MBE Multistate Bar Examination EXAM AND
PRACTICE EXAM NEWEST ACTUAL EXAM
COMPLETE 700 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT
DETAILED ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+
A State A citizen filed a civil action against a State B citizen in a State
B state court. The action arose from events that took place in State C.
State C has only one federal district court (the District of State C).
State B has two, the Northern District of State B and the Southern
District of State B. The State B citizen resides in the Southern District
of State B, while the state court action filed by the State A citizen is
pending in a court located in the Northern District of State B.
If the State B citizen wishes to remove the action to federal district
court, in which federal district should the State B citizen file a notice
of removal? - CORRECT ANSWER The Northern District of State B
only.
A child was severely injured at an amusement park when she was
ejected from a ride that went slightly off its track. The ride
malfunctioned as a result of a manufacturer's defect, but had the child
been properly secured in the ride's seatbelt by one of the ride
operators, she would not have been injured. The child was unable to
identify which ride operator improperly buckled her in.
In the child's suit against the amusement park, who will win? -
CORRECT ANSWER The child will win, because a ride operator failed
to use reasonable care in securing the seatbelt.
A yoga instructor entered into a valid written contract with a builder to
construct a large yoga studio on some land she owned outside of
town. She agreed to pay the builder $150,000 upon completion of the
job. As work progressed, and due to substantial increased building
,costs, the yoga instructor and the builder orally agreed that the builder
may omit installation of the koi pond planned for the atrium (saving the
builder $1,000), and that the contract price would be reduced to
$149,500. The builder completed the job (minus the koi pond) in
reliance thereon.
What would most courts likely hold this subsequent oral agreement to
be? - CORRECT ANSWER An enforceable contract.
A landowner devised her home "to my daughter for life, then to the
eldest survivor of her two children, my grandson and granddaughter,
for life, remainder to the eldest surviving offspring of the two
grandchildren who is alive at the death of the last life tenant." After
the landowner's death, the daughter lived in the family home for 15
years. Upon the daughter's death, both of her children were alive, so
the home passed to the grandson, the eldest. He lived in the house for
three years, and then conveyed it to the city historical society, which
converted it into its headquarters and museum. Eight years later, the
grandson died. At the time of his death, he was survived by his widow,
his two sons, the granddaughter, and the granddaughter's daughter,
who was the eldest of the niece and nephews. Four years after the
grandson's death, the granddaughter's daughter brought an action for
ejectment and to quiet title again - CORRECT ANSWER For the
granddaughter's daughter, because the society has not been in
adverse possession for the requisite period.
A man was tried in state court for possession of heroin. The
prosecution offered in evidence five rolled-up toy balloons containing
heroin, which police officers had found on a table in the man's
apartment. At a hearing on the defense's motion to suppress,
testimony was presented that established that the police had put the
apartment under surveillance and had watched a police informant go
to the door of the apartment, hand four balloons of heroin to the man,
and leave. The police had then knocked on the apartment door,
identified themselves as police officers, and demanded entrance.
Having heard nothing for 30 seconds, the police had then broken down
the door and entered the apartment, discovering the heroin. The police
had intended to arrest the man for the purchase of heroin, a felony.
,When they had gotten inside the apartment, they discovered that the
man had left by a back exit. He was later arrested at the near -
CORRECT ANSWER Reverse the conviction on the ground that the
man's Fourth Amendment rights (as applied to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment) have been violated.
A passenger in a vehicle that was struck by another car sued the other
car's driver, claiming that the collision severely injured his right leg.
The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's leg injury resulted from an
earlier, unrelated industrial accident. At trial, after having testified to
his pain from the injury allegedly caused by the defendant, the plaintiff
called as a witness the physician who treated him. The physician
offers to testify that the plaintiff told him that his earlier leg problems
had completely cleared up before the alleged injury caused by the
defendant.
If the defendant objects to the admission of this testimony, how
should the court proceed? - CORRECT ANSWER B Admit it, as a
statement for purposes of diagnosis and treatment.
In a tort case involving personal injury, a hospital orderly is called to
the stand. There is some dispute as to whether the plaintiff ever lost
consciousness. The plaintiff's attorney wishes to have the orderly,
who was working in the hospital emergency room when the plaintiff
was brought in, testify that the plaintiff was unconscious at the time
she entered the emergency room.
Would such testimony be admissible over the defendant's objection? -
CORRECT ANSWER Yes, because it is proper opinion testimony by a
lay witness.
A state law provides that all persons who have been residents of the
state for more than three years shall be entitled to free tuition at the
state's main university. It further provides that persons who have
resided in the state for three years or less shall pay the nonresident
tuition rate, which is significantly higher. A student at the state's
university who had been a state resident for less than three years filed
a class action in federal court on behalf of himself and other similarly
, situated university students, seeking a declaration that the state
statute is unconstitutional. When the case came to trial, the student
had been a resident of the state for more than three years and was no
longer required to pay tuition. By that time, a number of amicus curiae
briefs had been filed in the case, some supporting and some opposing
the student's position. Nevertheless, the state moved to dismiss the
case as moot.
Sh - CORRECT ANSWER No, because there is a live controversy.
A grandfather told his granddaughter that she could have his house
because he was moving to a retirement home, and entered into a valid
contract to convey it to her. He promised her that he would have
another wing added to the house in the back before turning it over to
her, and entered into a written contract with a builder to construct the
addition for his granddaughter. Before the grandfather had entered
into the contract with the builder, the granddaughter had paid $5,000
for a 60-day option to purchase another house because she was not
sure she would like the addition. However, when her grandfather
showed her the plans for his house prepared by the builder, she liked it
very much and decided to let her option to purchase the other house
lapse. Shortly thereafter, the local zoning authority increased the
minimum lot line setbacks, making it impracticable to put the addition
on the back of the house. The builder o - CORRECT ANSWER The
builder, because he may raise all defenses that he had against the
grandfather against the granddaughter.
A student started a small fire in a trash can in the men's room at his
university. His plan was to set off the school's fire alarms so that he
could break into the computer lab and steal a laptop computer while
the building was being evacuated. The student was stopped after he
had set the fire and was attempting to smash in the glass on the
computer lab door. The fire was quickly extinguished and no serious
damage was done to the building by the fire beyond some charring on
the walls in one stall of the men's room. A statute in the jurisdiction
extends the crime of arson to buildings other than dwellings.
