Multistate Bar Exam Practice Test 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A defendant is charged with burglary after entering a neighbor's garage at night and taking tools. The garage is detached from the house and used only for storage. Under common law, is the garage a 'dwelling house' for purposes of burglary?
- Yes, because it is on the same property as the house
- No, because it is not used for sleeping or human habitation (Correct answer)
- Yes, because it was entered at night
- No, because the entry was not forcible
Correct answer: No, because it is not used for sleeping or human habitation
At common law, burglary required breaking and entering the dwelling house of another, which meant a structure regularly used for sleeping; a storage-only detached garage does not qualify.
Question 2: A plaintiff sues a doctor for medical malpractice. The plaintiff offers expert testimony that the doctor's technique fell below the standard of care. The doctor offers no expert testimony. Can the plaintiff prevail?
- No, because both parties must offer expert testimony
- Yes, if the expert's testimony is credible and establishes the standard of care and breach (Correct answer)
- No, because the plaintiff has the burden to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt
- Yes, but only if the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applies
Correct answer: Yes, if the expert's testimony is credible and establishes the standard of care and breach
In a malpractice case, the plaintiff must establish the standard of care, breach, causation, and damages through expert testimony, and uncontested credible expert testimony can be sufficient for the plaintiff to prevail.
Question 3: A state law requires all pharmacies to be owned by licensed pharmacists. A corporation owned by non-pharmacists challenges the law as violating the Equal Protection Clause. What standard of review applies?
- Strict scrutiny, because the law affects a fundamental right to operate a business
- Intermediate scrutiny, because it involves a semi-suspect class
- Rational basis, because economic regulation does not involve a suspect class or fundamental right (Correct answer)
- Strict scrutiny, because it discriminates based on professional status
Correct answer: Rational basis, because economic regulation does not involve a suspect class or fundamental right
Economic regulations that do not burden a suspect class or fundamental right are reviewed under the rational basis standard, which requires only a conceivable legitimate governmental interest.
Question 4: A testator's will leaves her entire estate to 'my children.' At the time the will was executed, she had two children. After execution, she had a third child, who survived her. Under the Uniform Probate Code, what is the third child's share?
- Nothing, because the will was executed before the third child was born
- One-third, as an omitted child entitled to an intestate share (Correct answer)
- One-half, splitting only with the youngest prior child
- One-third only if the testator was unaware of the pregnancy when executing the will
Correct answer: One-third, as an omitted child entitled to an intestate share
Under the UPC's pretermitted child doctrine, a child born after the will's execution who is not provided for receives an intestate share unless the omission was intentional or the testator provided for the child outside the will.
Question 5: A buyer and seller enter a contract for the sale of goods with delivery in 30 days. Before the delivery date, the seller unequivocally states he will not deliver. Under the UCC, what right does the buyer have immediately?
- The buyer must wait until the delivery date to sue
- The buyer may treat the repudiation as a breach and seek remedies immediately (Correct answer)
- The buyer may only demand assurances in writing
- The buyer must mitigate by purchasing substitute goods before suing
Correct answer: The buyer may treat the repudiation as a breach and seek remedies immediately
Under UCC § 2-610, when a party anticipatorily repudiates, the aggrieved party may immediately treat it as a breach and pursue available remedies without waiting for the performance date.
Question 6: Police, without a warrant, attach a GPS tracker to a suspect's car parked in a public street and monitor his movements for 28 days. Under the Fourth Amendment, is this a search?
- No, because the car was parked on a public street where there is no expectation of privacy
- No, because GPS tracking is less intrusive than physical surveillance
- Yes, because long-term GPS monitoring of a vehicle constitutes a search under the mosaic theory (Correct answer)
- Yes, only if the suspect had a subjective expectation of privacy in his movements
Correct answer: Yes, because long-term GPS monitoring of a vehicle constitutes a search under the mosaic theory
In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court held that physically attaching a GPS device to a vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search, and subsequent cases recognize that prolonged electronic monitoring can violate reasonable expectations of privacy.
Question 7: A landlord leases an apartment for one year. During the tenancy, the city condemns a portion of the building for a road project, leaving the apartment habitable but smaller. The tenant stops paying rent. Is the tenant justified?
- Yes, because condemnation by the government always terminates the lease
- No, because a partial condemnation that leaves the premises habitable does not excuse the tenant's rent obligation (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the landlord breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment
- No, only if the landlord compensates the tenant from the condemnation award
Correct answer: No, because a partial condemnation that leaves the premises habitable does not excuse the tenant's rent obligation
A partial condemnation that does not render the premises uninhabitable does not terminate the lease; the tenant must continue paying rent but may have a claim for abatement proportional to the loss.
Multistate Bar Exam Practice Test 2
A defendant is charged with burglary after entering a neighbor's garage at night and taking tools.
The garage is detached from the house and used only for storage.
Under common law, is the garage a 'dwelling house' for purposes of burglary?