Exam (elaborations)
BARBRI MBE Exam Questions and Answers 2025,
- Course
- Institution
BARBRI MBE Exam Questions and Answers 2025
[Show more]
Content preview
BARBRI MBE Exam Questions and Answers 2025A 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. - ANSWERD 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% - ANSWERThe
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. - ANSWERStrike 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 - ANSWERA 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 -
ANSWERThe 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.
Which of the following, if proved by the defense, would most likely relieve the defendant
of criminal responsibility?
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 Americannursingaassociation. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $24.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
66579 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now