July Bar Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) 2026/2027 The Definitive Study and Exam Prep Guide: Comprehensive Topic Review, Realistic Practice Questions, Complete Test Bank Mastery, and Advanced Preparation Manual

A corporation is incorporated in Delaware, maintains its headquarters in Illinois, and operates most of its retail stores in Texas. For diversity purposes, of which states is the corporation a citizen? A. Delaware only B. Texas only C. Delaware and Illinois D. Delaware, Illinois, and Texas Correct Answer: C. Delaware and Illinois Rationale: A corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is incorporated and the state containing its principal place of business. The principal place of business is ordinarily the corporation’s nerve center, usually its headquarters. The location of most stores or business activity does not independently create corporate citizenship, making Options B and D incorrect. Question 2 A plaintiff asserts a valid federal employment-discrimination claim and a state-law emotional-distress claim based on the same termination. Which doctrine most directly permits the federal court to hear the state claim? A. Removal jurisdiction B. Supplemental jurisdiction C. General personal jurisdiction D. Abstention Correct Answer: B. Supplemental jurisdiction Rationale: Supplemental jurisdiction permits a federal court to hear an additional claim sharing a common nucleus of operative fact with a claim invoking original federal jurisdiction. Both claims arise from the same termination, so they would ordinarily be tried together. Removal concerns transfer from state court, personal jurisdiction concerns authority over a party, and abstention may delay federal adjudication. Question 3 A graduate student has lived in State A for two years but repeatedly states that she intends to return permanently to State B after completing her degree. She retains a State B driver’s license and voter registration. Where is she most likely domiciled? A. State A, because physical presence alone establishes domicile. B. State A, because living there for more than one year creates domicile. C. State B, because she lacks the intent to remain indefinitely in State A. D. Both State A and State B, because an individual may have multiple domiciles. Correct Answer: C. State B, because she lacks the intent to remain indefinitely in State A. Rationale: Individual domicile requires both physical presence and an intent to remain indefinitely. Although the student is physically present in State A, the evidence t indicates that she intends to return to State B. Options A and B improperly trea presence or duration as dispositive. Option D is incorrect because an individual can have only one domicile at a time. Question 4 A plaintiff files a diversity action in state court against two defendants. Both defendants have been properly served. One defendant is a citizen of the forum state, and the other is a citizen of another state. May the defendants remove? A. Yes, if both defendants consent. B. Yes, because complete diversity exists. C. No, because the forum-defendant rule bars diversity removal when a properly joined defendant is a citizen of the forum state. D. No, because diversity cases are never removable. Correct Answer: C. No, because the forum-defendant rule bars diversity removal when a properly joined defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Rationale: Even when complete diversity and the amount requirement exist, a diversity action ordinarily may not be removed if a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the forum state. Unanimous consent alone does not overcome the rule. Option D is too broad because many diversity cases involving only out-ofstate defendants are removable. Question 5 A plaintiff seeks $70,000 in compensatory damages and $10,000 in attorney’s fees recoverable under the parties’ contract. The plaintiff files in federal court based on diversity. Is the amount-in-controversy requirement satisfied? A. No, because attorney’s fees are never included. B. No, because only compensatory damages count. C. Yes, because contractually recoverable attorney’s fees may be included. D. Yes, but only if the plaintiff has already paid the attorney’s fees. Correct Answer: C. Yes, because contractually recoverable attorney’s fees may be included. Rationale: Attorney’s fees ordinarily are excluded as litigation costs, but fees recoverable as part of the substantive claim under a contract or statute may count toward the amount in controversy. Here, $70,000 plus $10,000 exceeds $75,000. Options A and B state the exclusion too broadly, while Option D incorrectly requires prior payment. Question 6 A French citizen permanently residing in State M sues a lawful permanent resident who is domiciled in State M. No United States citizen is a party. Which statement is most accurate? A. Alienage jurisdiction exists because the parties are nationals of different countries. B. Alienage jurisdiction exists because one party is a lawful permanent resident. C. Alienage jurisdiction is lacking because at least one party must be a citizen of a United States state. D. Alienage jurisdiction exists if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Correct Answer: C. Alienage jurisdiction is lacking because at least one party must be a citizen of a United States state. Rationale: Alienage jurisdiction generally requires at least one party to be a citizen of a United States state. A dispute involving only foreign citizens or foreign nationals does not satisfy that requirement. An LPR also may not be treated as diverse from an opposing party domiciled in the same state. Therefore, Options A, B, and D are insufficient. Question 7 A complaint is not initially removable. Eight months later, the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses the nondiverse defendant, making the case removable based on diversity. When must the remaining defendant generally file the notice of removal? A. Within 14 days of the dismissal B. Within 30 days after receiving the paper showing the case has become removable C. At any time before trial D. Within one year after the dismissal Correct Answer: B. Within 30 days after receiving the paper showing the case has become removable Rationale: When removability first becomes apparent after the initial pleading, the defendant generally has 30 days from receipt of the relevant paper or order to remove. Diversity removal is also ordinarily subject to a one-year outer limit from commencement. Options A and D state incorrect periods, while Option C ignores the statutory deadline. Question 8 A limited partnership has ten partners. Nine are citizens of State A, and one limited partner is a citizen of State B. The partnership sues a citizen of State B in federal court. Does complete diversity exist? A. Yes, because only general partners determine citizenship. B. Yes, because the partnership’s principal place of business is in State A. C. No, because the citizenship of every member, including limited partners, is considered. D. No, but only if the limited partner participates in management. Correct Answer: C. No, because the citizenship of every member, including limited partners, is considered. Rationale: An unincorporated association takes the citizenship of each of its members. For a limited partnership, this includes both general and limited partners. Because one partner and the defendant are citizens of State B, complete diversity is absent. Options A, B, and D incorrectly apply corporate principles or exclude limited partners. Question 9 A plaintiff files a state-law negligence action in federal court. The complaint anticipates that the defendant will argue that a federal safety statute preempts the plaintiff’s claim. Which conclusion is most accurate under the well-pleaded complaint rule? A. Federal-question jurisdiction exists because the anticipated defense involves federal law. B. Federal-question jurisdiction exists whenever federal law may become relevant during litigation. C. Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist because the plaintiff is not enforcing a federal right on the face of the complaint. D. Federal-question jurisdiction exists only if the defendant formally raises the federal defense in the answer. Correct Answer: C. Federal-question jurisdiction does not exist because the plaintiff is not enforcing a federal right on the face of the complaint. Rationale: Federal-question jurisdiction must be established from the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. A federal defense, including preemption, ordinarily does not create federal-question jurisdiction. Options A, B, and D incorrectly rely on matters that may arise after filing. The central inquiry is whether the plaintiff’s own cause of action seeks to enforce a right created by federal law. Question 10 A plaintiff brings three unrelated state-law claims against one defendant: one for $30,000, one for $25,000, and one for $24,000. The parties are completely diverse. May the plaintiff aggregate the claims? A. Yes, because one plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against one defendant. B. No, because the claims do not arise from the same transaction. C. No, because each claim must independently exceed $75,000. D. Yes, but only if the defendant agrees to aggregation. Correct Answer: A. Yes, because one plaintiff may aggregate multiple claims against one defendant. Rationale: A single plaintiff may aggregate all claims against a single defendant, even when the claims are factually unrelated. The combined amount is $79,000, satisfying the jurisdictional threshold. Options B and C incorrectly require factual relatedness or individual satisfaction of the threshold. The defendant’s consent is irrelevant to subject-matter jurisdiction.