2002) — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

**Rule:** Shareholders and related corporate entities have standing to sue; trademark and intellectual property claims between related entities are subject to the same principles as between unrelated parties, including attorney's fees awards.

**Authority:** *Carley Gracie v. Semaphore Entertainment Group*, 52 F. App'x 43 (9th Cir. 2002) — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

### Employment / Title VII
**Rule:** An employer may not retaliate against an employee for filing an administrative complaint for harassment; retaliation and failure to promote based on protected conduct may constitute discrimination under Title VII, but administrative prerequisites must be satisfied.

**Authority:** *Karey Correa v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.*, 52 F. App'x 82 (9th Cir. 2002) — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

---

## Study Tips for Colorado UBE
- These holdings are extracted from real US appellate and trial court opinions
- Focus on the **functional rule** not the fact pattern
- Know how each jurisdiction's statute or rule affects the outcome
- Pay special attention to **statutory exceptions** (e.g., good faith requirements, privileged defenses)
- For exam essays, state the rule first, apply facts, then conclude