1 | Page
MBE AM Questions and Correct Answers/ Latest
Update / Already Graded
The defendant robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice,
not realizing that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers
recorded and had a tiny tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank's
security consultant obtained portable tracking equipment and was able to trace
the bundle of money to the defendant's house. The police were notified and they
arrived at the defendant's house a few hours after the robbery. They knocked on
the door, announced their presence, and saw someone matching the description
of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the defendant, and then
conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed
had a gun. They did not find him, but while checking a closet, they discovered
several of the bundles of money from the bank and a gun the defendant had used
in the robbery. The police also discovered two clear plastic ba
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: The court should suppress all of the evidence because it was the fruit of an
unconstitutional arrest. As a general rule, the police must have an arrest warrant
to effect an arrest of an individual in his own home. There is no general
"emergency" exception to the warrant requirement. While police officers in hot
pursuit of a fleeing felon or trying to prevent the destruction of evidence may
sometimes make a warrantless search and seizure, the burden is on the
government to show that one of those exceptions applies. Here, the police did
not arrive at the defendant's house in hot pursuit of the defendant, and there was
no indication that the defendant might be destroying the money or other
evidence; i.e., there were no circumstances precluding them from keeping the
house under surveillance while they obtained a warrant. Hence, the arrest was
unconstitutional. Because an arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth
Amendment, the exclusionary rule applies, and evidence that is the fruit of the
unconstitutional arrest may not be used against the defendant at trial. Here, all of
the evidence was seized without a warrant, and none of the other exceptions to
the warrant requirement are applicable. While the protective sweep that turned
up the money and gun probably would have been within the bounds of a search
incident to an arrest because the police had reason to believe an armed
accomplice was present, the arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment makes
the search unlawful. Similarly, while the bags of marijuana were discovered in plain
view, the police have to be legitimately on the premises for that exception to
apply. Thus, (C) is correct; (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect.
A contractor gave the low bid for some electrical repairs to a homeowner's
house. Based on this bid, the contractor and the homeowner entered into a
contract stating that the contractor would perform the electrical repairs for
$6,000. Before beginning work on the project, the contractor notified the
homeowner that he would lose money on the job at that price, and would not
proceed with the work unless the homeowner would agree to increase the price
to $9,000. The homeowner thereupon, without notifying the contractor, entered
into a contract with an electrician to make the repairs for $7,500, which was the
fair market cost of the work to be done. The electrician finished the house on
schedule and then showed the homeowner that he (the electrician) had spent
$8,500 on the job. The homeowner thereupon paid the electrician the full balance
of their contract price plus an additional $1,000, so that the electrician would n
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Ans: The homeowner can recover $1,500, the difference between the
contractor's contract price and the contract price of the substitute performance.
Here, while the homeowner actually paid $2,500 more than the contractor's
contract price to have the house repaired, he was obligated to pay only $1,500
more because the electrician had a legal duty to make the repairs to the house for
his contract price and no more. The homeowner will not be able to recover the
$1,000 difference because he has a duty to mitigate damages, and paying more
than he was actually obligated to pay breaches the duty. (A) and (B) are incorrect
because they do not apply the proper measure of damages formula. (C) is
incorrect because the "cost of completion" does not include the additional $1,000
the homeowner gave the electrician to save the electrician from having
performed the job at a loss. As explained above, the homeowner was not
required to pay the electrician the $1,000 to complete the repairs and the
homeowner's paying the extra amount breaches his duty to mitigate damages.
Thus, the homeowner cannot recover the extra $1,000.
An elderly physician who performed consulting services for a corporation passed
away. Pursuant to a contract between the physician and the corporation, the
corporation owed the physician $100,000 when the physician died. Although
applicable law provides that such contractual debts survive the death of a party to
the contract, the corporation refused to pay. The executor of the physician's
estate sued the corporation in federal court on behalf of the physician's estate,
seeking payment of the sums owed. The physician was a citizen and resident of
State A at the time of death. The physician's executor is a citizen and resident of
State B. The corporation is incorporated in State C, and it has its principal place
of business in State B.
Does the federal court have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the action?
A No, because the plaintiff's citizenship is that of the executor (State B), and the
defendant corpora
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
Ans: The federal court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of
citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from every
defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. For diversity
purposes, a corporation is considered to be a citizen of every state in which it is
incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business.
Additionally, a legal representative of a decedent assumes the state citizenship of
the decedent. Thus, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the corporation is a
citizen of both State C and State B, and the executor assumes the decedent's
State A citizenship. Complete diversity therefore exists, and the amount in
controversy of $100,000 exceeds the threshold amount. As a result, (C) is the
correct answer. (A) is incorrect because, as explained, the executor assumes the
decedent's state citizenship; here, it is irrelevant that the executor is a citizen of
State B. (B) is an incorrect statement of the law; the executor's true state
citizenship is disregarded for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (D) is
incorrect because a corporation may have multiple state citizenships—for
diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is
incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business, as
explained above.
A delivery company employed several messengers to deliver packages by car to
nearby towns. The company also allowed some employees to use company cars
for personal use from time to time. A clerical employee had her car in a body
shop because she had run a red light and been broadsided by another vehicle.
This was the second time she had run a light and been hit. She borrowed a
company car for the weekend and was using it to do some grocery shopping. The
employee negligently went through a red light and crossed the path of a rented
van. The man driving the van swerved to avoid the employee and struck a light
post and several parked cars, severely damaging the van. At the time of the
accident, the driver of the van was exceeding the posted speed limit; he would
have been able to avoid hitting the light post and the cars had he been going the
proper speed.
The leasing company that had rented the van to the driver brough
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
MBE AM Questions and Correct Answers/ Latest
Update / Already Graded
The defendant robbed a bank and fled in a getaway car driven by an accomplice,
not realizing that one of the bundles of money he took had the serial numbers
recorded and had a tiny tracking device attached to the wrapper. The bank's
security consultant obtained portable tracking equipment and was able to trace
the bundle of money to the defendant's house. The police were notified and they
arrived at the defendant's house a few hours after the robbery. They knocked on
the door, announced their presence, and saw someone matching the description
of the robber in the hallway. They entered and arrested the defendant, and then
conducted a protective sweep of the house for the accomplice, who they believed
had a gun. They did not find him, but while checking a closet, they discovered
several of the bundles of money from the bank and a gun the defendant had used
in the robbery. The police also discovered two clear plastic ba
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 2 | Page
Ans: The court should suppress all of the evidence because it was the fruit of an
unconstitutional arrest. As a general rule, the police must have an arrest warrant
to effect an arrest of an individual in his own home. There is no general
"emergency" exception to the warrant requirement. While police officers in hot
pursuit of a fleeing felon or trying to prevent the destruction of evidence may
sometimes make a warrantless search and seizure, the burden is on the
government to show that one of those exceptions applies. Here, the police did
not arrive at the defendant's house in hot pursuit of the defendant, and there was
no indication that the defendant might be destroying the money or other
evidence; i.e., there were no circumstances precluding them from keeping the
house under surveillance while they obtained a warrant. Hence, the arrest was
unconstitutional. Because an arrest constitutes a seizure under the Fourth
Amendment, the exclusionary rule applies, and evidence that is the fruit of the
unconstitutional arrest may not be used against the defendant at trial. Here, all of
the evidence was seized without a warrant, and none of the other exceptions to
the warrant requirement are applicable. While the protective sweep that turned
up the money and gun probably would have been within the bounds of a search
incident to an arrest because the police had reason to believe an armed
accomplice was present, the arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment makes
the search unlawful. Similarly, while the bags of marijuana were discovered in plain
view, the police have to be legitimately on the premises for that exception to
apply. Thus, (C) is correct; (A), (B), and (D) are incorrect.
A contractor gave the low bid for some electrical repairs to a homeowner's
house. Based on this bid, the contractor and the homeowner entered into a
contract stating that the contractor would perform the electrical repairs for
$6,000. Before beginning work on the project, the contractor notified the
homeowner that he would lose money on the job at that price, and would not
proceed with the work unless the homeowner would agree to increase the price
to $9,000. The homeowner thereupon, without notifying the contractor, entered
into a contract with an electrician to make the repairs for $7,500, which was the
fair market cost of the work to be done. The electrician finished the house on
schedule and then showed the homeowner that he (the electrician) had spent
$8,500 on the job. The homeowner thereupon paid the electrician the full balance
of their contract price plus an additional $1,000, so that the electrician would n
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 3 | Page
Ans: The homeowner can recover $1,500, the difference between the
contractor's contract price and the contract price of the substitute performance.
Here, while the homeowner actually paid $2,500 more than the contractor's
contract price to have the house repaired, he was obligated to pay only $1,500
more because the electrician had a legal duty to make the repairs to the house for
his contract price and no more. The homeowner will not be able to recover the
$1,000 difference because he has a duty to mitigate damages, and paying more
than he was actually obligated to pay breaches the duty. (A) and (B) are incorrect
because they do not apply the proper measure of damages formula. (C) is
incorrect because the "cost of completion" does not include the additional $1,000
the homeowner gave the electrician to save the electrician from having
performed the job at a loss. As explained above, the homeowner was not
required to pay the electrician the $1,000 to complete the repairs and the
homeowner's paying the extra amount breaches his duty to mitigate damages.
Thus, the homeowner cannot recover the extra $1,000.
An elderly physician who performed consulting services for a corporation passed
away. Pursuant to a contract between the physician and the corporation, the
corporation owed the physician $100,000 when the physician died. Although
applicable law provides that such contractual debts survive the death of a party to
the contract, the corporation refused to pay. The executor of the physician's
estate sued the corporation in federal court on behalf of the physician's estate,
seeking payment of the sums owed. The physician was a citizen and resident of
State A at the time of death. The physician's executor is a citizen and resident of
State B. The corporation is incorporated in State C, and it has its principal place
of business in State B.
Does the federal court have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction over the action?
A No, because the plaintiff's citizenship is that of the executor (State B), and the
defendant corpora
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
, 4 | Page
Ans: The federal court has diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. Diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction is available when (i) there is complete diversity of
citizenship, meaning that each plaintiff is a citizen of a different state from every
defendant; and (ii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. For diversity
purposes, a corporation is considered to be a citizen of every state in which it is
incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business.
Additionally, a legal representative of a decedent assumes the state citizenship of
the decedent. Thus, for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the corporation is a
citizen of both State C and State B, and the executor assumes the decedent's
State A citizenship. Complete diversity therefore exists, and the amount in
controversy of $100,000 exceeds the threshold amount. As a result, (C) is the
correct answer. (A) is incorrect because, as explained, the executor assumes the
decedent's state citizenship; here, it is irrelevant that the executor is a citizen of
State B. (B) is an incorrect statement of the law; the executor's true state
citizenship is disregarded for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction. (D) is
incorrect because a corporation may have multiple state citizenships—for
diversity purposes, a corporation is a citizen of every state in which it is
incorporated and the one state in which it has its principal place of business, as
explained above.
A delivery company employed several messengers to deliver packages by car to
nearby towns. The company also allowed some employees to use company cars
for personal use from time to time. A clerical employee had her car in a body
shop because she had run a red light and been broadsided by another vehicle.
This was the second time she had run a light and been hit. She borrowed a
company car for the weekend and was using it to do some grocery shopping. The
employee negligently went through a red light and crossed the path of a rented
van. The man driving the van swerved to avoid the employee and struck a light
post and several parked cars, severely damaging the van. At the time of the
accident, the driver of the van was exceeding the posted speed limit; he would
have been able to avoid hitting the light post and the cars had he been going the
proper speed.
The leasing company that had rented the van to the driver brough
© 2025/ 2026 | ® All rights reserved
