Free Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law I) Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A psychopathic personality that has a long history of criminal violence frequently relishes the act of brutally brutalizing old people through cruel and shocking physical torture. For no apparent reason, he chooses to torture the victim's father. Following the assault, the father was taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care. The victim was not present, but learned about it through the authorities and read about it in the press. The victim was in excruciating emotional pain and needs medical attention. Is it possible for a victim to sue a perpetrator for intentional infliction of mental distress?
- Yes, since the behavior was shocking and outrageous.
- Yes, because in cases of torture, the culprit faces strict accountability.
- No, because the victim was not there when the heinous behavior took place. (Correct answer)
- No, because the perpetrator was unaware of the father's close family.
Correct answer: No, because the victim was not there when the heinous behavior took place.
For a plaintiff to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) as a bystander, most jurisdictions require the plaintiff to have been present at the scene of the outrageous conduct. In this case, the victim was not physically present during the assault on his father but learned about it later through authorities and the press. Therefore, the crucial element of contemporaneous presence is missing, preventing a successful IIED claim.
Question 2: A writer gave a Hollywood producer a four-page summary of a new television series proposal. He sent it in answer to an advertisement in an industry newsletter looking for innovative ideas. In a phone conversation with the producer's assistant, he indicated his expectation of pay. "Of course, we always pay for a writer's work," she replied. She stated that she would discuss it with her employer to see whether he approved. After a few months, the writer came upon a casting call for a new show. His synopsis outlined a plot and characters that were remarkably identical to those described in his book. He filed a lawsuit against the production for breach of contract. The producer defended himself by claiming that no contract existed.What is the court's most likely decision?
- Based on the parties' actions, the court will conclude that there existed an implicit in fact contract between them. (Correct answer)
- Because there was a meeting of the minds and mutual assent to the basic terms, the court will decide that there was an express contract.
- There were just too many terms missing for this to be considered a contract, and the language was far too unclear for the court to infer what the terms might have been.
- The court will rule that no consideration was clearly acknowledged, and that the synopsis was treated as a gift to the producer under those conditions.
Correct answer: Based on the parties' actions, the court will conclude that there existed an implicit in fact contract between them.
An implied-in-fact contract is formed by the conduct of the parties, rather than their explicit words. Here, the writer submitted a proposal in response to an industry advertisement, indicated an expectation of payment, and the producer's assistant affirmed that they 'always pay for a writer's work.' The subsequent use of the writer's remarkably similar ideas demonstrates that both parties understood a contractual relationship for compensation existed, even without a formal written agreement.
Question 3: Some homeless persons began to live on a strip of land beneath a bridge. A local chemical plant owned the land. The squatters did not seek permission, and the corporation did not consider the situation to be urgent. The squatters bathed and drank water from a small lake on the site. Two squatters died within days from what was later discovered to be highly toxic water from the company's waste discharges. The corporation was well aware that it had a trash disposal issue. The two decedents' estates filed a lawsuit against the corporation. Despite the company's contention that the decedents were trespassers, are they likely to win their tort claim?
- Yes, because the owner was solely responsible for any injuries caused by the lake's hazardous water state.
- Yes, because the owner had an obligation to warn them even if they had trespassed because it knew they were in danger. (Correct answer)
- No, because an owner never has to be concerned about trespassers' safety.
- No, because the owner bears no duty to trespassers unless he or she acts willfully or recklessly.
Correct answer: Yes, because the owner had an obligation to warn them even if they had trespassed because it knew they were in danger.
While landowners generally owe a limited duty to trespassers, an exception applies when the landowner knows or has reason to know of the trespassers' presence and also knows of a dangerous artificial condition on the land that the trespassers are unlikely to discover. The chemical plant was aware of the squatters and knew about its 'trash disposal issue' involving highly toxic water. This knowledge created a duty for the owner to warn the known trespassers of the hidden, severe danger.
Question 4: In federal court, a waitress sued her former employer, a restaurant, under Title VII. She alleged that the business owner had sexually harassed her and then fired her without cause. A jury awarded the former employee $100,000 in damages. The employer filed a petition to dismiss under Fed. Rule 12(b)(6) two weeks after the court delivered judgment on the verdict, arguing that it did not have at least 15 employees as needed under the civil rights statute's definition of "employer." As a result, the employer claimed there was no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The lower court concurred, dismissing the case and declaring the decision null and void. Will the appellate court likely affirm the lower court's ruling if the case is appealed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals?
- Because an appeal court lacks the authority to overturn a lower court's decision that no subject-matter jurisdiction existed.
- No, because this is a challenge to the existence of a cause of action, i.e., a failure to state a claim, which does not go to jurisdiction and cannot be brought after the judgment has been rendered. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because a challenge to jurisdiction can be brought at any time, even after a judgment has been entered, and the jurisdictional criteria was not met in this case.
- No, because once a jury verdict is entered, it cannot be amended or attacked.
Correct answer: No, because this is a challenge to the existence of a cause of action, i.e., a failure to state a claim, which does not go to jurisdiction and cannot be brought after the judgment has been rendered.
The requirement of having at least 15 employees under Title VII is an element of the cause of action, defining who qualifies as an 'employer' under the statute, rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite. A challenge to the existence of a cause of action (failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)) must typically be raised earlier in the litigation. After a jury verdict has been rendered and judgment entered, it is generally too late to raise this defense, as it does not pertain to subject-matter jurisdiction which can be challenged at any time.
Question 5: In one state, the state constitution guaranteed the right to marriage to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. A political group got a proposition on the ballot, and a majority of voters decided to take away the right to marry for same-sex couples. The proposal had no bearing on any other rights that same-sex couples might have derived from state law.People impacted sued the state government for taking away their rights in an unconstitutional and illegitimate manner, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirement. Will the court approve the lawsuit's requests, declaring the proposition void and restoring the ability to marry for same-sex couples?
- No, since the people voted to remove a clause from the existing constitution, which can't be changed after it's done by public vote.
- No, because the ballot question was duly placed on the ballot and all statutory procedures were followed, rendering the courts unable to intervene.
- Yes, no compelling state interest justifies depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry under the due process provision (Correct answer)
- Yes, because it would be an illegal invasion of the right to privacy given to everyone under the Fourth Amendment.
Correct answer: Yes, no compelling state interest justifies depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry under the due process provision
The U.S. Supreme Court, in *Obergefell v. Hodges*, established that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, extending to same-sex couples. Any state action infringing upon a fundamental right must be justified by a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored. A popular vote alone cannot override a fundamental constitutional right without such a compelling justification, which is absent here.
Question 6: After drinking for several hours, an extremely drunk man approached another man in a convenience shop and demanded $5. The drunk man knocked the customer down and began bashing his head on the floor when he refused. The drunk man awoke in jail hours later, with no recall of what had happened. He was charged with serious assault, which required specific intent proof. The drunk man requested an additional jury charge of simple assault, which did not require specific intent, during his trial. The drunk man was convicted of serious assault when the trial court refused to let him go. Will the appeals court likely overturn the conviction and order a fresh trial with a charge of simple assault added?
- Yes, because proof of voluntary intoxication could rule out specific intent, and the jury should be entitled to choose the less serious felony suggested by the facts. (Correct answer)
- No, because intoxication of one's own accord is never a defense to a crime.
- No, because the violent force of slamming his head into the ground would automatically rule out a simple assault charge.
- Yes, because the lesser charged felony must always be stated in the jury charge in order for the jury to choose which crime it believes applies.
Correct answer: Yes, because proof of voluntary intoxication could rule out specific intent, and the jury should be entitled to choose the less serious felony suggested by the facts.
Voluntary intoxication can serve as a defense to specific intent crimes if it negates the defendant's ability to form the required specific intent. Serious assault, as described, typically requires specific intent. Therefore, the jury should have been instructed on the lesser-included offense of simple assault, which usually only requires general intent, allowing them to consider whether the defendant's extreme drunkenness prevented him from forming the specific intent for the more serious charge.
Question 7: The “American Morality Leadership Act” was approved by the US Congress and signed by the President, limiting the amount of cosmetics that women and men can wear in public and prohibiting the wearing of short dresses. Except when exercising or working physically, men over 65 must wear only brown or grey clothing, while those under 65 must wear button down dress shirts with neckties. Other limits and requirements for men and women's attire and grooming are included in the Act. On the basis of a constitutional issue, a class action lawsuit was brought to attack the Act. Which of the following arguments most closely resembles the constitutional argument that is most likely to win in court?
- Because it largely discriminates against women's rights, the law is unconstitutional.
- The law is unconstitutional because it violates an individual's fundamental rights. (Correct answer)
- The law is unconstitutional because it violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
- Because it violates procedural due process, the statute is unconstitutional.
Correct answer: The law is unconstitutional because it violates an individual's fundamental rights.
The 'American Morality Leadership Act' imposes extensive restrictions on personal appearance, including clothing and grooming choices. Such broad regulations infringe upon an individual's fundamental right to personal liberty and autonomy, which encompasses the right to control one's own body and appearance. Laws infringing on fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny and are rarely upheld unless they serve a compelling government interest and are narrowly tailored, which is highly unlikely for these types of restrictions.
Question 8: A married couple signed a contract to sell their home, stating that they were unaware of any structural flaws in the property. The purchasers spotted peeling paint and plaster degradation in a corner of a ceiling near the fireplace prior to closing. They also found water marks on the basement's inside walls. The sellers indicated that these were previous issues that had been resolved, but they had not yet completed the aesthetic repairs and painting.The parties went to closing to complete the transaction. The buyers discovered a virtual flood plain in their basement during their first week in the house, with water streaming in at the corner sections around the fireplace. They engaged a contractor who advised them that major structural repairs were required. They sued the sellers for fraud, misrepresentation, and implied guarantees of habitability, as well as money to repair the property. Do they have a legal basis for suing the sellers?
- No, because under the caveat emptor law, buyers must always buy a secondhand house "as is" and incur the risk of any hidden faults
- Yes, the sellers broke the selling contract and must compensate the buyer.
- No, because the facts do not indicate that the dealers intended to deceive.
- Yes, the evidence suggests that the sellers made deliberately misleading statements about material facts in order to persuade the buyers to buy the property. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Yes, the evidence suggests that the sellers made deliberately misleading statements about material facts in order to persuade the buyers to buy the property.
The sellers made false statements of material fact by claiming they were unaware of structural flaws and that visible issues had been 'resolved.' The subsequent discovery of a 'virtual flood plain' requiring major structural repairs strongly suggests these statements were knowingly misleading. This constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, as the sellers made false statements with the intent to induce the buyers' reliance, and the buyers did rely on these statements to their detriment.
Question 9: For $1,000,000.00, the buyer ordered a manufacturer to build 100,000 widgets. The buyer wanted to sell them through mail order. The buyer's branding had to be imprinted on the widgets. The factory placed an order for raw materials and created a new widget mold with the buyer's logo. The buyer required immediate delivery of at least 10,000 units. The purchase was hurried, and 10,000 conforming widgets arrived two days later. The buyer paid for the widgets but refused delivery of the other 90,000.The manufacturer filed a lawsuit, alleging breach of contract and seeking damages. Defendant buyer filed a request to dismiss the complaint, claiming that the statute of frauds had been broken because the contract was for more than $500 and was therefore invalid under state law. Is the move to dismiss likely to be granted?
- No, because there is an exception for things specially designed for a buyer. (Correct answer)
- No, the "advantage of the bargain" norm will be enforced by the law.
- Yes, by agreeing to an oral contract, the manufacturer did not defend its interests, and it must pay the price for its unethical business actions.
- When it comes to items worth more than $500, the statute of frauds must be followed.
Correct answer: No, because there is an exception for things specially designed for a buyer.
The Statute of Frauds generally requires contracts for the sale of goods over $500 to be in writing. However, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides an exception for 'specially manufactured goods.' Since the widgets were to be imprinted with the buyer's branding and a new mold was created, they were custom-made and not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the manufacturer's business. This exception allows the oral contract to be enforceable despite the Statute of Frauds.
Question 10: On July 3, a man was involved in an accident while driving his car. The other driver served him with an injury notification and requested compensation. When the man called his insurance company, he was advised that his policy had expired on July 2. He had previously received a renewal letter along with a bill with a June 28 due date and a July 2 policy expiration date. The notification stated that payment by mail was encouraged, but did not state that renewal was contingent on physical receipt of the check. On June 28, he mailed the check and the form to the insurer, but it was not received until July 5. According to the firm, the insurance company reinstated the policy on July 5, creating a coverage gap between July 2 and July 5. Will the courts likely rule that the coverage was still valid on the day of the accident, July 3?
- Yes, because an insurance cannot be lapsed for nonpayment without first sending a last 30-day notice of impending lapse.
- No, because the mail box regulation does not apply when an insurance policy needs to be renewed
- Yes, because the renewal premium was mailed before the expiration date, and the notice did not specify that the check had to be physically received before the renewal could be processed. (Correct answer)
- No, the man was well aware that the policy would not be renewed if the money was not received by the insurer by the due date of June 28.
Correct answer: Yes, because the renewal premium was mailed before the expiration date, and the notice did not specify that the check had to be physically received before the renewal could be processed.
The 'mailbox rule' in contract law states that an acceptance is effective upon dispatch if the offeror has not specified otherwise. In insurance renewals, if the notice does not explicitly require physical receipt of payment by a certain date, mailing the premium before the expiration date is generally sufficient for renewal. Since the man mailed the check before the policy expired and the notice did not require physical receipt, coverage should be considered continuous.
Question 11: A creditor filed a garnishment action against a lady who owed the creditor money that was past due. This was the creditor's first action, and he didn't have a judgment. The garnishee, the woman's employer, was issued with the garnishment notice. The employer complied with the notice by putting all of the woman's wages into escrow pending the creditor's litigation and the entry of a final judgment against her. Pre-judgment garnishment was allowed in the state where defendant resided and worked, as long as the money was retained and not released until a judgment was made.If a judgment was not issued within the next 120 days, the money would be paid to the woman. The woman filed a lawsuit against her employer and a creditor, seeking that her wages be released. Will the garnishee be ordered to release the funds to the woman by the court?
- Yes, because the Internal Revenue Service is the only entity in the United States with garnishment authority.
- Yes, because the freezing of pay in the interim without a having heard is a violation of procedural due process. (Correct answer)
- No, because the state's procedure for securing the woman's assets until a verdict is issued is just and follows procedural due process.
- No, because the state has a vested stake in creditors' ability to collect debts through garnishment.
Correct answer: Yes, because the freezing of pay in the interim without a having heard is a violation of procedural due process.
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before an individual is deprived of a significant property interest. Pre-judgment garnishment of wages, even if held in escrow, constitutes a deprivation of property. Freezing a person's wages without a prior hearing to determine the validity of the debt or the necessity of the garnishment typically violates procedural due process.
Question 12: In a new town, a pet store owner opened a business. She had no idea that the municipal council had just approved an ordinance restricting the sale of cats and dogs from retail pet stores. A provision in the statute permitted a pet store to lend space to a non-profit humane society for the adoption of animals from the business. The owner filed a federal lawsuit against the city, alleging a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses. The logical basis test was used by the court to determine whether the statute served a genuine state purpose and was enforceable. The ruling was overturned on appeal by the pet business owner. Will the appellate court most likely uphold the lower court's decision?
- No, the pet store owner has a constitutional right to earn a living, which the statute in question unduly restricts.
- Yes, because the pet store owner received the same treatment as every other pet business owner.
- No, because the ordinance is so blatantly discriminatory that it must pass the rigorous scrutiny test, which it does not.
- Yes, since the proper criteria are that the law in question will meet any collection of circumstances that could provide a the rational basis for achieving legitimate government goals. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: Yes, since the proper criteria are that the law in question will meet any collection of circumstances that could provide a the rational basis for achieving legitimate government goals.
When a law does not involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right, courts apply the rational basis test. Under this test, the law will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. The city could argue that restricting pet sales from retail stores promotes animal welfare by encouraging adoptions from shelters or reducing demand for puppy mills, which are legitimate government goals. The ordinance's allowance for humane society adoptions supports this rational basis.
Question 13: When a truck racing on the sand mowed over a sunbathing elderly person, a man was sitting comfortably and in a relaxed meditative condition on a beach chair. “Oh God, see what that truck driver did,” the man exclaimed aloud. That truck's driver was speeding at almost 100 miles per hour! "Please dial 911!!" The man's scream was heard by a woman who was sitting on the beach close but facing the wrong way. Will the court allow both the guy and the woman to testify about the man's utterances if the case goes to trial?
- Yes, because this is not hearsay, and it is not being entered for the veracity of each witness's statement in order for them to both testify.
- No, neither of them may testify because the remarks do not fall under any of the hearsay exclusions.
- Because it is an enthusiastic utterance exception to the hearsay rule that pertains to the material issue of the case, both the woman and the guy can testify. (Correct answer)
- No, neither of them can testify because the guy was impaired owing to his meditation, and the lady is unable to repeat an impaired witness' words.
Correct answer: Because it is an enthusiastic utterance exception to the hearsay rule that pertains to the material issue of the case, both the woman and the guy can testify.
The man's statements were made immediately after witnessing a startling event (a truck running over a person) and appear to be made under the stress of excitement caused by that event, without time for reflection or fabrication. This qualifies them as an 'excited utterance,' which is a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Therefore, both the man and the woman who heard him can testify about these statements.
Question 14: A homeowner buys a new leaf blower and is so taken aback by its power that he gets carried away and blows a substantial portion of his work onto the yard of his next-door neighbor. He blew significant volumes of pest-infested plant debris into the neighbor's yard in addition to leaves. The trash has piled up into enormous, unattractive heaps, causing damage to the neighbor's thriving plants. He has to hire people to remove the debris, and he has to pay to replace infected perennials.The neighbor files a trespass lawsuit. Because the neighbor cannot prove that the homeowner acted with the intent to trespass or cause harm, the homeowner files a petition to dismiss. Will the move to dismiss be granted by the court?
- Yes, because the homeowner had no practical way of controlling where the stuff went and acted without malice or malice in his actions.
- Yes, because the homeowner expected the material to be carried away by the wind and did not anticipate it accumulating on the neighbor's property.
- No, because the infected waste created an unusually dangerous situation, and the homeowner might be held completely responsible for the trespass.
- No, because trespass is based on an intentional act of entering or delivering anything onto the land, and the actor is not required to intend injury in order to be held accountable for the tort. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: No, because trespass is based on an intentional act of entering or delivering anything onto the land, and the actor is not required to intend injury in order to be held accountable for the tort.
Trespass to land requires an intentional act that results in a physical invasion of the plaintiff's property. The intent required is merely the intent to perform the act that causes the invasion, not the intent to cause harm or to trespass. By operating the leaf blower and directing debris onto the neighbor's property, the homeowner intentionally caused physical matter to enter the neighbor's land, thus fulfilling the intent requirement for trespass.
Question 15: A businessperson dispatched an administrative assistant to attend a conference where business agreements are frequently arranged. The assistant was given all of the resources needed to put up a table with the principal's cards, brochures, promotional materials, pricing lists, and even some purchase forms with the businessperson's symbol on them by the principal. In addition, the assistant misrepresented herself to third parties as to the principal's official representative and that she was allowed to sign contracts on his part. The assistant arranged an agreement with a third party for the businessperson, which the businessperson refused to respect because he did not like the terms. Will the third party have a good chance of getting the contract enforced against the businessperson?
- No, because it is the responsibility of anyone engaging with an assistant at a convention to determine whether or not that individual is an authorized agent.
- Yes, because providing the employee with the indicia of authorization to act was sufficient proof to bind the principle. (Correct answer)
- No, because the technological revolution has made it simple for a potential consumer to verify the existence of true authority these days.
- Yes, since whenever a principal sends an employee to a convention on his behalf, he is responsible for the employee's activities.
Correct answer: Yes, because providing the employee with the indicia of authorization to act was sufficient proof to bind the principle.
Apparent authority arises when a principal, through words or conduct, causes a third party to reasonably believe that an agent has authority to act on the principal's behalf. By providing the assistant with business cards, brochures, pricing lists, and purchase forms with the businessperson's logo, and sending her to a conference where agreements are made, the businessperson created a reasonable belief in the third party that the assistant had authority to bind him to a contract.
Question 16: A dance student put in a lot of effort to develop her legs, which included doing things like leaping and bounding up numerous flights of stairs in her apartment complex. One of the janitors in the building advised her that if she kept doing her workouts, “she was going to get wounded since there are problems with the floor.”She sued the building owner after breaking her leg after falling due to a loose floorboard. "I warned her that jogging so fast is unsafe and she was likely to be wounded," the janitor told me," the building owner wants to testify." Is it likely that the building owner's statement would be accepted as evidence?
- Yes, because the building owner can testify about what the janitor told him and be questioned about it.
- No, since it is unimportant and irrelevant.
- No, because it's hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to the rule apply. (Correct answer)
- Yes, because a spontaneous declaration to an adversary—the party is an exemption to hearsay.
Correct answer: No, because it's hearsay within hearsay, and no exceptions to the rule apply.
The building owner's testimony about what the janitor told him ('I warned her...') constitutes hearsay, as it is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted (that a warning was given). Furthermore, if the janitor's statement itself is offered for its truth, it would be hearsay within hearsay. For such evidence to be admissible, each layer of hearsay must fall under a recognized exception, which does not appear to be the case here.
Free Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law I) Questions and Answers
A psychopathic personality that has a long history of criminal violence frequently relishes the act of brutally brutalizing old
people through cruel and shocking physical torture.
For no apparent reason, he chooses to torture the victim's father.
Following the assault, the father was taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care.
The victim was not present, but learned
about it through the authorities and read about it in the press.
The victim was in excruciating emotional pain and needs medical
attention.
Is it possible for a victim to sue a perpetrator for intentional infliction of mental distress?