Barbri Practice Set Questions Bank MBE 100% Correct Answers Verified Latest 2024 Version
3 views 0 purchase
Course
Barbri
Institution
Barbri
Barbri Practice Set Questions Bank MBE
| 100% Correct Answers | Verified |
Latest 2024 Version
A fee simple owner of a restaurant provided in his will that the property should go on his death "in fee
simple to my friend, but if during my friend's lifetime my son has children and those children ...
Barbri Practice Set Questions Bank MBE
| 100% Correct Answers | Verified |
Latest 2024 Version
A fee simple owner of a restaurant provided in his will that the property should go on his death "in fee
simple to my friend, but if during my friend's lifetime my son has children and those children are alive
when my friend dies, then to said living children." When the owner died, the friend took over the
restaurant.
If the son has children and one or more of them are alive when the friend dies, who will take title to the
restaurant at that time?
A The friend's heirs, because the attempted gift to the son's children is invalid under the Rule Against
Perpetuities.
B The son's children, because their interest is not contingent, being a possibility of reverter.
C The son's children, because their interest is vested, subject to defeasance.
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being plus 21 years. - ✔✔D
The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being plus 21 years.
The interest given to the son's children does not violate the Rule Against Perpetuities because the
interest will vest, if at all, within 21 years after the life of the friend. Pursuant to the Rule Against
Perpetuities, no interest in property is valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after one
or more lives in being at the creation of the interest. In the case of a will, the perpetuities period begins
to run on the date of the testator's death, and measuring lives used to show the validity of an interest
must be in existence at that time. Here, the interest given to any of the son's children who are born
during the friend's lifetime and who survive the friend must vest, if at all, on the death of the friend (who
is a life in being at the time of the owner's death). Thus, this interest will vest, if it does vest, within 21
years after the friend's life, and is therefore not in violation of the Rule Against Perpetuities. (A) is
therefore incorrect; if one or more of the son's children is alive at the time of the friend's death, the
friend's heirs will get nothing because their fee simple will be divested. (B) incorrectly characterizes the
interest of the son's children as a possibility of reverter. A possibility of reverter is the future interest left
in a grantor who conveys a fee simple determinable estate. Although under different circumstances the
son's children could acquire a possibility of reverter as heirs of the grantor (the owner), their interest in
this case was conveyed directly to them in the owner's will. (C) is incorrect because the interest of the
,son's children is not vested. Their interest is a shifting executory interest rather than a remainder
because it divests the fee sim
A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a driveway. The driver did not
see the pedestrian because her neighbor's bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian
was seriously injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included
the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring homeowners to
provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that
the driver was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction
has adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability.
Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?
A The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.
B Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90% - ✔✔The city is liable to the
pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.
A city council passed an ordinance providing: "No person may contribute more than $100 annually to
any group organized for the specific purpose of supporting or opposing referenda to be voted on by the
city electorate or regularly engaging in such activities."
If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on the constitutionality of this
ordinance?
A Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing mechanism has been provided for.
C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling such contributions.
D Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a nonjusticiable matter. - ✔✔Strike
it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
,A state Occupational Health and Safety Board recently issued regulations valid under its statutory
mandate requiring that all employers in the state provide ionizing air purification systems for all
employee work areas. These regulations replaced previous guidelines for employee air quality that were
generally not mandatory and did not specify the method of air purification used.
The requirements regarding air purification systems are likely to be unconstitutional as applied to which
of the following employers?
A A wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation with seven retail outlets within the state.
B The state supreme court, which recently completed construction of its new courthouse with a non-
ionizing air purification system which the builder is contractually bound to maintain for the next three
years.
C A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the state capitol building.
D A - ✔✔A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the state capitol building.
The armed forces recruiting center is least likely to be required to comply with the new state law. A state
has no power to regulate activities of the federal government unless Congress consents to the
regulation. Accordingly, agents and instrumentalities of the federal government, such as the armed
forces recruiting center, are immune from state regulations relating to performance of their federal
functions. (D) is incorrect because, although the recreation center's construction was funded by a loan
from the Veterans Administration, the center itself is privately operated and funded by donations. As a
result, the center has only a tenuous connection with the federal government, so that it cannot claim the
immunity afforded to a federal agency or instrumentality. Accordingly, in the same sense as is employed
in the federal tax immunity cases, the agency does not "stand in the shoes" of the federal government.
Thus, the application of the state regulations to the recreation center would not present constitutional
problems. (A) apparently refers to the principle that the power to regulate foreign commerce lies
exclusively with Congress. However, the mere fact that the regulated outlets are part of a wholly owned
subsidiary of a Japanese corporation does not mean that the state regulations affect foreign commerce.
The subsidiary's activities are conducted entirely within the state, and do not touch upon foreign
commerce in any way. Therefore, application of the regulations so as to require the subsidiary to provide
an ionizing air purification system for its employee work areas will not constitute a proscribed state
regulation of foreign commerce. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B) is more troubling, but does not offer as
compelling a
A plaintiff read of the success of a box-office hit movie about aardvarks in various entertainment
journals. The movie was enormously popular among young children, and cartoon figures from the movie
, began appearing on T-shirts, soft drink mugs, and other novelties. The plaintiff filed suit against the
studio alleging that the production company unlawfully used his ideas for the movie. The studio
admitted that it had received a clay model of a cartoon animal from the plaintiff, but denied that the
model had any substantial similarity to the now-famous aardvarks. The studio had returned the model to
the plaintiff, but he had destroyed it.
For the plaintiff to testify at trial as to the appearance of the model, which of the following is true?
A The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has personal knowledge of it.
B The plaintiff must show that the destruction of the model was not commi - ✔✔The plaintiff can testify
as to the appearance of the model because he has personal knowledge of it.
The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has personal knowledge of it. A
witness must be competent to testify, which includes the requirement that he have personal knowledge
of the matter he is to testify about. Here, the plaintiff has personal knowledge of the model, as he is the
person that had submitted it to the studio. Thus, he is competent to testify as to the model's
appearance. (B) is wrong because it states the foundation requirement for the admissibility of secondary
evidence under the best evidence rule (also called the original document rule), which does not apply
under these circumstances. The best evidence rule covers writings and recordings, which are defined as
"letters, words, numbers, or their equivalent, set down in any form." A clay model clearly does not fit
within that definition. Similarly, (C) states an acceptable form of secondary evidence under the best
evidence rule, which does not apply here. Note, however, that under the Federal Rules (unlike most
states), there are no degrees of secondary evidence. Therefore, this choice would be wrong even if the
best evidence rule were applicable, because the plaintiff would not be limited to photographic evidence.
(D) is wrong because it incorrectly assumes that notice must be given. This type of notice is not a
prerequisite for the plaintiff's testimony even had the best evidence rule been applicable.
While at a party, the defendant ran into an acquaintance. The acquaintance proceeded to ridicule the
defendant about his looks. After an hour of verbal abuse by the acquaintance, the defendant suddenly
took a champagne bottle that was on a nearby table and struck the acquaintance over the head, killing
him instantly. At his arrest, the defendant told the police that voices inside his head told him to shut the
acquaintance up, permanently.
The defendant was tried in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code test for insanity. At trial, the
defendant's lawyer introduced psychiatric testimony indicating that the defendant suffered from a
mental illness.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hov. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $8.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
