Multistate Bar Exam Prep - 2024
Free MBE Practice Test Questions
Let us help you pass the bar exam! Start with our free Multistate Bar Exam practice questions below. We’ve selected 15 MBE free sample questions among the 7 categories of law tested on the 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 MBE free trial practice test again or register and gain access to all of our updated 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 - 2024
- Bar Exam Definition Flashcards
- Master 200 Legal Issues
- Reliable Support From an Attorney
- Study On-The-Go On All Devices
Quiz-summary
0 of 10 questions completed
Questions:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Information
The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) is a six-hour, 200 question multiple-choice examination covering civil procedure, contracts, torts, constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, and real property. Each exam is carefully crafted to meet or exceed the difficulty level of the actual Multistate Bar Exam.
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading...
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to finish following quiz, to start this quiz:
Results
0 of 10 questions answered correctly
Time has expired!
Your Score
You have reached 0 of 0 points, (0)
Score breakdown by Topic
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 |
Great Job!
Congratulations, now is time to take the real tests. Our Bar Exam prep comes with 1,000 MBE test questions updated with the latest 2019 rules and regulations and have detailed answer explanations unavailable anywhere else, plus flashcards and dependable support from Elliot Gold - Licensed Instructor & Attorney. We want you to pass!
We're sorry...
Unfortunately, you did not pass, but do not give up! You now need to take full length exams to better measure your knowledge. Our Bar Exam prep comes with 1,000 MBE test questions updated with the latest 2019 rules and regulations and have detailed answer explanations unavailable anywhere else, plus flashcards and dependable support from Elliot Gold - Licensed Instructor & Attorney. We want you to pass!
Bar Exam Prep Test Free Trial
0
Answered Questions
/ 10-
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.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: 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.
-
Question ##: What charges are warranted against Antoine?
I. Accessory Before the Fact
II. Accessory After the Fact
III. Battery
IV. Murder
V. Conspiracy
Question ##:
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.Question ##: 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?
Question ##:
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?
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.
-
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?
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: 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.
-
Question ##: Will the heirs be able to succeed under the Doctrine of Waste?
Question ##:
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.Question ##: 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?
Question ##:
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.
-
-
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.
-
Question ##: 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.Question ##:
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.Question ##: If Cary did not make contact with Bebe, would an intentional tort still have been committed by Cary?
Question ##:
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.
-
-
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.
-
Question ##: Will the Court grant the motion?
Question ##:
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.Question ##: If Naomi brought her case in federal court and personal jurisdiction was obtained, would the result differ?
Question ##:
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.
-
-
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?
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?
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: 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.
-
Question ##: 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?
Question ##:
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.Question ##: 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?
Question ##:
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.
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10