Pass The District Of Columbia Bar Exam

District Of Columbia MBE Practice Test Questions

Pass the District Of Columbia bar exam with confidence! Start with our free District Of Columbia Multistate Bar Exam practice questions below. We’ve selected 15 District Of Columbia MBE free sample questions among the 7 categories of law tested on the District Of Columbia Multistate Bar Examination: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, Torts. Be sure to review your questions and answers with explanations at the end of the test!

You can then take the District Of Columbia MBE free trial practice test again or register and gain access to all of our updated District Of Columbia Multistate Bar Exam Practice Exams in Study Mode and Timed Exam Mode using our proprietary user-friendly interface, plus access over 1,000 flashcards with legal terms and definitions and get reliable email support from our Test Prep Educator and Attorney Elliot Gold.

OUR BAR EXAM PREP TEST INCLUDES...

1,000 MBE Test Questions - 5 Tests
Take Unlimited MBE Tests - 1 Year
Study Mode & Timed Exam Mode
Pause Exams & Continue Later
Answers with Detailed Explanations

Covering All 7 Areas of Law - 2025
Bar Exam Definition Flashcards
Master 200 Legal Issues
Reliable Support From an Attorney
Study On-The-Go On All Devices

Multistate Bar Exam Prep | $49.95

Can't find the state test you are looking for?

We have practice tests available for all 50 states. Simply click on the button to see our full list of state specific MBE prep test questions that are available.

Find Your State's Tests

Topic	Correct Answers
Not categorized	0 / 10
Civil Procedure	0 / 10
Constitutional Law	0 / 10
Contracts	0 / 10
Criminal Law & Procedure	0 / 10
Evidence	0 / 10
Real Property	0 / 10
Torts	0 / 10

Bar Exam Prep Test Free Trial

Question: 10 - 11
Chase is a deadbeat parent, who has evaded paying child support for years. He resides in South Dakota, though he previously resided in North Dakota, where he had lived with his ex-wife Naomi. Chase is aware that Naomi is trying to locate him to serve him with a suit over missed child support payments, so he flees to a Wyoming motel. Naomi has tracked Chase to the motel and she has him personally served there pursuant to a North Dakota statute permitting out of state service on current or prior residents evading child support. Chase remains in Wyoming and hires a lawyer in North Dakota to move to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The attorney argues that the service did not enable jurisdiction over Chase, but offers no additional arguments.
- Will the Court grant the motion?
  
  a) Yes, since Chase was not served in North Dakota. The statute is unconstitutional.
  b) Yes, but only because his temporary domicile was in Wyoming.
  c) No. Personal jurisdiction was properly obtained.
  d) No. Special circumstances for voiding out of state service were not demonstrated.
  
  Answer: a) Chase was domiciled and resided in South Dakota. While the Supreme Court has held that “domicile in the state is alone sufficient to bring an absent defendant within the reach of the state’s jurisdiction for purposes of a personal judgment…”, as long as there is sufficient notice of the proceedings. [Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457 (1940)], Chase was no longer a resident nor domiciled in North Dakota.
  
  If Naomi brought her case in federal court and personal jurisdiction was obtained, would the result differ?
  
  a) No. The federal court would merely rely upon state law.
  b) Yes. The Court would dismiss the case on alternative grounds.
  c) Yes. Naomi would need to demonstrate Chase exacted reciprocal duties from North Dakota.
  d) None of the above.
  
  Answer: b) The federal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear cases involving family/domestic relations law, such as child support, divorce, alimony, etc, so they would dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Milo is out partying with some old college friends. They stay in the bar until closing time. Milo is extremely intoxicated. The bartender offers to call Milo a taxi, but Milo refuses and gets into his car to drive home. Several blocks later, Milo is pulled over by the police. Based upon the officer’s observations of signs of intoxication, he asks Milo to step out of his vehicle. Milo stumbles out of the vehicle and falls to the pavement. The officer helps Milo up and asks Milo if he consumed any alcohol. Milo denies it. Milo is given a sobriety test and fails. He refuses to take a breathalyzer. Milo is arrested based upon suspicion of drunken driving. Since Milo refused a breathalyzer, Milo’s driver’s license is suspended for 12 months and a post-suspension hearing affirms the suspension. Based upon a procedural issue, no charges are brought against Milo, but the suspension remains. Does the suspension run afoul of Milo’s Due Process rights?
- a) Yes. However, the general public’s need for safe roads meets the strict scrutiny and rational relationship tests.
- b) Yes. Since no charges were brought against Milo, his license was improperly suspended.
- c) No. A post-suspension hearing was conducted.
- d) No. Statutes permitting automatic suspension of a driver’s license are constitutional per se.
Answer: c) While a hearing is generally required before a state can suspend an individual’s driver’s license, the Supreme Court has held that a state’s suspension of a driver’s license does not violate Due Process, so long as a post-suspension hearing is conducted. In the instant case, since a post-suspension hearing was conducted, there was no violation of Milo’s right to Due Process.

Answer: c) While a hearing is generally required before a state can suspend an individual’s driver’s license, the Supreme Court has held that a state’s suspension of a driver’s license does not violate Due Process, so long as a post-suspension hearing is conducted. In the instant case, since a post-suspension hearing was conducted, there was no violation of Milo’s right to Due Process.
Question: 14 - 15
Maridale, an adult male, was raised in the jungles of Zimbabgo and lived in caves. He has no access to modern conveniences like electric or automobiles and he has never used any fuels. He is being discriminated against by government officials and applies to move to the United States as part of a refugee program. He is brought to the U.S. and is asked to take English classes. While at a class inside a school, he ventures outside and finds the local zoo and wanders inside. He had never seen a zoo before and does not understand the concept. He decides to free the animals and walks to the bull’s den and opens up the gate. He then continues to walk through the zoo. The bull eventually gets out of the enclosure. An unsuspecting zoo visitor sees the unrestrained bull and screams. The bull is startled and charges towards the visitor and impales her with his horns. The zoo visitor sues the zoo and Maridale.
- If Maridale’s attorney argues that Maridale had never seen a zoo before and did not know the dangers of letting a bull free, will the attorney’s argument succeed?
  
  a) No. Maridale should have known the dangers of letting the bull loose.
  b) No. Maridale acted in a reckless manner.
  c) Yes. Maridale is mentally impaired.
  d) All of the above.
  
  Answer: a) Maridale is presumed to possess the same knowledge that the average member of the community would possess. The average community member should know that a bull on the loose is extremely dangerous and could cause serious injury or death.
  
  If instead of being raised in the jungle, Maridale lived in a regular community, but was mentally handicapped, which prevented him from understanding the consequences of his actions, would the result change?
  
  a) Yes. Individual mental ability will enable Maridale to avoid liability.
  b) Yes. Maridale is judged against similarly situated individuals.
  c) No. Maridale is presumed to know the consequences of his actions.
  d) None of the above.
  
  Answer: c) Maridale’s individual mental insufficiencies do not matter. He must act as a reasonable person would. Individual mental handicaps are not considered when using the reasonable person standard.
While Junior is out trapping in the Alaskan forest, his neighbor Franco trespasses onto Junior’s land and cuts down 500 of Junior’s corn stalks, which Franco’s wife will use to make corn bread for the county fair. Franco takes 250 of the stalks home and leaves the remaining stalks next to Junior’s barn. Franco plans to come back later at night to pick up the rest. Junior comes home and finds the 250 stalks and is baffled. He moves them onto his flat bed trailer and places a tarp over them. When Franco returns to Junior’s property later that night, he learns that the stalks were moved from the area where he left them next to the barn. He spends a half hour looking for them and finally finds them on Junior’s trailer. He takes off the tarp and brings the stalks home. Junior reviews his video surveillance system and observes Franco cutting down the stalks and his subsequent actions. He contacts the police, who charge Franco with larceny of 500 stalks. Franco objects to the charges. Has Franco committed larceny?
- a) Yes. He is guilty of larceny of 500 stalks.
- b) No. He has not committed larceny, only trespass.
- c) Yes. He is guilty of larceny.
- d) No. He is guilty of common law conversion.
Answer: c) Larceny cannot arise from taking fixtures detached from the property before it comes into possession of its owner. However, since Franco took possession of the 250 stalks that Junior made his own personal property, larceny of the those stalks was committed.

Answer: c) Larceny cannot arise from taking fixtures detached from the property before it comes into possession of its owner. However, since Franco took possession of the 250 stalks that Junior made his own personal property, larceny of the those stalks was committed.
Summer is an avid fan of Heschitt paintings. She finds one in poor condition at an art sale. She purchases it for $22,000, but knows that it is worth $55,000 in perfect condition. Summer takes the painting to Cooper’s Painting Restoration Company, which specializes in restorations of old paintings. After negotiations, Cooper agrees to restore the painting for $18,000. After working on the painting for 2 weeks, and spending $15,000 on materials, Cooper tells Summer that they will need to charge $12,000 more to make a profit. Summer verbally agrees to the additional cost, since she does not want to bring the painting to an inferior restorer. Cooper completes the painting, but Summer refuses to pay anything more than $18,000. Can Cooper recover the additional $12,000?
- a) Yes. There was mutual assent to the new contract terms, so the additional cost is due.
- b) No, unless it is in writing.
- c) No, based upon a consideration issue.
- d) Yes, since Summer will still realize a profit if she sells the painting.
Answer: c) The change is not enforceable. Cooper was under a preexisting duty to restore the painting and offered no additional consideration in exchange for the additional cost.

Answer: c) The change is not enforceable. Cooper was under a preexisting duty to restore the painting and offered no additional consideration in exchange for the additional cost.
Question: 2 - 3
Thomas plans on bombing the City marathon the next day with his brother James, because he does not like the way his family is treated. They go into a neighborhood store and discuss the plan with storekeeper Antoine. Antoine is upset with the government for deporting his son and tells the brothers that they should use pressure cooker bombs and sells them the items they need. Antoine charges a higher than usual price because of the circumstances. The brothers successfully execute their plan, the bomb explodes and deaths and injuries result. They return to Antoine’s store and hide out in the basement while the police search the area. The police arrest the brothers, along with Antoine.
- What charges are warranted against Antoine?
  I. Accessory Before the Fact
  II. Accessory After the Fact
  III. Battery
  IV. Murder
  V. Conspiracy
  
  a) I only.
  b) I, II, III and IV.
  c) II, III, IV and V.
  d) I and II.
  
  Answer: c) Accessory before the fact existed in common law, but not in modern statutes. All parties to the crime can be charged for the underlying offenses, so Antoine, as an accomplice to the crimes can be found guilty of battery and murder, since he intentionally assisted and encouraged the commission of the crimes. He is also guilty of Accessory after the Fact, for helping the brothers evade arrest. A conspiracy is also present due to the agreement to commit the bombing.
  
  Assume that after selling the items to the brothers, Antoine had a change of heart and searches for the brothers, finds them putting the bombs together in their apartment and tells them that it is not a good idea, because they will get caught and innocent people will get hurt. Antoine takes back the items, though the brothers go buy substitute materials and successfully execute their plan anyway. Will Antoine’s behavior change his fate?
  
  a) No, he encouraged the commission of the crimes.
  b) No, his intent cannot be repudiated, since the crimes were committed.
  c) Yes, he adequately withdrew as an accomplice.
  d) Yes, he can utilize the liability exclusion of a necessary party that was not provided for in the statutes.
  
  Answer: c) Antoine repudiated his encouragement of the crimes and neutralized his assistance and rendered it ineffective by taking back the materials he sold to the brothers before the crime was committed. Said steps have been found to be sufficient, without having to contact the authorities.
Boris is walking on a County street. His doctor had recommended that he stay in bed. He turns ill and stumbles along the sidewalk. He comes to a sidewalk vault that is flush with the sidewalk, but not in a hazardous condition. Boris misses a step and trips over the vault. He falls to the ground and breaks his left ankle and hip. He sues the owner of the vault for negligently maintaining it. A settlement offer is made to Boris by the vault owner’s insurance company, but Boris rejects it and wants more. At trial, the vault owner’s defense is that Boris was negligent and the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The vault owner calls a man who saw the accident to the stand. The vault owner’s attorney wants to question the witness about what he observed. The attorney asks the witness to describe how Boris looked. The witness states that Boris looked old, ill and looked like he suffered from AIDS. Boris’ attorney objects. Will the Court overrule the objection and allow the witness’ answer to stand?
- a) Yes, since the witness can testify to a personal observation.
- b) Yes. The testimony is based upon the witness’ perception.
- c) The Court will partially overrule the objection, and only allow the testimony pertaining Boris’ age and that he appeared ill.
- d) No. The objection will be sustained.
Answer: c) The lay witness cannot testify as to a specific illness, but can provide his rationally based perception of the witness if it is helpful for a clear understanding of the testimony, but cannot be based upon scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. Thus, the witness is permitted to give an overall impression of what was observed.

Answer: c) The lay witness cannot testify as to a specific illness, but can provide his rationally based perception of the witness if it is helpful for a clear understanding of the testimony, but cannot be based upon scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. Thus, the witness is permitted to give an overall impression of what was observed.
Question: 8 - 9
Longtime friends Cary and Brutus are shopping in a clothing store. They are talking about the boxing match they were watching the night before and begin to playfully box with each other in a nonviolent manner by pretending to contact each other, but do not make any contact. Bebe walks by the pair, but does not notice them. As Cary tries to punch Brutus, he moves out of the way and Bebe is lightly struck in the head causing a head injury.
- Which of the following statements are true?
  I. Cary has committed an assault against Brutus.
  II. Cary has committed an assault against Bebe.
  III. Cary has committed a battery against Bebe.
  IV. Cary has not committed an intentional tort.
  
  a) IV only.
  b) II and III.
  c) I and II.
  d) III only.
  
  Answer: d) A battery was committed against Bebe. A battery requires an offensive or harmful contact, intent and causation. Even though Cary did not intend to strike Bebe, if the intention to commit an intentional tort against Brutus unintentionally resulted in a tort against a third person, Bebe, a battery against the third person results, based upon the transferred intent doctrine. Apprehension of the imminent contact is not necessary. However, no assault has occurred. An assault requires a reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact to the person, intent to bring about such apprehension and causation. Brutus knew that the fighting was playful and non-contact, so there was no assault. Bebe did not even notice Cary and Brutus, so there was never any apprehension on her part.
  
  If Cary did not make contact with Bebe, would an intentional tort still have been committed by Cary?
  
  a) No. The requisite volition is not present.
  b) No. There would be no transferred intent.
  c) Yes. Cary intended to swing at Brutus.
  d) None of the above.
  
  Answer: b) No battery would result to Bebe based upon transferred intent and no assault since Bebe did not even notice Cary and Brutus, so there was never any apprehension on her part.
Herb is selling his home in the northwest to retire in the south. He has a large house filled with antique furniture, but he cannot take it all to his smaller home in the south. The buyer of the home wants it vacant. Herb calls his nephew Joe and tells Joe that if he moves the furniture out of his home, he can have it. Joe agrees, so he rents a truck and drives 300 miles to his uncle’s home and places the furniture into the truck. Before Joe departs, Uncle Herb decides that he wants to keep the furniture. Was a valid contract formed?
I. Yes. There was a bargained for exchange.
II. Yes. Herb made a valid unilateral contract offer.
III. No. Herb merely stated a condition for Joe to receive a gift.
- a) I only.
- b) III only.
- c) I and II.
- d) II only.
Answer: a) When Joe agreed to come to Herb’s house, a bargained for exchange was agreed to. Herb was not merely giving Joe a gift, since he needed the furniture removed and Joe was required to rent a truck and travel a long distance to do so. Thus, Herb was bargaining for consideration, which was Joe’s agreement to come take the furniture out of Herb’s home. Herb did not make a unilateral contract offer, which would require performance in order to accept. Joe did not need to completely perform the contract in order to accept.

Answer: a) When Joe agreed to come to Herb’s house, a bargained for exchange was agreed to. Herb was not merely giving Joe a gift, since he needed the furniture removed and Joe was required to rent a truck and travel a long distance to do so. Thus, Herb was bargaining for consideration, which was Joe’s agreement to come take the furniture out of Herb’s home. Herb did not make a unilateral contract offer, which would require performance in order to accept. Joe did not need to completely perform the contract in order to accept.
Question: 6 - 7
Axton and Valentino are lifelong friends. Axton has had a successful career mining gold from Tombstone, Axton’s 20 acre property, which also has a 4 bedroom home. Valentino has always struggled to make a living. Feeling bad for Valentino, Axton leaves his 20 acre property to Valentino in his will for the life of Valentino and then to Axton’s heirs. When Axton dies, his heirs seek to enjoin Valentino from using the property to mine gold so Valentino does not exploit the natural resources.
- Will the heirs be able to succeed under the Doctrine of Waste?
  
  a) Yes. A life tenant cannot exploit natural resources on a property on which the tenant has a life estate.
  b) Yes. The property is not solely suitable for mining; Valentino can still live on it.
  c) No. Valentino will be permitted to mine.
  d) Both a) and b).
  
  Answer: c) Since a life estate was left to Valentino, and prior to the grant, the land was used in exploitation of the gold, Axton most likely wanted Valentino to mine for gold.
  
  If Axton’s heirs permit Valentino to mine, and the jurisdiction in which the land is located does not follow the Open Mines Doctrine, what are Valentino’s rights?
  
  a) Valentino can only mine on land that was already opened up for mining.
  b) Valentino can only mine if necessary to obtain funds for repair and maintenance of the property.
  c) Valentino can mine without restriction and can strip the land of all gold.
  d) Valentino can mine any part of the property, but there is a restriction on the amount of gold he can remove.
  
  Answer: d) There is a limit with respect to the amount of gold that life estate holder Valentino can mine. The exploitation must be reasonable. The Open Mines Doctrine would restrict Valentino to mining the mines that were previously open before Valentino was left the life estate. Since the doctrine is not in effect, Valentino can mine any part of the property and is not limited to open mines. Since the land was already exploited for gold, Valentino is not restricted to mining solely to pay for repair and maintenance of the property.

Pass The District Of Columbia Bar Exam

District Of Columbia MBE Practice Test Questions

OUR BAR EXAM PREP TEST INCLUDES...

Can't find the state test you are looking for?

Quiz-summary

Information

Results

Your Score

Score breakdown by Topic

Great Job!

We're sorry...

Bar Exam Prep Test Free Trial

0

Question: 10 - 11

Question: 14 - 15

Question: 2 - 3

Question: 8 - 9

Question: 6 - 7

Already a Member?