I85PREP
⌘ K
MD Bar study materials
MD Bar study resources

MD Bar practice questions

One question at a time. Build your MD Bar understanding.

First 50 of 200 questions. Each one lists the choices, the correct answer, and an explanation. The checker at the top of this page saves progress in this browser when it is available.

Continue in the practice tool above to load more questions, 50 at a time.

Question 1Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of contract in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A, and the defendant is a citizen of State B. The amount in controversy is $100,000. During the litigation, the plaintiff moved to State B. The defendant argues that the court no longer has diversity jurisdiction. How should the court rule on the defendant's argument?

  1. The court retains jurisdiction because diversity is determined at the time the complaint is filed. Correct answer.
  2. The court loses jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is insufficient after the move.
  3. The court loses jurisdiction because the plaintiff is now a citizen of the same state as the defendant.
  4. The court retains jurisdiction only if the plaintiff intends to remain in State B permanently.

Explanation

Diversity jurisdiction is assessed at the time the action is commenced, and subsequent changes in a party's citizenship do not destroy jurisdiction that properly existed when the complaint was filed. Because the plaintiff was a citizen of State A and the defendant of State B at filing, the requirement was satisfied. The later move is irrelevant to the court's continuing jurisdiction.

Question 2Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with burglary. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had previously been convicted of burglary twice. The defendant objects. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, which statement best describes the admissibility of the prior convictions?

  1. They are admissible to show the defendant's propensity to commit burglary.
  2. They are admissible only if the defendant testifies and the court finds probative value substantially outweighs prejudice. Correct answer.
  3. They are always inadmissible because prior bad acts cannot be used in a criminal trial.
  4. They are admissible as substantive evidence of the charged offense regardless of whether the defendant testifies.

Explanation

Under FRE 404(b), prior convictions are not admissible to prove propensity, but they may be used for impeachment under FRE 609 if the defendant testifies. For a witness, a prior felony conviction is admissible subject to the Rule 403 balancing, and for a defendant-witness the probative value must substantially outweigh prejudice. Thus admissibility depends on the defendant taking the stand and the court's balancing.

Question 3Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A property owner granted a neighbor an easement by express grant 'for so long as the neighbor maintains a fence along the boundary.' The neighbor built the fence and used the easement for ten years. The neighbor then removed the fence but continued to cross the property. The owner sued to terminate the easement. What is the likely result?

  1. The easement terminated automatically when the fence was removed because it was subject to a condition subsequent. Correct answer.
  2. The easement continues because it has been used for ten years.
  3. The easement became a fee simple because of the long use.
  4. The easement continues unless the owner files a quiet title action.

Explanation

An easement may be subject to a condition, and when the condition fails the easement terminates automatically if the parties intended a condition subsequent. The language 'for so long as' signals a durational limit tied to fence maintenance, so removal of the fence ends the easement. Continued use after termination is trespass, not an easement right.

Question 4Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A state enacted a law requiring all employers to provide paid family leave. A federal law provides a tax credit to employers that offer paid family leave but does not require it. An employer challenges the state law as preempted. Which doctrine is most relevant to the analysis?

  1. No preemption, because the federal law is merely a tax incentive and does not regulate leave. Correct answer.
  2. Express preemption, because the federal statute contains a clause displacing state law.
  3. Conflict preemption, because compliance with both laws is impossible.
  4. Field preemption, because federal tax law occupies the entire field of family leave.

Explanation

Preemption requires either an express statement, a regulatory scheme so pervasive that it occupies the field, or a direct conflict making compliance with both impossible. A federal tax credit that encourages but does not require paid leave neither occupies the field nor conflicts with a state mandate. State law therefore may impose a stricter requirement.

Question 5Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for negligence in federal court. The plaintiff served interrogatories on the defendant. The defendant responded but withheld certain documents on the ground of attorney-client privilege. The plaintiff moves to compel. What is the proper procedure for the defendant to assert privilege?

  1. The defendant must file the documents under seal with the court.
  2. The defendant may simply state that the documents are privileged without further detail.
  3. The defendant must obtain a protective order before withholding any document.
  4. The defendant must produce a privilege log describing the withheld documents. Correct answer.

Explanation

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party withholding information on privilege grounds must expressly claim the privilege and describe the nature of the withheld documents so that other parties can assess the claim. This is typically done through a privilege log. A blanket assertion without description is insufficient.

Question 6Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A testator executed a will leaving her estate to her two children equally. She later executed a codicil that revoked the gift to one child and gave that share to a charity. The codicil was properly executed. After the testator's death, the disinherited child challenges the codicil, arguing that a codicil cannot revoke a will. How should the court rule?

  1. The codicil is invalid because it was not witnessed by the disinherited child.
  2. The codicil is invalid because only a full will can revoke a prior will.
  3. The codicil is valid only if the charity is a residuary beneficiary.
  4. The codicil is valid because a codicil may revoke or modify provisions of a prior will. Correct answer.

Explanation

A codicil is a testamentary instrument that supplements or modifies an existing will and, if executed with the same formalities, may revoke or alter specific provisions. The testator may disinherit a child through a valid codicil. No notice to the child is required.

Question 7Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with robbery. The prosecution offered evidence that the defendant fled from police shortly after the robbery. The defendant argues the flight evidence is inadmissible because it is circumstantial. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude the evidence because it does not directly prove the robbery.
  2. Admit the evidence only if the defendant testifies.
  3. Admit the evidence as relevant circumstantial proof of consciousness of guilt. Correct answer.
  4. Exclude the evidence because flight is always too prejudicial.

Explanation

Evidence of flight is relevant circumstantial evidence because it tends to show a consciousness of guilt, which in turn makes it more probable that the defendant committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence is admissible if relevant and not barred by another rule. The court may still weigh prejudice, but flight is not categorically excluded.

Question 8Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of a construction contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to complete work by the deadline. At trial, the plaintiff seeks to introduce a letter from the defendant's project manager stating that the project was delayed because the defendant's crew was reassigned. The defendant objects on hearsay grounds. The project manager is unavailable to testify. Is the letter admissible?

  1. Yes, as a statement against interest by the defendant's agent. Correct answer.
  2. No, because it is an out-of-court statement offered for its truth.
  3. Yes, as a business record.
  4. No, because the project manager is unavailable.

Explanation

A statement against a party's interest is admissible under FRE 804(b)(3) when the declarant is unavailable and the statement was contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest. Here the project manager's statement admits a delay caused by the defendant's own crew, which is against the defendant's interest. The statement is offered for its truth and fits the exception.

Question 9Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A state law requires that all contracts for the sale of goods over $500 be in writing. A buyer and seller orally agreed to the sale of a $2,000 machine. The buyer sent a signed purchase order confirming the agreement. The seller did not respond. Later, the seller refused to deliver. The buyer sued. Which is the buyer's best argument for enforceability?

  1. The oral agreement is enforceable because the machine is a good.
  2. The oral agreement is unenforceable because the price exceeds $500.
  3. The oral agreement is enforceable because the buyer sent a signed writing confirming the contract. Correct answer.
  4. The oral agreement is unenforceable because the seller did not sign any writing.

Explanation

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the statute of frauds for goods over $500 is satisfied between merchants when one merchant sends a signed written confirmation and the other has reason to know its contents and does not object within ten days. The buyer's signed purchase order can satisfy the writing requirement against the seller if both are merchants.

Question 10Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was arrested and interrogated by police for six hours without being advised of his rights. He confessed. At trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce the confession. The defendant moves to suppress. What is the likely result?

  1. The confession is admissible because it was voluntary.
  2. The confession is admissible because the defendant was not formally charged.
  3. The confession is inadmissible only if the defendant requested counsel.
  4. The confession is inadmissible because the defendant was not given Miranda warnings before custodial interrogation. Correct answer.

Explanation

Miranda requires that a suspect be advised of his rights before custodial interrogation. A confession obtained during custodial interrogation without the warnings is generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief. The absence of formal charges does not eliminate the requirement.

Question 11Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A corporation's board of directors approved a merger without disclosing material information to shareholders before a vote. A shareholder sued, alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The board argues the business judgment rule protects the decision. Which standard is most likely to apply?

  1. The business judgment rule, because shareholders approved the merger.
  2. The entire fairness standard, because the board failed to disclose material information to shareholders. Correct answer.
  3. The entire fairness standard, because the board had a conflict of interest.
  4. The business judgment rule, because the board approved the merger.

Explanation

The business judgment rule presumes directors acted on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the corporation's best interest. When directors withhold material information from shareholders before a vote, that presumption is rebutted, and the more demanding entire fairness standard applies. Disclosure failures undermine the informed basis of the decision.

Question 12Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court. The plaintiff served a request for admission asking the defendant to admit that 'the defendant signed the contract on June 1.' The defendant did not respond within 30 days. What is the effect of the failure to respond?

  1. The request is deemed denied, and the plaintiff must move to compel.
  2. The request is waived and the plaintiff must prove the fact at trial.
  3. The defendant is automatically held in contempt.
  4. The matter is deemed admitted unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment. Correct answer.

Explanation

Under Rule 36, a matter is admitted if the party to whom a request for admission is directed fails to respond within the time allowed. The admission is binding unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment. The plaintiff need not prove the admitted fact at trial.

Question 13Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with murder. At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence that the defendant had threatened the victim one week before the killing. The defendant objected, arguing the evidence was inadmissible prior bad act evidence. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude the evidence because it is too remote in time.
  2. Admit the evidence only if the defendant testifies.
  3. Exclude the evidence because it shows propensity for violence.
  4. Admit the evidence because threats may show motive, intent, or malice. Correct answer.

Explanation

Prior bad acts are inadmissible to show propensity, but they may be admitted for other purposes such as motive, intent, or malice. A threat against the victim shortly before the killing is probative of the defendant's state of mind and motive. The court must still conduct a Rule 403 balancing, but the evidence is not categorically excluded.

Question 14Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A tenant rented an apartment under a one-year lease. After six months, the landlord sold the building. The new owner demanded that the tenant vacate, claiming the lease terminated upon sale. The tenant refused. Who is likely correct?

  1. The tenant, because the lease automatically converts to a month-to-month tenancy.
  2. The tenant, because the lease survives the sale and binds the new owner. Correct answer.
  3. The new owner, because the lease terminates upon transfer of title.
  4. The new owner, because the tenant did not consent to the sale.

Explanation

A lease is a conveyance of an estate for years, and the new owner takes the property subject to the existing lease. The sale of the property does not terminate the tenant's leasehold interest. The tenant may remain until the lease expires.

Question 15Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff brought a products liability claim against a manufacturer, alleging a design defect. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of a subsequent design change made after the injury. The manufacturer objects. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, how should the court rule?

  1. Exclude the evidence because it is hearsay.
  2. Admit the evidence to prove the original design was defective.
  3. Exclude the evidence because subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence or defect. Correct answer.
  4. Admit the evidence because it is always relevant to feasibility.

Explanation

Under FRE 407, subsequent remedial measures are inadmissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in a product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction. The evidence may be admitted for other purposes, such as impeachment or proving feasibility, but not to establish the defect itself. The plaintiff's offer is aimed at proving the defect, so it is barred.

Question 16Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with assault. The prosecution sought to introduce a witness's testimony that the defendant said, 'I'm going to get him,' referring to the victim, shortly before the assault. The defendant objects on hearsay grounds. Is the statement admissible?

  1. No, because it was not made under oath.
  2. Yes, as a statement of the defendant's then-existing state of mind. Correct answer.
  3. No, because it is an out-of-court statement.
  4. Yes, as a statement against interest.

Explanation

A statement of the declarant's then-existing state of mind is admissible under FRE 803(3). The defendant's statement of intent shortly before the assault is probative of his intent and motive. It is not excluded merely because it was made out of court.

Question 17Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for defamation after the defendant posted false statements online. The defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiff's complaint alleged the statements were false but did not specify their content. How should the court rule?

  1. Grant the motion because the complaint lacks specific factual allegations. Correct answer.
  2. Deny the motion because the defendant posted the statements.
  3. Deny the motion because the plaintiff alleged the elements of defamation.
  4. Grant the motion because online statements are protected speech.

Explanation

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. Conclusory allegations that statements were false, without identifying their content, do not meet the plausibility standard. The court should therefore grant the motion, though leave to amend may be given.

Question 18Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was convicted of theft after a trial in which the prosecution introduced evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his home. The defendant objected at trial. On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence should have been suppressed. The appellate court finds the search violated the Fourth Amendment. What is the likely remedy?

  1. The conviction is reversed because the evidence was admitted in violation of the exclusionary rule. Correct answer.
  2. The conviction is affirmed because the evidence was reliable.
  3. The conviction is affirmed because the defendant did not move to suppress before trial.
  4. The conviction is reversed only if the defendant can show actual innocence.

Explanation

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is generally excluded from the prosecution's case-in-chief under the exclusionary rule. Because the defendant preserved the objection and the search was unconstitutional, admitting the evidence was error requiring reversal. Reliability of the evidence does not cure the constitutional violation.

Question 19Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A testator's will left a specific bequest of 'my antique car' to a friend. The testator later sold the antique car and bought a new car. The testator died without changing the will. What happens to the bequest?

  1. The bequest is ademption by extinction, and the friend receives nothing. Correct answer.
  2. The friend receives the new car because it replaced the antique car.
  3. The friend receives the value of the antique car from the residue.
  4. The bequest is void and the car passes intestate to the heirs.

Explanation

Ademption by extinction occurs when specifically bequeathed property is no longer part of the estate at death. Because the testator sold the antique car, the specific bequest fails and the beneficiary takes nothing. The new car is not a substitute unless the will provides otherwise.

Question 20Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court under diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A, and the defendant is a corporation incorporated in State B with its principal place of business in State C. The plaintiff seeks $90,000 in damages. Is diversity jurisdiction proper?

  1. Yes, because the parties are citizens of different states.
  2. No, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. Correct answer.
  3. No, because the defendant's principal place of business is in State C.
  4. Yes, because the defendant is incorporated in a different state.

Explanation

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. A corporation is a citizen of its state of incorporation and its principal place of business. Here diversity exists because the plaintiff is from State A and the defendant is from States B and C, but the $90,000 claim exceeds $75,000, so jurisdiction is proper.

Question 21Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with perjury for statements made during a prior trial. The prosecution seeks to introduce the transcript of the defendant's prior testimony. The defendant objects on confrontation grounds. The prior testimony was given under oath, and the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine. Is the transcript admissible?

  1. Yes, because the prior testimony was given under oath with an opportunity to cross-examine. Correct answer.
  2. Yes, because all prior testimony is admissible.
  3. No, because the declarant is the defendant and cannot be cross-examined.
  4. No, because perjury is not a crime involving testimony.

Explanation

Prior testimony may be admissible under the former testimony exception to hearsay when the declarant is unavailable and the party against whom it is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine. Because the defendant testified under oath and was subject to cross-examination, the transcript fits the exception.

Question 22Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for battery. The defendant claimed self-defense. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant had a reputation for violence in the community. Is the evidence admissible?

  1. No, because reputation evidence is never admissible in civil cases.
  2. Yes, as character evidence offered to prove the defendant acted in conformity.
  3. No, because the defendant's character is not at issue.
  4. Yes, if the defendant first introduced evidence of his peaceful character. Correct answer.

Explanation

In a civil case, character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct, but a party may introduce evidence of a pertinent trait when the opposing party has opened the door by offering evidence of the same trait. If the defendant offers evidence of peacefulness, the plaintiff may rebut with reputation evidence for violence. Without such an opening, the evidence is inadmissible.

Question 23Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A state enacted a statute requiring all new residential buildings to install solar panels. A homeowner challenged the law as a taking. The homeowner argued the law reduced property values. Which standard applies to determine whether the regulation is a taking?

  1. The law is a taking if it denies all economically beneficial use of the property. Correct answer.
  2. The law is a taking because it applies to all homeowners.
  3. The law is a taking because solar panels are expensive.
  4. The law is a taking if it reduces property value at all.

Explanation

A regulatory taking generally occurs when a regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land, or when it interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations. A mere reduction in property value is insufficient. The relevant inquiry focuses on the extent of the interference with the owner's use.

Question 24Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with DUI. The prosecution sought to introduce the results of a breathalyzer test. The defendant argued the test was unreliable because the machine had not been calibrated recently. The court admitted the results over objection. On appeal, the defendant challenges the admission. What is the likely result?

  1. The conviction is reversed because the test's reliability was not established. Correct answer.
  2. The conviction is reversed because the defendant was not given Miranda warnings.
  3. The conviction is affirmed because breathalyzer results are always admissible.
  4. The conviction is affirmed because the defendant did not object at trial.

Explanation

Scientific or technical evidence must be shown to be reliable before it is admissible. If the breathalyzer was not properly calibrated, the prosecution failed to establish the reliability of the results. Admitting unreliable evidence over a preserved objection is error requiring reversal.

Question 25Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff alleged the defendant, a corporate officer, diverted a business opportunity to himself. The defendant argued the corporation had no interest in the opportunity. Which fact is most important to the analysis?

  1. Whether the plaintiff was a shareholder.
  2. Whether the corporation was financially able to take the opportunity. Correct answer.
  3. Whether the officer was paid a salary.
  4. Whether the officer had a written employment contract.

Explanation

The doctrine of corporate opportunity prohibits an officer from taking a business opportunity that the corporation has an interest or expectancy in and is financially able to pursue. If the corporation lacked the financial ability to take the opportunity, the officer may be permitted to pursue it. Salary, contract, and shareholder status are less central to that determination.

Question 26Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A landowner granted a neighbor an easement 'for so long as the property is used as a farm.' The neighbor later stopped farming and began operating a commercial parking lot. The landowner sued to terminate the easement. How should the court rule?

  1. Terminate the easement, because the stated purpose has ended and the easement was limited by its own terms. Correct answer.
  2. Terminate the easement only if the landowner proves the neighbor acted with intent to abandon the dominant estate.
  3. Uphold the easement, because easements created by express grant can never be terminated once recorded.
  4. Uphold the easement, because changed use is permitted whenever the dominant estate remains in the same family.

Explanation

An express easement limited by its own terms ends automatically when the stated purpose ceases, and continued use beyond that purpose exceeds the scope of the grant. Abandonment doctrine is unnecessary here because the easement's own durational language controls.

Question 27Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A consumer sued a manufacturer in federal court for $90,000 in damages arising from a car accident, alleging negligence and breach of warranty. The manufacturer is incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan; the consumer is a citizen of Michigan. The manufacturer moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. What is the most likely result?

  1. Deny dismissal, because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over product liability claims.
  2. Dismiss, because the consumer failed to allege a federal question in the complaint.
  3. Dismiss, because the parties are not completely diverse and the amount does not satisfy the federal threshold. Correct answer.
  4. Deny dismissal, because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the claim arises under federal law.

Explanation

Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The consumer shares Michigan citizenship with the manufacturer's principal place of business, and $90,000 does not exceed the threshold, so neither requirement is met.

Question 28Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with burglary. At trial, the prosecution offered testimony that, two weeks before the break-in, the defendant told a friend he planned to 'hit that house on Elm Street.' The defendant objects. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the statement only if the friend is shown to be unavailable to testify at trial.
  2. Exclude the statement, because statements made to friends are privileged communications.
  3. Exclude the statement, because prior bad acts may never be introduced in a criminal trial.
  4. Admit the statement as evidence of intent and preparation, because it directly concerns the charged conduct. Correct answer.

Explanation

Statements showing plan, intent, or preparation are admissible under the rules of evidence even when they reference the charged conduct. The statement bears directly on the defendant's intent and preparation for the burglary rather than on general propensity.

Question 29Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of a written contract. At trial, the plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence that before signing, the parties orally agreed the defendant would deliver goods by June 1, although the writing states 'delivery on or before July 1.' The defendant objects under the parol evidence rule. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the evidence, because oral agreements are always admissible to explain a writing.
  2. Admit the evidence, because delivery dates are never considered material terms.
  3. Exclude the evidence, because it contradicts an unambiguous term of the integrated writing. Correct answer.
  4. Exclude the evidence only if the defendant can show the plaintiff drafted the contract.

Explanation

When a writing is fully integrated, parol evidence cannot be used to contradict its unambiguous terms. An oral promise of June 1 delivery directly contradicts the July 1 term, so it is inadmissible.

Question 30Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A state enacted a statute requiring all employers to provide paid sick leave. A trade association representing employers sued, arguing that the statute burdens interstate commerce. Which constitutional principle governs the analysis?

  1. The dormant Commerce Clause, which bars state laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce. Correct answer.
  2. The Contracts Clause, which bars states from impairing the obligation of contracts.
  3. The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the right to pursue a calling.
  4. The First Amendment, which bars compelled speech by employers.

Explanation

State laws that burden interstate commerce are tested under the dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits discrimination against interstate commerce and undue burdens on it. A neutral sick-leave law would be upheld unless the burden on interstate commerce clearly exceeds local benefits.

Question 31Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A client gave her attorney $50,000 to hold in trust for a business deal. The attorney deposited the funds into his personal checking account and used part of the money to pay his own debts. The client later demanded return of the funds. The attorney is charged with a crime. Which offense is most likely supported?

  1. Larceny, because the attorney took the funds by trespass from the client.
  2. Robbery, because the attorney used the funds to satisfy personal debts.
  3. Embezzlement, because the attorney had lawful possession of the funds and fraudulently converted them. Correct answer.
  4. False pretenses, because the attorney obtained title to the funds by deception.

Explanation

Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property by one who has lawful possession of it, which fits an attorney entrusted with client funds. The attorney's possession was lawful at the outset, and the later misuse constitutes conversion.

Question 32Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was tried for arson. During jury deliberations, a juror consulted an online encyclopedia to confirm the flash point of common accelerants and shared the information with other jurors. The defendant moves for a new trial. How should the court rule?

  1. Deny the motion, because jurors may rely on their general knowledge during deliberations.
  2. Deny the motion, because the information was accurate and did not favor either party.
  3. Grant the motion, because the jury considered extraneous information not introduced at trial. Correct answer.
  4. Grant the motion only if the defendant shows the juror was biased against him.

Explanation

A verdict may be impeached when extraneous prejudicial information reaches the jury, such as a juror's independent research. The accuracy of the outside information does not cure the error, because the parties had no chance to contest it.

Question 33Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A testator's will devised 'the residue of my estate to my sister.' The testator and the sister died in a common disaster, and it cannot be determined who died first. The sister left one child. Under the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act as commonly adopted, how should the residue be distributed?

  1. Half to the sister's child and half to the testator's heirs.
  2. To the sister's estate, because the order of death cannot be established.
  3. To the testator's heirs, because the sister is deemed to have predeceased the testator. Correct answer.
  4. To the sister's child, because the sister is deemed to have survived the testator.

Explanation

The Uniform Simultaneous Death Act presumes that each person survived the other for purposes of distributing that person's property. As to the testator's estate, the sister is deemed to have predeceased, so the lapsed residuary gift passes to the testator's heirs.

Question 34Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for injuries from a slip and fall in the defendant's store. At trial, the plaintiff calls a witness who will testify that another customer told her, 'I saw the manager mopping the floor and never put up a warning sign.' The defendant objects on hearsay grounds. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the statement as a statement of a party opponent, because the manager is the defendant's agent.
  2. Admit the statement as an excited utterance if the customer was still visibly shaken when speaking. Correct answer.
  3. Exclude the statement, because it is hearsay not subject to any exception.
  4. Exclude the statement, because the customer is not available to be cross-examined.

Explanation

An excited utterance is a statement relating to a startling event made while the declarant is under the stress of excitement it caused. A customer still visibly shaken after witnessing a fall fits that exception, making the statement admissible.

Question 35Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

An owner contracted to sell an office building to a buyer for $2 million, with closing set for March 1. On February 1, the owner repudiated the contract in writing. The buyer did not immediately sue but waited until March 15. Meanwhile, the owner sold the building to a third party on February 20. In the buyer's action for breach, what is the buyer's best theory of recovery?

  1. The buyer may sue for damages or specific performance without tendering performance, because anticipatory repudiation excuses the condition. Correct answer.
  2. The buyer has no claim, because the buyer failed to tender the purchase price on March 1.
  3. The buyer must wait until the closing date to sue, so the action is premature.
  4. The buyer may recover only nominal damages, because the owner's repudiation was in writing.

Explanation

An unequivocal anticipatory repudiation discharges the nonbreaching party's duty to tender performance and permits immediate suit. The buyer may seek damages or specific performance without waiting for the closing date.

Question 36Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with armed robbery. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant possessed a handgun when arrested three weeks after the robbery. The defendant objects. What is the strongest basis for admission?

  1. The handgun is evidence of identity or opportunity if it matches the weapon described by witnesses. Correct answer.
  2. The handgun is admissible to prove the defendant's bad character for honesty.
  3. The handgun is admissible because weapons are always relevant in criminal trials.
  4. The handgun shows the defendant's general propensity for violence.

Explanation

Evidence of possession of a weapon may be admitted when it links the defendant to the charged offense, such as by matching the weapon used or showing opportunity. It may not be used to show propensity.

Question 37Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A corporation's board approved a transaction with a director-owned entity. A shareholder sues, alleging the director breached fiduciary duties. The director invokes the business judgment rule. Which fact most undermines that defense?

  1. The director failed to disclose his ownership interest in the counterparty before the board vote. Correct answer.
  2. The transaction ultimately produced a modest profit for the corporation.
  3. The board met for only one hour before voting.
  4. The director abstained from the final vote on the transaction.

Explanation

The business judgment rule protects decisions made by disinterested, informed directors acting in good faith. A director's failure to disclose a personal interest deprives the board of material information and undermines the rule's protection.

Question 38Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for negligence. The defendant served interrogatories asking the plaintiff to identify each expert she intends to call. The plaintiff responded by naming one expert but withholding a second expert's report until trial. The defendant moves to exclude the second expert's testimony. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude the testimony automatically, because late disclosure is never excused.
  2. Admit the testimony, because expert reports are protected work product.
  3. Admit the testimony, because the defendant could have deposed the expert.
  4. Exclude the testimony unless the plaintiff's failure was substantially justified or harmless. Correct answer.

Explanation

A party must disclose expert witnesses and their reports under the discovery rules. Failure to do so permits exclusion unless the failure was substantially justified or harmless.

Question 39Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A state law prohibits the sale of any drug paraphernalia within 1,000 feet of a school. A store owner convicted under the law challenges it as a violation of due process because the statute does not require knowledge of the proximity to a school. Which standard governs?

  1. The statute is valid only if it includes a mistake-of-fact defense for distance.
  2. The statute is valid if the legislature rationally could conclude that the proximity rule advances public safety, even without a mens rea as to location. Correct answer.
  3. The statute is invalid because strict scrutiny applies to all criminal statutes.
  4. The statute is invalid unless it requires proof of intent to sell near a school.

Explanation

Regulatory offenses that omit a mental state as to jurisdictional facts are reviewed under the rational basis standard. The legislature may rationally require sellers to know their surroundings to protect students.

Question 40Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A tenant signed a two-year lease requiring rent of $2,000 monthly. After one year, the tenant vacated without justification. The landlord immediately relet the premises to a new tenant for the remaining year at $1,800 monthly to mitigate damages and sues the original tenant. What may the landlord recover?

  1. The security deposit plus punitive damages for abandonment.
  2. Nothing, because reletting terminates the original lease.
  3. The full rent for the remaining year, because the lease was not terminated.
  4. The difference between the agreed rent and the replacement rent for the remaining term, plus reasonable recoverable expenses of reletting. Correct answer.

Explanation

The landlord must credit the replacement rent against the unpaid rent. For the remaining twelve months, the shortfall is 12 × ($2,000 - $1,800) = $2,400. Reasonable, recoverable reletting expenses are added to that loss, not deducted from the shortfall. Reletting to mitigate damages does not by itself extinguish the tenant's liability.

Question 41Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant is charged with murder. The prosecution seeks to introduce the defendant's prior conviction for felony theft to impeach the defendant's credibility if he testifies. The court should admit the conviction if:

  1. The crime was punishable by more than one year and the court finds it probative of truthfulness.
  2. The prosecution gives notice and the defendant is the only defense witness.
  3. The crime involved a dishonest act or false statement, regardless of the punishment. Correct answer.
  4. The conviction is less than ten years old and the defendant opened the door.

Explanation

Under the evidence rules, a conviction for a crime involving a dishonest act or false statement is admissible to impeach, and the balancing test does not apply to such crimes. Theft qualifies as a crimen falsi.

Question 42Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A woman executed a will leaving her estate to her husband. She later divorced him but never changed the will. Under the Uniform Probate Code as commonly adopted, what happens to the husband's share?

  1. The husband takes nothing only if the will expressly named him as 'my husband.'
  2. The husband takes a forced share equal to one-third of the estate.
  3. The divorce revokes the provisions for the former spouse by operation of law. Correct answer.
  4. The husband takes the entire estate because the will was never amended.

Explanation

Under the Uniform Probate Code, a divorce revokes all provisions in a will for the former spouse unless the will expressly provides otherwise. The former spouse therefore takes nothing under the will.

Question 43Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff sued a defendant for breach of contract in federal court based on diversity. The plaintiff seeks to introduce evidence of a settlement offer the defendant made before trial. The defendant objects. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the offer, because it is an admission of a party opponent.
  2. Exclude the offer only if the defendant expressly stated it was confidential.
  3. Exclude the offer, because compromise negotiations are generally inadmissible to prove liability. Correct answer.
  4. Admit the offer, because it is relevant to the amount in controversy.

Explanation

Settlement offers and statements made during compromise negotiations are inadmissible to prove liability or the amount of a disputed claim. The rule encourages candid settlement discussions.

Question 44Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A state statute requires that any person who sells real estate disclose known latent defects to buyers. A seller who knew of a flooded basement failed to disclose it and sold the home. The buyer sues. Which claim is strongest?

  1. Trespass, because the seller entered the buyer's property.
  2. Fraudulent misrepresentation by omission, because the seller had a duty to disclose a known material defect. Correct answer.
  3. Innocent misrepresentation, because the seller did not actively lie.
  4. Unjust enrichment, because the seller received the purchase price.

Explanation

When a statute imposes a duty to disclose known latent defects, silence can constitute fraudulent misrepresentation. The seller's knowledge and the materiality of the defect support the claim.

Question 45Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant charged with assault seeks to call a witness who will testify that the alleged victim has a reputation in the community for violence. The prosecution objects. How should the court rule?

  1. Admit the evidence if the defendant first presents evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. Correct answer.
  2. Exclude the evidence, because reputation testimony is hearsay without exception.
  3. Admit the evidence unconditionally, because reputation evidence is always admissible.
  4. Exclude the evidence unless the victim has been convicted of a violent felony.

Explanation

Evidence of a victim's violent character may support a self-defense claim, but only after the defendant introduces evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. Reputation testimony is an accepted method of proving character.

Question 46Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A partner in a general partnership signed a contract with a supplier for goods used in the partnership business. The other partners had not authorized the purchase. The supplier sues the partnership. What is the result?

  1. The partnership is bound, because a partner's act in the ordinary course of business binds the partnership. Correct answer.
  2. The partnership is bound only up to the signing partner's capital contribution.
  3. The partnership is bound only if the supplier knew of the partnership agreement.
  4. The partnership is not bound, because the other partners did not consent.

Explanation

Under partnership law, an act of a partner apparently carrying on the ordinary course of partnership business binds the partnership unless the third party knows the partner lacks authority. Unanimous consent is not required for ordinary business acts.

Question 47Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A defendant was charged with possession of stolen property. The prosecution offered evidence that, when arrested, the defendant said, 'I didn't know it was stolen, but I was going to sell it fast.' The defendant moves to suppress the statement as obtained in violation of Miranda. No interrogation had occurred. How should the court rule?

  1. Exclude the statement, because it contains an admission against interest.
  2. Exclude the statement, because the defendant was in custody when he spoke.
  3. Admit the statement only if the defendant was first given warnings and waived them.
  4. Admit the statement, because it was volunteered and not the product of custodial interrogation. Correct answer.

Explanation

Miranda warnings are required only for statements made in response to custodial interrogation. A volunteered statement, even in custody, is admissible without warnings.

Question 48Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

An inventor assigned her patent rights to a company in exchange for royalties. The assignment agreement provided that the assignment would terminate if the company failed to pay royalties for two consecutive quarters. The company missed two payments, and the inventor sued to reclaim the patent. The company argues the provision is an unenforceable penalty. How should the court rule?

  1. Enforce the provision only if the inventor proves actual damages exceeding the royalties.
  2. Void the provision, because patent assignments cannot be conditioned on future payments.
  3. Enforce the provision, because a conditional assignment that automatically reverts on breach is generally valid. Correct answer.
  4. Void the provision, because all forfeiture clauses are unenforceable penalties.

Explanation

A transfer of rights may be conditioned on payment, with title reverting automatically on default; such provisions are treated as conditions rather than penalties. The inventor need not prove damages because the remedy is contractual reversion.

Question 49Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A plaintiff obtained a default judgment against a defendant in state court. The defendant later moved to set aside the default, arguing that the complaint was never properly served. The state court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The defendant seeks federal habeas review of the judgment. Which doctrine most directly limits the federal court's review?

  1. The Eleventh Amendment, which bars suits against states in federal court.
  2. The abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, which applies only to pending state criminal proceedings.
  3. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments. Correct answer.
  4. The doctrine of res judicata, which bars relitigation of claims already decided.

Explanation

Rooker-Feldman prevents federal district courts from acting as appellate courts over state court judgments. The defendant's challenge to the state court's denial of his motion is effectively an appeal that must go to the state appellate system or to the Supreme Court.

Question 50Uniform Bar Exam content (NextGen UBE)

A testator's will created a trust for his son for life, remainder to the son's children. The son has no children and is 60 years old. The trustee petitions for instructions on whether the son may compel distribution of principal. Under the traditional rule against perpetuities as applied to trusts, which interest is most vulnerable?

  1. The trustee's power of sale, because it is discretionary.
  2. The son's life estate, because it is not measurable by a life in being.
  3. The remainder to the son's children, because it may vest beyond the perpetuities period. Correct answer.
  4. The testator's reversion, because it is unvested.

Explanation

A remainder to a person's children can vest only when a child is born, and the class may remain open beyond the perpetuities period measured from the son's life. The life estate is valid because it is measured by a life in being.