MASTER THE NEXTGEN UBE |
COMPREHENSIVE PRACTICE EXAMINATION |
REALISTIC BAR EXAM QUESTIONS &
DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.
1. A plaintiff filed a negligence action in federal district court against a
defendant, seeking $100,000 in damages. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A;
the defendant is a citizen of State B. The defendant removed the case to
federal court. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?
A. No, because the amount in controversy is too small.
B. Yes, because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
C. No, because the plaintiff originally filed in state court.
D. Yes, because removal is always permitted.
Rationale: Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete
diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Both are
satisfied, so removal to federal court was proper.
2. A state statute prohibits any corporation from making independent
expenditures to influence ballot initiatives. A corporation wants to run ads
supporting a local ballot measure. Is the statute constitutional?
A. Yes, under the state’s police power to regulate elections.
B. No, because the First Amendment protects independent corporate
political speech.
C. Yes, because corporations are not natural persons with free speech
rights.
D. No, because state law is preempted by federal election law.
Rationale: The Supreme Court has held that political speech does not lose
First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. An
independent expenditure ban violates the Free Speech Clause.
,3. A defendant is charged with burglary. At trial, the prosecution seeks to
introduce a witness’s testimony that the defendant previously committed a
burglary using a similar modus operandi. The defendant objects. The court
should rule the evidence:
A. Admissible as proof of the defendant’s character.
B. Inadmissible to prove the defendant’s character, but possibly
admissible to show a common plan or scheme.
C. Inadmissible for any purpose.
D. Admissible as habit evidence.
Rationale: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), prior bad acts are not
admissible to prove a person’s character, but may be admitted for other
purposes such as proof of motive, plan, identity, or absence of mistake.
4. An offeror mailed a signed offer to the offeree on Monday. On Tuesday,
before the offeree received the offer, the offeror sent a revocation by email,
which the offeree read immediately. On Wednesday, the offeree received
the mailed offer and mailed an acceptance. Was a contract formed?
A. Yes, because the acceptance was mailed after the offer was received.
B. No, because the revocation was received before acceptance.
C. Yes, under the mailbox rule.
D. No, because an offer cannot be revoked by email.
Rationale: An offer can be revoked by any reliable means. The offeree
received the revocation before dispatching the acceptance, so the offer was
effectively terminated and no contract was formed.
5. A landowner granted a neighbor a written easement to cross the
landowner’s property to reach a public road. The easement was recorded.
The landowner later sold the property to a buyer who had no notice of the
easement. The buyer blocked the neighbor’s access. Can the neighbor
enforce the easement against the buyer?
A. No, because the buyer was a bona fide purchaser without notice.
B. Yes, because a recorded easement provides constructive notice to
subsequent purchasers.
C. No, because easements are not transferable.
, D. Yes, but only if the neighbor had been using the path for 20 years.
Rationale: Recordation of an interest in land imparts constructive notice to
the world. A subsequent purchaser takes subject to recorded easements,
even without actual knowledge.
6. A state passes a law requiring all public school students to recite a prayer
composed by the state legislature. The parents of a non-religious student
sue, alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause. Is the law
constitutional?
A. Yes, if students are allowed to opt out.
B. No, because it constitutes government sponsorship of religion.
C. Yes, under the Free Exercise Clause.
D. No, because education is a local concern.
Rationale: The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from
composing official prayers and requiring their recitation in public schools, as
that amounts to an endorsement of religion.
7. A defendant is on trial for armed robbery. The prosecution calls a witness
who testifies that the defendant was at the scene. On cross-examination,
the defense seeks to show the witness has a prior conviction for perjury.
The prosecution objects. The court should:
A. Exclude the conviction because it is hearsay.
B. Admit the conviction for impeachment purposes under Rule 609.
C. Admit the conviction as substantive evidence of the defendant’s
character.
D. Exclude it because the witness is not the defendant.
Rationale: Evidence of a witness’s prior criminal conviction for a crime
involving dishonesty (like perjury) must be admitted to attack the witness’s
truthfulness, subject to the balancing under Rule 609.
8. A plaintiff suffered a back injury in a car accident and sued the defendant
for negligence. At trial, the plaintiff calls an expert to testify that the
accident caused a herniated disc. The expert relied on a report from a
biomechanical engineer who is not testifying. Is the expert’s opinion
, admissible?
A. No, because the expert cannot rely on facts not in evidence.
B. Yes, if experts in the field would reasonably rely on such a report.
C. No, because the engineer did not personally testify.
D. Yes, only if the report is independently admitted into evidence.
Rationale: Federal Rule of Evidence 703 allows an expert to base an opinion
on facts or data that are not admissible if experts in the particular field
would reasonably rely on them.
9. A defendant is arrested and brought before a magistrate for a probable
cause determination. The magistrate finds probable cause but orders the
defendant detained without bail because of the seriousness of the offense.
The defendant challenges the detention. What is the proper constitutional
challenge?
A. Violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
B. Violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive bail.
C. Violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
D. Violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Rationale: The Eighth Amendment provides that excessive bail shall not be
required. Pretrial detention without an opportunity for bail must be justified
by compelling circumstances.
10.A seller agreed to sell 100 widgets to a buyer at $10 each, delivery on June
1. On May 25, the seller told the buyer, “We won’t be able to deliver on
time; we’re canceling the contract.” The buyer immediately bought
substitute widgets for $12 each. The market price on June 1 was $11. What
damages can the buyer recover?
A. Nothing, because the buyer acted unreasonably.
**B. The difference between the cover price ($12) and the contract price
($10), plus incidental damages.**
C. The difference between the market price ($11) and the contract price
($10).
D. The full cost of the cover widgets.
Rationale: Under UCC § 2-712, a buyer who rightfully covers may recover
COMPREHENSIVE PRACTICE EXAMINATION |
REALISTIC BAR EXAM QUESTIONS &
DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.
1. A plaintiff filed a negligence action in federal district court against a
defendant, seeking $100,000 in damages. The plaintiff is a citizen of State A;
the defendant is a citizen of State B. The defendant removed the case to
federal court. Does the federal court have subject matter jurisdiction?
A. No, because the amount in controversy is too small.
B. Yes, because there is diversity of citizenship and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
C. No, because the plaintiff originally filed in state court.
D. Yes, because removal is always permitted.
Rationale: Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete
diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Both are
satisfied, so removal to federal court was proper.
2. A state statute prohibits any corporation from making independent
expenditures to influence ballot initiatives. A corporation wants to run ads
supporting a local ballot measure. Is the statute constitutional?
A. Yes, under the state’s police power to regulate elections.
B. No, because the First Amendment protects independent corporate
political speech.
C. Yes, because corporations are not natural persons with free speech
rights.
D. No, because state law is preempted by federal election law.
Rationale: The Supreme Court has held that political speech does not lose
First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. An
independent expenditure ban violates the Free Speech Clause.
,3. A defendant is charged with burglary. At trial, the prosecution seeks to
introduce a witness’s testimony that the defendant previously committed a
burglary using a similar modus operandi. The defendant objects. The court
should rule the evidence:
A. Admissible as proof of the defendant’s character.
B. Inadmissible to prove the defendant’s character, but possibly
admissible to show a common plan or scheme.
C. Inadmissible for any purpose.
D. Admissible as habit evidence.
Rationale: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), prior bad acts are not
admissible to prove a person’s character, but may be admitted for other
purposes such as proof of motive, plan, identity, or absence of mistake.
4. An offeror mailed a signed offer to the offeree on Monday. On Tuesday,
before the offeree received the offer, the offeror sent a revocation by email,
which the offeree read immediately. On Wednesday, the offeree received
the mailed offer and mailed an acceptance. Was a contract formed?
A. Yes, because the acceptance was mailed after the offer was received.
B. No, because the revocation was received before acceptance.
C. Yes, under the mailbox rule.
D. No, because an offer cannot be revoked by email.
Rationale: An offer can be revoked by any reliable means. The offeree
received the revocation before dispatching the acceptance, so the offer was
effectively terminated and no contract was formed.
5. A landowner granted a neighbor a written easement to cross the
landowner’s property to reach a public road. The easement was recorded.
The landowner later sold the property to a buyer who had no notice of the
easement. The buyer blocked the neighbor’s access. Can the neighbor
enforce the easement against the buyer?
A. No, because the buyer was a bona fide purchaser without notice.
B. Yes, because a recorded easement provides constructive notice to
subsequent purchasers.
C. No, because easements are not transferable.
, D. Yes, but only if the neighbor had been using the path for 20 years.
Rationale: Recordation of an interest in land imparts constructive notice to
the world. A subsequent purchaser takes subject to recorded easements,
even without actual knowledge.
6. A state passes a law requiring all public school students to recite a prayer
composed by the state legislature. The parents of a non-religious student
sue, alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause. Is the law
constitutional?
A. Yes, if students are allowed to opt out.
B. No, because it constitutes government sponsorship of religion.
C. Yes, under the Free Exercise Clause.
D. No, because education is a local concern.
Rationale: The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from
composing official prayers and requiring their recitation in public schools, as
that amounts to an endorsement of religion.
7. A defendant is on trial for armed robbery. The prosecution calls a witness
who testifies that the defendant was at the scene. On cross-examination,
the defense seeks to show the witness has a prior conviction for perjury.
The prosecution objects. The court should:
A. Exclude the conviction because it is hearsay.
B. Admit the conviction for impeachment purposes under Rule 609.
C. Admit the conviction as substantive evidence of the defendant’s
character.
D. Exclude it because the witness is not the defendant.
Rationale: Evidence of a witness’s prior criminal conviction for a crime
involving dishonesty (like perjury) must be admitted to attack the witness’s
truthfulness, subject to the balancing under Rule 609.
8. A plaintiff suffered a back injury in a car accident and sued the defendant
for negligence. At trial, the plaintiff calls an expert to testify that the
accident caused a herniated disc. The expert relied on a report from a
biomechanical engineer who is not testifying. Is the expert’s opinion
, admissible?
A. No, because the expert cannot rely on facts not in evidence.
B. Yes, if experts in the field would reasonably rely on such a report.
C. No, because the engineer did not personally testify.
D. Yes, only if the report is independently admitted into evidence.
Rationale: Federal Rule of Evidence 703 allows an expert to base an opinion
on facts or data that are not admissible if experts in the particular field
would reasonably rely on them.
9. A defendant is arrested and brought before a magistrate for a probable
cause determination. The magistrate finds probable cause but orders the
defendant detained without bail because of the seriousness of the offense.
The defendant challenges the detention. What is the proper constitutional
challenge?
A. Violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
B. Violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive bail.
C. Violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
D. Violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Rationale: The Eighth Amendment provides that excessive bail shall not be
required. Pretrial detention without an opportunity for bail must be justified
by compelling circumstances.
10.A seller agreed to sell 100 widgets to a buyer at $10 each, delivery on June
1. On May 25, the seller told the buyer, “We won’t be able to deliver on
time; we’re canceling the contract.” The buyer immediately bought
substitute widgets for $12 each. The market price on June 1 was $11. What
damages can the buyer recover?
A. Nothing, because the buyer acted unreasonably.
**B. The difference between the cover price ($12) and the contract price
($10), plus incidental damages.**
C. The difference between the market price ($11) and the contract price
($10).
D. The full cost of the cover widgets.
Rationale: Under UCC § 2-712, a buyer who rightfully covers may recover
