$1.$ In Brooks v$.$ Lewin Realty III, Inc., the Md Ct App held that for plaintiff to make out a prima facie case, she must show that $($select the best answer$)$:

A$)$ if not repaired, a violation of an ordinance may occur, an injury is possible if the condition of the house is not repaired, and that the legislature sought to increase the tax base of the rental house or unit involved

B$)$ there is a violation of an ordinance, that the violation proximately caused an injury, and that the injured plaintiff was in a class of people intended to be protected by the ordinance C$)$ the plaintiff did not cause the violation of the ordinance, that plaintiff did not contribute to the injury, and that the injury was suffered by a contractor trying to repair the walkway to the house

D$)$ it was not her fault that the paint in the dwelling was peeling, that the peeling paint

was lead paint, and that there was someone who was injured in the past by this landlord

$2.$The court in Zimmerman v$.$ Allen $(2011)$ determined that the law in $\_\_\_\_\_\_$ applied, specifically finding that as long as the instrument's testamentary terms are clear, a court may not decline to admit the will to probate simply because other terms are indefinite.

A$)$ In re Sogeti's Estate $($Ariz $2008)$

B$)$ In re Harris' Estate $($Ariz $1931)$

C$)$ Zimmerman v$.$ Miller's Estate $($Pa $2011)$

D$)$ In re Kelo's Estate $($Ariz $2012)$

$3.$The court ruled in favor of Eric Dare in the Housemen v$.$ Dare $(2009)$ case because the court found that another dog could just be purchased and therefore, specific performance was unwarranted.

A$)$ True

B$)$ False

$4.$What was Don King's defense $($from your textbook summary of the case$)$ in World of Boxing LLC v$.$ King $(2014)?$

A$)$ impossibility

B$)$ did not have a contract with World of Boxing LLC at the time of the event

C$)$ there was a mutual mistake

D$)$ did not have a contract with Guillermo Jones at the time of the event in question