BARBRI MBE COMPREHENSIVE EXAM 2026
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS GRADED A+
◉ 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%.
Answer: 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. Answer: 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. Answer: 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.
QUESTIONS AND SOLUTIONS GRADED A+
◉ 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%.
Answer: 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. Answer: 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. Answer: 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.
