Non Dispositive Element
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 3 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Civil Procedure1
- CRIMINAL1
- Real Property1
Example wrong choices
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice ANo, because Stephen's objection was untimely and as a result, he waived the appeal of the court's instruction.
Why it's attractive
Rides the buried 'did not separately object to the proposed instruction' fact — a non-dispositive element — and ignores that the GIVEN instruction was different and objected to at once.
Why it's wrong
Rides the buried 'did not separately object to the proposed instruction' fact — a non-dispositive element — and ignores that the GIVEN instruction was different and objected to at once.
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice BNo, because Stephen's objection was untimely, and any alleged error would have been upheld under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
Why it's attractive
Pairs the same false 'untimely' premise with an appellate buzzword; the 'clearly erroneous' label is the tell.
Why it's wrong
Pairs the same false 'untimely' premise with an appellate buzzword; the 'clearly erroneous' label is the tell.
14062_stephens-orchard-late-changed-charge · CIVIL_PROCEDURE · Choice DYes, because even though Stephen waived his objection to the instruction prior to trial, his objection at trial was timely.
Why it's attractive
Reaches the correct 'Yes' but concedes a pre-trial waiver that never happened — his pre-trial act was objecting to the REFUSAL of his own instruction, which waives nothing.
Why it's wrong
Reaches the correct 'Yes' but concedes a pre-trial waiver that never happened — his pre-trial act was objecting to the REFUSAL of his own instruction, which waives nothing.
22100_vineyard_cartpath · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice AYes, because Philip relied on Stephen's assertion when he bought the vineyard.
Why it's attractive
Reaches the right outcome but for a non-operative reason; reliance only matters if the easement had ended, and it did not.
Why it's wrong
Reaches the right outcome but for a non-operative reason; reliance only matters if the easement had ended, and it did not.
22100_vineyard_cartpath · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice BNo, because the easement was revocable at the will of the grantor.
Why it's attractive
States the easement is revocable at will, which is the defining feature of a license, not an easement.
Why it's wrong
States the easement is revocable at will, which is the defining feature of a license, not an easement.
22100_vineyard_cartpath · REAL_PROPERTY · Choice DNo, because there is no indication that Naomi received any benefit from the sale.
Why it's attractive
Conditions the easement's survival on the servient owner profiting from the sale — a requirement no rule imposes.
Why it's wrong
Conditions the easement's survival on the servient owner profiting from the sale — a requirement no rule imposes.
22275_courthouse_weathervane · CRIMINAL · Choice ANo, because the lamps were relevant to show that Stephen knew his shop contained stolen property.
Why it's attractive
A suppression motion tests how evidence was obtained; probative value can't cure an unlawful search.
Why it's wrong
A suppression motion tests how evidence was obtained; probative value can't cure an unlawful search.
22275_courthouse_weathervane · CRIMINAL · Choice BNo, because the lamps were in a springhouse on the shop's property.
Why it's attractive
Whether the springhouse is on the property is real but not what decides it; the warrant's authority had ended when the weathervane was found.
Why it's wrong
Whether the springhouse is on the property is real but not what decides it; the warrant's authority had ended when the weathervane was found.
22275_courthouse_weathervane · CRIMINAL · Choice DYes, because the lamps were in a separate springhouse.
Why it's attractive
A 'premises' warrant reaches outbuildings on the property; separateness is not a ground to suppress.
Why it's wrong
A 'premises' warrant reaches outbuildings on the property; separateness is not a ground to suppress.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →