Page |1
CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION PREP
GUIDE | LATEST UPDATE 2026/2027 |
PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS |
EXAM REVIEW | STUDY GUIDE.
Table of Contents
1. Exam Structure and Subject Overview
2. Civil Procedure
3. Constitutional Law
4. Contracts and Sales
5. Criminal Law and Procedure
6. Evidence
7. Real Property
8. Torts and Remedies
9. Business Associations
10. Community Property
11. Professional Responsibility
12. Wills, Trusts, and Succession
13. Performance Test and Essay Writing Strategies
14. MBE Practice and Time Management
, Page |2
Question 1: A plaintiff filed a negligence action in federal court against a defendant, alleging
$100,000 in damages. The plaintiff is a citizen of California, and the defendant is a citizen of
Nevada. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Should the
court grant the motion?
A) Yes, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000
B) Yes, because there is no federal question presented
C) No, because diversity jurisdiction exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
D) No, because the plaintiff alleged damages over $100,000
Correct Answer: C) No, because diversity jurisdiction exists and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000
Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship and
an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The plaintiff is a California citizen, the
defendant is a Nevada citizen, and the alleged damages are $100,000, which exceeds the
threshold. Therefore, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, and the motion should be
denied.
Question 2: Under California Civil Code §1714(a), which of the following is true regarding
the duty of care?
A) Every person is responsible for injuries caused by want of ordinary care in the
management of their property
B) The duty of care only applies to landowners
C) The duty of care only applies to commercial transactions
D) The duty of care does not apply to public entities
Correct Answer: A) Every person is responsible for injuries caused by want of ordinary
care in the management of their property
California Civil Code §1714(a) establishes that every person is responsible for injuries
caused by their want of ordinary care in the management of their property or person. This is
a broad duty that applies to all persons and property owners, not just landowners or
commercial transactions. Public entities may have additional immunities, but the general
duty applies.
, Page |3
Question 3: A homeowner hired a contractor to build a deck. The contractor used materials
that were not up to code, and the deck collapsed, injuring a neighbor. Under what theory can
the homeowner be held liable?
A) Strict liability
B) Negligence
C) Breach of warranty
D) Vicarious liability
Correct Answer: B) Negligence
The homeowner may be held liable for negligence if they failed to exercise reasonable care in
hiring the contractor or in ensuring the work was performed safely. Strict liability applies to
abnormally dangerous activities, breach of warranty applies to product sales, and vicarious
liability applies to employer-employee relationships. The homeowner's liability would be
based on their own negligent supervision or hiring.
Question 4: A state law bans all political yard signs. A resident challenges the law under the
First Amendment. Which standard of scrutiny should the court apply?
A) Strict scrutiny
B) Intermediate scrutiny
C) Rational basis
D) No scrutiny
Correct Answer: A) Strict scrutiny
Political speech is at the core of the First Amendment. A law banning all political yard signs
is a content-based restriction on political speech, which triggers strict scrutiny. The
government must prove the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
Intermediate scrutiny applies to commercial speech, and rational basis applies to economic
regulations.
Question 5: In a negligence action, which of the following is NOT an element of the claim?
A) Duty
B) Breach
C) Intent
D) Causation
, Page |4
Correct Answer: C) Intent
The elements of negligence are duty, breach of duty, causation (actual and proximate), and
damages. Intent is not an element of negligence; it is an element of intentional torts.
Negligence focuses on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, not on their intent
to cause harm.
Question 6: A landlord entered into a one-year written lease with a tenant. The lease
contained a clause allowing the landlord to enter the premises at any time without notice.
Under California law, is this clause enforceable?
A) Yes, because the tenant agreed to it
B) Yes, because landlords have absolute rights to enter
C) No, because California law requires reasonable notice and limits entry to specific purposes
D) No, because leases cannot contain entry clauses
Correct Answer: C) No, because California law requires reasonable notice and limits
entry to specific purposes
California Civil Code §1954 requires a landlord to give reasonable notice before entering a
rental unit and limits entry to specific purposes such as repairs, inspections, or showing the
unit to prospective tenants. A clause allowing entry at any time without notice violates this
statute and is unenforceable. The tenant's agreement does not waive these statutory
protections.
Question 7: A defendant is charged with murder. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence
that the defendant committed a prior robbery to prove the defendant's propensity for violence.
Under California law, is this evidence admissible?
A) Yes, because prior bad acts are always admissible
B) Yes, because robbery is a violent crime
C) No, because character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in a criminal
case
D) No, because robbery is not a violent crime
Correct Answer: C) No, because character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove
conduct in a criminal case
Under California Evidence Code §1101, character evidence is generally inadmissible to
prove that a person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion.
CALIFORNIA BAR EXAMINATION PREP
GUIDE | LATEST UPDATE 2026/2027 |
PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS |
EXAM REVIEW | STUDY GUIDE.
Table of Contents
1. Exam Structure and Subject Overview
2. Civil Procedure
3. Constitutional Law
4. Contracts and Sales
5. Criminal Law and Procedure
6. Evidence
7. Real Property
8. Torts and Remedies
9. Business Associations
10. Community Property
11. Professional Responsibility
12. Wills, Trusts, and Succession
13. Performance Test and Essay Writing Strategies
14. MBE Practice and Time Management
, Page |2
Question 1: A plaintiff filed a negligence action in federal court against a defendant, alleging
$100,000 in damages. The plaintiff is a citizen of California, and the defendant is a citizen of
Nevada. The defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Should the
court grant the motion?
A) Yes, because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000
B) Yes, because there is no federal question presented
C) No, because diversity jurisdiction exists and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000
D) No, because the plaintiff alleged damages over $100,000
Correct Answer: C) No, because diversity jurisdiction exists and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000
Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity of citizenship and
an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The plaintiff is a California citizen, the
defendant is a Nevada citizen, and the alleged damages are $100,000, which exceeds the
threshold. Therefore, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction, and the motion should be
denied.
Question 2: Under California Civil Code §1714(a), which of the following is true regarding
the duty of care?
A) Every person is responsible for injuries caused by want of ordinary care in the
management of their property
B) The duty of care only applies to landowners
C) The duty of care only applies to commercial transactions
D) The duty of care does not apply to public entities
Correct Answer: A) Every person is responsible for injuries caused by want of ordinary
care in the management of their property
California Civil Code §1714(a) establishes that every person is responsible for injuries
caused by their want of ordinary care in the management of their property or person. This is
a broad duty that applies to all persons and property owners, not just landowners or
commercial transactions. Public entities may have additional immunities, but the general
duty applies.
, Page |3
Question 3: A homeowner hired a contractor to build a deck. The contractor used materials
that were not up to code, and the deck collapsed, injuring a neighbor. Under what theory can
the homeowner be held liable?
A) Strict liability
B) Negligence
C) Breach of warranty
D) Vicarious liability
Correct Answer: B) Negligence
The homeowner may be held liable for negligence if they failed to exercise reasonable care in
hiring the contractor or in ensuring the work was performed safely. Strict liability applies to
abnormally dangerous activities, breach of warranty applies to product sales, and vicarious
liability applies to employer-employee relationships. The homeowner's liability would be
based on their own negligent supervision or hiring.
Question 4: A state law bans all political yard signs. A resident challenges the law under the
First Amendment. Which standard of scrutiny should the court apply?
A) Strict scrutiny
B) Intermediate scrutiny
C) Rational basis
D) No scrutiny
Correct Answer: A) Strict scrutiny
Political speech is at the core of the First Amendment. A law banning all political yard signs
is a content-based restriction on political speech, which triggers strict scrutiny. The
government must prove the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
Intermediate scrutiny applies to commercial speech, and rational basis applies to economic
regulations.
Question 5: In a negligence action, which of the following is NOT an element of the claim?
A) Duty
B) Breach
C) Intent
D) Causation
, Page |4
Correct Answer: C) Intent
The elements of negligence are duty, breach of duty, causation (actual and proximate), and
damages. Intent is not an element of negligence; it is an element of intentional torts.
Negligence focuses on the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care, not on their intent
to cause harm.
Question 6: A landlord entered into a one-year written lease with a tenant. The lease
contained a clause allowing the landlord to enter the premises at any time without notice.
Under California law, is this clause enforceable?
A) Yes, because the tenant agreed to it
B) Yes, because landlords have absolute rights to enter
C) No, because California law requires reasonable notice and limits entry to specific purposes
D) No, because leases cannot contain entry clauses
Correct Answer: C) No, because California law requires reasonable notice and limits
entry to specific purposes
California Civil Code §1954 requires a landlord to give reasonable notice before entering a
rental unit and limits entry to specific purposes such as repairs, inspections, or showing the
unit to prospective tenants. A clause allowing entry at any time without notice violates this
statute and is unenforceable. The tenant's agreement does not waive these statutory
protections.
Question 7: A defendant is charged with murder. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence
that the defendant committed a prior robbery to prove the defendant's propensity for violence.
Under California law, is this evidence admissible?
A) Yes, because prior bad acts are always admissible
B) Yes, because robbery is a violent crime
C) No, because character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in a criminal
case
D) No, because robbery is not a violent crime
Correct Answer: C) No, because character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove
conduct in a criminal case
Under California Evidence Code §1101, character evidence is generally inadmissible to
prove that a person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion.
