Barbri – Latest Exam – MBE
With Complete Solutions
2025/2026| Already Graded
A+ PASS
A fee simple owner of a restaurant provided in his will that the property
should go on his death "in fee simple to my friend, but if during my friend's
lifetime my son has children and those children are alive when my friend
dies, then to said living children." When the owner died, the friend took over
the restaurant.
If the son has children and one or more of them are alive when the friend
dies, who will take title to the restaurant at that time?
A The friend's heirs, because the attempted gift to the son's children is
invalid under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B The son's children, because their interest is not contingent, being a
possibility of reverter.
C The son's children, because their interest is vested, subject to defeasance.
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life in
being plus 21 years. - Correct Answers-D The son's children, because their
interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being plus 21 years.
The interest given to the son's children does not violate the Rule Against
Perpetuities because the interest will vest, if at all, within 21 years after the
life of the friend. Pursuant to the Rule Against Perpetuities, no interest in
property is valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after
one or more lives in being at the creation of the interest. In the case of a will,
the perpetuities period begins to run on the date of the testator's death, and
measuring lives used to show the validity of an interest must be in existence
at that time. Here, the interest given to any of the son's children who are
born during the friend's lifetime and who survive the friend must vest, if at
all, on the death of the friend (who is a life in being at the time of the
owner's death). Thus, this interest will vest, if it does vest, within 21 years
after the friend's life, and is therefore not in violation of the Rule Against
Perpetuities. (A) is therefore incorrect; if one or more of the son's children is
,alive at the time of the friend's death, the friend's heirs will get nothing
because their fee simple will be divested. (B) incorrectly characterizes the
interest of the son's children as a possibility of reverter. A possibility of
reverter is the future interest left in a grantor who conveys a fee simple
determinable estate. Although under different circumstances the son's
children could acquire a possibility of reverter as heirs of the grantor (the
owner), their interest in this case was conveyed directly to them in the
owner's will. (C) is incorrect because the interest of the son's children is not
vested. Their interest is a shifting executory interest rather than a remainder
because it divests the fee sim
A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a
driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor's
bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously
injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian
also included the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its
ordinance requiring homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where
they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver
was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at
fault. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative contribution in cases
applying joint and several liability.
Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?
A The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage
award.
B Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90% -
Correct Answers-The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the
damage award.
A city council passed an ordinance providing: "No person may contribute
more than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of
supporting or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or
regularly engaging in such activities."
If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on
the constitutionality of this ordinance?
A Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech
and freedom of association.
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing
mechanism has been provided for.
,C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling
such contributions.
D Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a
nonjusticiable matter. - Correct Answers-Strike it down, because it violates
First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
A state Occupational Health and Safety Board recently issued regulations
valid under its statutory mandate requiring that all employers in the state
provide ionizing air purification systems for all employee work areas. These
regulations replaced previous guidelines for employee air quality that were
generally not mandatory and did not specify the method of air purification
used.
The requirements regarding air purification systems are likely to be
unconstitutional as applied to which of the following employers?
A A wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation with seven retail
outlets within the state.
B The state supreme court, which recently completed construction of its new
courthouse with a non-ionizing air purification system which the builder is
contractually bound to maintain for the next three years.
C A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the
state capitol building.
D A - Correct Answers-A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center
located adjacent to the state capitol building.
The armed forces recruiting center is least likely to be required to comply
with the new state law. A state has no power to regulate activities of the
federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation. Accordingly,
agents and instrumentalities of the federal government, such as the armed
forces recruiting center, are immune from state regulations relating to
performance of their federal functions. (D) is incorrect because, although the
recreation center's construction was funded by a loan from the Veterans
Administration, the center itself is privately operated and funded by
donations. As a result, the center has only a tenuous connection with the
federal government, so that it cannot claim the immunity afforded to a
federal agency or instrumentality. Accordingly, in the same sense as is
employed in the federal tax immunity cases, the agency does not "stand in
the shoes" of the federal government. Thus, the application of the state
regulations to the recreation center would not present constitutional
problems. (A) apparently refers to the principle that the power to regulate
foreign commerce lies exclusively with Congress. However, the mere fact
, that the regulated outlets are part of a wholly owned subsidiary of a
Japanese corporation does not mean that the state regulations affect foreign
commerce. The subsidiary's activities are conducted entirely within the
state, and do not touch upon foreign commerce in any way. Therefore,
application of the regulations so as to require the subsidiary to provide an
ionizing air purification system for its employee work areas will not constitute
a proscribed state regulation of foreign commerce. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B)
is more troubling, but does not offer as compelling a
A plaintiff read of the success of a box-office hit movie about aardvarks in
various entertainment journals. The movie was enormously popular among
young children, and cartoon figures from the movie began appearing on T-
shirts, soft drink mugs, and other novelties. The plaintiff filed suit against the
studio alleging that the production company unlawfully used his ideas for the
movie. The studio admitted that it had received a clay model of a cartoon
animal from the plaintiff, but denied that the model had any substantial
similarity to the now-famous aardvarks. The studio had returned the model
to the plaintiff, but he had destroyed it.
For the plaintiff to testify at trial as to the appearance of the model, which of
the following is true?
A The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has
personal knowledge of it.
B The plaintiff must show that the destruction of the model was not commi -
Correct Answers-The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model
because he has personal knowledge of it.
The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has
personal knowledge of it. A witness must be competent to testify, which
includes the requirement that he have personal knowledge of the matter he
is to testify about. Here, the plaintiff has personal knowledge of the model,
as he is the person that had submitted it to the studio. Thus, he is competent
to testify as to the model's appearance. (B) is wrong because it states the
foundation requirement for the admissibility of secondary evidence under
the best evidence rule (also called the original document rule), which does
not apply under these circumstances. The best evidence rule covers writings
and recordings, which are defined as "letters, words, numbers, or their
equivalent, set down in any form." A clay model clearly does not fit within
that definition. Similarly, (C) states an acceptable form of secondary
evidence under the best evidence rule, which does not apply here. Note,
however, that under the Federal Rules (unlike most states), there are no
degrees of secondary evidence. Therefore, this choice would be wrong even
if the best evidence rule were applicable, because the plaintiff would not be
With Complete Solutions
2025/2026| Already Graded
A+ PASS
A fee simple owner of a restaurant provided in his will that the property
should go on his death "in fee simple to my friend, but if during my friend's
lifetime my son has children and those children are alive when my friend
dies, then to said living children." When the owner died, the friend took over
the restaurant.
If the son has children and one or more of them are alive when the friend
dies, who will take title to the restaurant at that time?
A The friend's heirs, because the attempted gift to the son's children is
invalid under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
B The son's children, because their interest is not contingent, being a
possibility of reverter.
C The son's children, because their interest is vested, subject to defeasance.
D The son's children, because their interest will vest, if at all, within a life in
being plus 21 years. - Correct Answers-D The son's children, because their
interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being plus 21 years.
The interest given to the son's children does not violate the Rule Against
Perpetuities because the interest will vest, if at all, within 21 years after the
life of the friend. Pursuant to the Rule Against Perpetuities, no interest in
property is valid unless it must vest, if at all, not later than 21 years after
one or more lives in being at the creation of the interest. In the case of a will,
the perpetuities period begins to run on the date of the testator's death, and
measuring lives used to show the validity of an interest must be in existence
at that time. Here, the interest given to any of the son's children who are
born during the friend's lifetime and who survive the friend must vest, if at
all, on the death of the friend (who is a life in being at the time of the
owner's death). Thus, this interest will vest, if it does vest, within 21 years
after the friend's life, and is therefore not in violation of the Rule Against
Perpetuities. (A) is therefore incorrect; if one or more of the son's children is
,alive at the time of the friend's death, the friend's heirs will get nothing
because their fee simple will be divested. (B) incorrectly characterizes the
interest of the son's children as a possibility of reverter. A possibility of
reverter is the future interest left in a grantor who conveys a fee simple
determinable estate. Although under different circumstances the son's
children could acquire a possibility of reverter as heirs of the grantor (the
owner), their interest in this case was conveyed directly to them in the
owner's will. (C) is incorrect because the interest of the son's children is not
vested. Their interest is a shifting executory interest rather than a remainder
because it divests the fee sim
A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a
driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor's
bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously
injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian
also included the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its
ordinance requiring homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where
they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver
was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at
fault. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative contribution in cases
applying joint and several liability.
Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?
A The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage
award.
B Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90% -
Correct Answers-The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the
damage award.
A city council passed an ordinance providing: "No person may contribute
more than $100 annually to any group organized for the specific purpose of
supporting or opposing referenda to be voted on by the city electorate or
regularly engaging in such activities."
If the ordinance is challenged in federal court, how should the court rule on
the constitutionality of this ordinance?
A Strike it down, because it violates First Amendment rights of free speech
and freedom of association.
B Strike it down as a violation of due process, because no hearing
mechanism has been provided for.
,C Uphold it, because the city council has a legitimate interest in controlling
such contributions.
D Dismiss the case, because it involves a political question and is thus a
nonjusticiable matter. - Correct Answers-Strike it down, because it violates
First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association.
A state Occupational Health and Safety Board recently issued regulations
valid under its statutory mandate requiring that all employers in the state
provide ionizing air purification systems for all employee work areas. These
regulations replaced previous guidelines for employee air quality that were
generally not mandatory and did not specify the method of air purification
used.
The requirements regarding air purification systems are likely to be
unconstitutional as applied to which of the following employers?
A A wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation with seven retail
outlets within the state.
B The state supreme court, which recently completed construction of its new
courthouse with a non-ionizing air purification system which the builder is
contractually bound to maintain for the next three years.
C A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center located adjacent to the
state capitol building.
D A - Correct Answers-A United States Armed Forces Recruiting Center
located adjacent to the state capitol building.
The armed forces recruiting center is least likely to be required to comply
with the new state law. A state has no power to regulate activities of the
federal government unless Congress consents to the regulation. Accordingly,
agents and instrumentalities of the federal government, such as the armed
forces recruiting center, are immune from state regulations relating to
performance of their federal functions. (D) is incorrect because, although the
recreation center's construction was funded by a loan from the Veterans
Administration, the center itself is privately operated and funded by
donations. As a result, the center has only a tenuous connection with the
federal government, so that it cannot claim the immunity afforded to a
federal agency or instrumentality. Accordingly, in the same sense as is
employed in the federal tax immunity cases, the agency does not "stand in
the shoes" of the federal government. Thus, the application of the state
regulations to the recreation center would not present constitutional
problems. (A) apparently refers to the principle that the power to regulate
foreign commerce lies exclusively with Congress. However, the mere fact
, that the regulated outlets are part of a wholly owned subsidiary of a
Japanese corporation does not mean that the state regulations affect foreign
commerce. The subsidiary's activities are conducted entirely within the
state, and do not touch upon foreign commerce in any way. Therefore,
application of the regulations so as to require the subsidiary to provide an
ionizing air purification system for its employee work areas will not constitute
a proscribed state regulation of foreign commerce. Thus, (A) is incorrect. (B)
is more troubling, but does not offer as compelling a
A plaintiff read of the success of a box-office hit movie about aardvarks in
various entertainment journals. The movie was enormously popular among
young children, and cartoon figures from the movie began appearing on T-
shirts, soft drink mugs, and other novelties. The plaintiff filed suit against the
studio alleging that the production company unlawfully used his ideas for the
movie. The studio admitted that it had received a clay model of a cartoon
animal from the plaintiff, but denied that the model had any substantial
similarity to the now-famous aardvarks. The studio had returned the model
to the plaintiff, but he had destroyed it.
For the plaintiff to testify at trial as to the appearance of the model, which of
the following is true?
A The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has
personal knowledge of it.
B The plaintiff must show that the destruction of the model was not commi -
Correct Answers-The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model
because he has personal knowledge of it.
The plaintiff can testify as to the appearance of the model because he has
personal knowledge of it. A witness must be competent to testify, which
includes the requirement that he have personal knowledge of the matter he
is to testify about. Here, the plaintiff has personal knowledge of the model,
as he is the person that had submitted it to the studio. Thus, he is competent
to testify as to the model's appearance. (B) is wrong because it states the
foundation requirement for the admissibility of secondary evidence under
the best evidence rule (also called the original document rule), which does
not apply under these circumstances. The best evidence rule covers writings
and recordings, which are defined as "letters, words, numbers, or their
equivalent, set down in any form." A clay model clearly does not fit within
that definition. Similarly, (C) states an acceptable form of secondary
evidence under the best evidence rule, which does not apply here. Note,
however, that under the Federal Rules (unlike most states), there are no
degrees of secondary evidence. Therefore, this choice would be wrong even
if the best evidence rule were applicable, because the plaintiff would not be
