MBE Multistate Bar Examination 2026/2027 Comprehensive Quiz and Study Manual

A plaintiff files a state-law breach of contract action in state court. The complaint anticipates that the defendant will rely on a federal statute as an affirmative defense. The defendant removes the case to federal court, arguing that resolution of the federal defense will determine the outcome. Which ruling is most appropriate? A. Removal is proper because any substantial federal issue supports federalquestion jurisdiction. B. Removal is proper because the federal defense will probably control the outcome. C. Removal is improper because the federal issue does not appear as part of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. D. Removal is improper only if the amount in controversy is $75,000 or less. Correct Answer: C. Removal is improper because the federal issue does not appear as part of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Rationale: Federal-question jurisdiction generally exists only when the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint establishes that the plaintiff is enforcing a federal right. A federal defense, including a preemption defense, ordinarily cannot create federalquestion jurisdiction. Options A and B incorrectly rely on the anticipated defense. Option D confuses federal-question jurisdiction with the amount-incontroversy requirement applicable to diversity jurisdiction. Question 2 A citizen of State A sues a citizen of State B in federal court, seeking a decree dissolving their marriage and establishing permanent child-custody arrangements. The parties are completely diverse, and the financial interests exceed $75,000. How should the federal court proceed? A. Exercise diversity jurisdiction because both statutory requirements are satisfied. B. Dismiss because the domestic-relations exception applies to the requested relief. C. Exercise jurisdiction over the divorce but dismiss the custody claim. D. Transfer the action to another federal district court. Correct Answer: B. Dismiss because the domestic-relations exception applies to the requested relief. Rationale: The domestic-relations exception narrowly prevents federal diversity courts from issuing divorce, alimony, and child-custody decrees. Complete diversity and the required amount do not overcome that limitation. Option A ignores the exception. Option C incorrectly separates two forms of relief that fall within it. Option D is inappropriate because the defect concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, not venue. Question 3 A plaintiff wants to bring four federal statutory claims. Which claim ordinarily must be filed in federal court because federal jurisdiction is exclusive? A. A claim alleging unconstitutional conduct by a municipal police officer B. A claim under a federal civil-rights statute C. A claim alleging infringement of a federally issued patent D. A claim seeking damages for violation of the federal Constitution Correct Answer: C. A claim alleging infringement of a federally issued patent. Rationale: Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent, copyright, bankruptcy, and federal antitrust matters. State and federal courts generally exercise concurrent jurisdiction over most other federal claims, including many constitutional and civil-rights actions. Therefore, Options A, B, and D ordinarily may be heard in state court unless Congress has expressly provided otherwise. Question 4 A citizen of Georgia brings a state-law negligence claim against a citizen of Florida in federal court. The plaintiff seeks exactly $75,000 in compensatory damages. No federal issue is presented. Does the federal court have diversity jurisdiction? A. Yes, because the parties are completely diverse. B. Yes, because an amount of exactly $75,000 satisfies the requirement. C. No, because the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. D. No, because negligence claims may never be heard under diversity jurisdiction. Correct Answer: C. No, because the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Rationale: Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Exactly $75,000 is insufficient. Option A addresses only one jurisdictional requirement. Option B misstates the statutory threshold. Option D is incorrect because federal courts regularly hear state-law negligence claims when diversity and the amount requirement are satisfied. Question 5 A plaintiff was a citizen of State A when she filed a diversity action against a citizen of State B. Two months later, the plaintiff permanently moved to State B. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of complete diversity. What is the likely result? A. The court must dismiss because the parties are now citizens of the same state. B. The court must dismiss unless the plaintiff returns to State A. C. The court should deny the motion because diversity is determined when the complaint is filed. D. The court should determine citizenship as of the date of trial. Correct Answer: C. The court should deny the motion because diversity is determined when the complaint is filed. Rationale: Diversity of citizenship is ordinarily measured on the date the action is commenced. A later change in domicile does not destroy subject-matter jurisdiction that properly existed at filing. Options A, B, and D incorrectly treat post-filing changes as controlling. The result would differ if complete diversity had been absent when the complaint was originally filed. Question 6 Which proceeding may qualify for federal jurisdiction even though complete diversity does not exist between every claimant and every opposing claimant? A. An ordinary two-party negligence action B. A statutory interpleader action involving minimally diverse claimants C. A standard breach of contract action seeking $80,000 D. A state-law defamation action involving citizens of the same state Correct Answer: B. A statutory interpleader action involving minimally diverse claimants. Rationale: Federal statutory interpleader requires only minimal diversity, meaning at least two adverse claimants are citizens of different states. Certain qualifying class and mass actions also operate under modified diversity standards. Options A and C ordinarily require complete diversity when jurisdiction is based on diversity. Option D provides neither complete diversity nor another stated basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Question 7 A citizen of California sues a French citizen in federal court for $200,000. The French citizen is a lawful permanent resident domiciled in California. No federal claim is asserted. Which conclusion is most accurate? A. Alienage jurisdiction exists because one party is a foreign citizen. B. Alienage jurisdiction exists because the amount exceeds $75,000. C. Jurisdiction is lacking because the permanent resident is domiciled in the same state as the opposing United States citizen. D. Jurisdiction is lacking because federal courts can never hear disputes involving foreign citizens. Correct Answer: C. Jurisdiction is lacking because the permanent resident is domiciled in the same state as the opposing United States citizen. Rationale: Alienage jurisdiction generally covers qualifying disputes between a state citizen and a foreign citizen. However, it does not extend to an action between a state citizen and a lawful permanent resident domiciled in that same state. Options A and B overlook this limitation. Option D is incorrect because federal courts may hear many properly structured disputes involving foreign citizens. Question 8 A graduate student lives in State A for nine months while completing a degree. She keeps her permanent home, driver’s license, voter registration, and family connections in State B and intends to return there immediately after graduation. Where is she most likely domiciled? A. State A, because she is physically present there most of the year B. State A, because temporary residence automatically changes domicile C. State B, because she lacks an intent to remain in State A indefinitely D. Both State A and State B simultaneously Correct Answer: C. State B, because she lacks an intent to remain in State A indefinitely. Rationale: Individual domicile requires both physical presence and an intent to make the location one’s home for an indefinite period. The student’s temporary educational residence does not establish the required intent. Options A and B overemphasize physical presence. Option D is incorrect because an individual may have several residences but only one domicile at a time. Question 9 A corporation is incorporated in Delaware. Its factories and most employees are located in Ohio, but its senior executives direct, coordinate, and control corporate operations from Illinois. For diversity purposes, where is the corporation a citizen? A. Delaware only B. Ohio only C. Delaware and Illinois D. Delaware, Ohio, and Illinois 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,” where high-level officers direct and control activities. Ohio’s operational presence does not independently create corporate citizenship. Therefore, Options A, B, and D are incorrect. Question 10 A limited liability company has three members: one domiciled in Texas, one domiciled in Arizona, and a corporation that is incorporated in Nevada with its principal place of business in Utah. Which states are relevant to the LLC’s citizenship? A. Only the state in which the LLC was organized B. Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah C. Only the state containing the LLC’s headquarters D. Every state in which the LLC conducts business Correct Answer: B. Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Rationale: An unincorporated association, including an LLC or partnership, takes the citizenship of each of its members. The individual members contribute Texas and Arizona citizenship, while the corporate member contributes Nevada and Utah citizenship. Options A and C incorrectly apply rules associated with corporations. Option D confuses business activity with citizenship for diversity purposes.