MBE Question Set 27 Exam Questions with Correct Answers 100% Verified|
Guaranteed Success
The wife's knowledge of the younger woman's religious beliefs would be most helpful in the
woman's suit. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (i) an act by
defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent on the part of the
defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or a reckless disregard that
the conduct would cause emotional distress; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages—severe
emotional distress. The statement in (A) is most helpful to establish reckless disregard because
it shows that the defendant knew of plaintiff's peculiar susceptibility to such an accusation.
Given her strong religious beliefs, the woman may have suffered severe distress (even though
the accusation was not true) because the wife gave her every reason to think that she believed
it to be true. (B) is incorrect because, while one of the damages in an action for battery may be
for emotional suffering caused by the battery, the younger woman is suing for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, which requires severe emotional distress from the outrageous
nature of the conduct. (C) is not the best answer, because while evidence that it happened in
front of other people may show the "outrageousness" of the conduct, an act is not outrageous
just because it occurs in the presence of others. Furthermore, nothing in choice (C) establishes
the wife's intent. (D) is incorrect because this tort does not require proof of economic damages.
A mother and father instructed their son who just turned age 14 to report to a community
woodworking shop instead of school. A state law requires all children to attend school until the
age of 16, and the woodshop does not qualify as a school under state law. Because the parents
did not report their son's absence, a truant officer visited the family and warned them that
parents who willfully refuse to comply with the mandatory attendance law are subject to a
$500 fine and up to 30 days in jail for each day of noncompliance. The parents listened, but
informed the officer that they could not comply with the state law because of their religious
views, under which woodworking is an essential spiritual pursuit. The following day, the 14-
year-old again went to work in the community woodshop instead of to school. His parents were
then arrested and charged with violating the state mandatory school attendance law.
At the par D Whether the parents' belief system occupies a place in their lives similar to that
occupied by orthodox religious beliefs.
, Although the validity of religious beliefs cannot be questioned, the role a belief system plays in
a person's life can be examined to determine whether the beliefs are indeed religious. The Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment, prohibits punishing people for their religious beliefs. When a person claims that
he is being punished for his religious beliefs, the court may consider whether the person
challenging the law sincerely holds those beliefs. Thus, the court may consider whether the
parents' beliefs play a role in their lives similar to that of orthodox religious beliefs. (A) is
incorrect because religious beliefs do not have to be related to an organized group to be
considered religious. (B) is incorrect because the Free Exercise Clause protects all sincerely held
religious beliefs, regardless of whether a specific religion is deemed to be "established" or
"traditional." (C) is incorrect because religious beliefs need not involve belief in a supreme
being to qualify for constitutional protection. An asserted religious belief must occupy a place in
the believer's life parallel to that occupied by orthodox religious beliefs. Even an internally
derived belief is entitled to protection.
A merchant sued a company for breach of contract, alleging that the products she purchased
failed to conform to contract specifications. Shortly before the trial was to begin, the merchant
suffered a stroke that left her paralyzed and virtually unable to communicate. Her guardian was
properly substituted as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. At trial, following presentation of the
plaintiff's case, the company calls as a witness a priest to question him about a conversation he
had with the merchant at a church fundraiser. In this conversation, the merchant told the priest
in confidence that the products she received were actually quite functional, but that she had
become aware of a lower price being offered by another vendor, and thus wanted to get out of
her contract with the company. The plaintiff's attorney immediately objects on the basis of
clergy-penitent privilege.
How should the court rule on the objection?
A Su D Overruled, because the circumstances under which the merchant made the
statement take it outside the scope of the privilege.
The plaintiff's objection on the basis of the clergy-penitent privilege should be overruled.
Pursuant to the clergy-penitent privilege, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to
prevent others from disclosing, a confidential communication by that person to a member of
Guaranteed Success
The wife's knowledge of the younger woman's religious beliefs would be most helpful in the
woman's suit. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress requires: (i) an act by
defendant amounting to extreme and outrageous conduct; (ii) intent on the part of the
defendant to cause the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress, or a reckless disregard that
the conduct would cause emotional distress; (iii) causation; and (iv) damages—severe
emotional distress. The statement in (A) is most helpful to establish reckless disregard because
it shows that the defendant knew of plaintiff's peculiar susceptibility to such an accusation.
Given her strong religious beliefs, the woman may have suffered severe distress (even though
the accusation was not true) because the wife gave her every reason to think that she believed
it to be true. (B) is incorrect because, while one of the damages in an action for battery may be
for emotional suffering caused by the battery, the younger woman is suing for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, which requires severe emotional distress from the outrageous
nature of the conduct. (C) is not the best answer, because while evidence that it happened in
front of other people may show the "outrageousness" of the conduct, an act is not outrageous
just because it occurs in the presence of others. Furthermore, nothing in choice (C) establishes
the wife's intent. (D) is incorrect because this tort does not require proof of economic damages.
A mother and father instructed their son who just turned age 14 to report to a community
woodworking shop instead of school. A state law requires all children to attend school until the
age of 16, and the woodshop does not qualify as a school under state law. Because the parents
did not report their son's absence, a truant officer visited the family and warned them that
parents who willfully refuse to comply with the mandatory attendance law are subject to a
$500 fine and up to 30 days in jail for each day of noncompliance. The parents listened, but
informed the officer that they could not comply with the state law because of their religious
views, under which woodworking is an essential spiritual pursuit. The following day, the 14-
year-old again went to work in the community woodshop instead of to school. His parents were
then arrested and charged with violating the state mandatory school attendance law.
At the par D Whether the parents' belief system occupies a place in their lives similar to that
occupied by orthodox religious beliefs.
, Although the validity of religious beliefs cannot be questioned, the role a belief system plays in
a person's life can be examined to determine whether the beliefs are indeed religious. The Free
Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth
Amendment, prohibits punishing people for their religious beliefs. When a person claims that
he is being punished for his religious beliefs, the court may consider whether the person
challenging the law sincerely holds those beliefs. Thus, the court may consider whether the
parents' beliefs play a role in their lives similar to that of orthodox religious beliefs. (A) is
incorrect because religious beliefs do not have to be related to an organized group to be
considered religious. (B) is incorrect because the Free Exercise Clause protects all sincerely held
religious beliefs, regardless of whether a specific religion is deemed to be "established" or
"traditional." (C) is incorrect because religious beliefs need not involve belief in a supreme
being to qualify for constitutional protection. An asserted religious belief must occupy a place in
the believer's life parallel to that occupied by orthodox religious beliefs. Even an internally
derived belief is entitled to protection.
A merchant sued a company for breach of contract, alleging that the products she purchased
failed to conform to contract specifications. Shortly before the trial was to begin, the merchant
suffered a stroke that left her paralyzed and virtually unable to communicate. Her guardian was
properly substituted as the plaintiff in the lawsuit. At trial, following presentation of the
plaintiff's case, the company calls as a witness a priest to question him about a conversation he
had with the merchant at a church fundraiser. In this conversation, the merchant told the priest
in confidence that the products she received were actually quite functional, but that she had
become aware of a lower price being offered by another vendor, and thus wanted to get out of
her contract with the company. The plaintiff's attorney immediately objects on the basis of
clergy-penitent privilege.
How should the court rule on the objection?
A Su D Overruled, because the circumstances under which the merchant made the
statement take it outside the scope of the privilege.
The plaintiff's objection on the basis of the clergy-penitent privilege should be overruled.
Pursuant to the clergy-penitent privilege, a person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to
prevent others from disclosing, a confidential communication by that person to a member of
