\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

~{#BarExam}~ Official Bar Exam Discussion and MBE Question Thread ~{#BarExam}~

Walter, a 16-year-old, purchased an educational chemistry se...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
C
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
No
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
Either A or D. This one hard
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
I would go with A on the exam, failure to provide notice is ...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
D on the B>PL rule?
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
It's D. I think because if D is true it wasn't defective for...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
This is why I fucking hate these questions, they made it as ...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
it's been a long time since i took torts but isn't the balan...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
I think they're using the bomb thing as a distractor because...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
lmao this one is in my barmax as well. the real MBE questio...
kink-friendly supple abode
  07/15/18
On August 1, Geriatrics, Inc., operating a “lifetime care” h...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
C he got lifetime care
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
I'd go w/ C as well.
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
C is correct
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
While walking home one evening, Harold, an off-duty police o...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
Correct
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A, easy one. Please exam be all these...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Anna entered a hospital to undergo surgery and feared that s...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D, because constructive delivery? Fuck, A isn't bad as we...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
In a prosecution of Doris for murder, the government seeks t...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
I feel like they would need the doctor to testify to lay the...
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
it seems like it would depend on the doc's testimony/affidav...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
You have to pick an answer choice though
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
b
exciting gay wizard cuckoldry
  07/15/18
Correct
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
I’m going with A
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
i would have, too. not sure why the judge can consider the ...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
the judge can consider inadmissible evidence in his determin...
exciting gay wizard cuckoldry
  07/15/18
i guess so. this is the exact sort of thing, of course, tha...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
As Paul, a bartender, was removing the restraining wire from...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Wrong
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A?
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
Swatter, a baseball star, contracted with the Municipal Symp...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D?
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
Yes
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
I'd go w/ D on the test
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Road Lines is an interstate bus company operating in a five-...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D, though I'm tempted to say A.
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Shore decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order t...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A?
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
It's A
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
How? That's not the common law definition of arson going on ...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
malicious burning of the dwelling house of another
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
hmm if it's a dilapidated building its not a dwelling house ...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
the critical pass flash card on arson has a note that says o...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
gotta be C Shore didn't commit arson or burglary, Parsons...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Retard schitck. Fraud isn’t an inherently dangerous felony. ...
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
A and D should work but I’m going with D
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
You can’t die from a burglary dummy
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
? Burglary is one of the most commonly used felonies for the...
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
Didn't go in w/ intent to steal
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
he went in with the intent to commit arson, which would sati...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
(Xo 2018)
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
C?
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a state tax la...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
B?
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Yes
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
are these barbri questions? they look horrible.
insanely creepy boyish lay
  07/15/18
these are all real bar exam questions
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
Two days before his home was to be sold at a foreclosure sal...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
b
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
Yes
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
B
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for injuries a...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
c
exciting gay wizard cuckoldry
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
C
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
C seems like the only one that would result in a relief
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
In the wake of massive terrorist attacks carried out inside ...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
(E) yes, because regardless of whether national origin is su...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
If this was real, B? 5th doesn't have an equal protection cl...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
It's A. Article III of the Constitution provides that the ...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
Able and Baker are students in an advanced high school Russi...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D - not seeing the damage component though
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
if he's accusing him of a criminal act he doesn't need to sh...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Dirk is on trial for the brutal murder of Villas. Dirk’s fir...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D
Cerebral Violent Gas Station
  07/15/18
Wrong
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D - hearsay w/ no exceptions?
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
B
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
A construction contractor brought a breach of contract claim...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A
Cerebral Violent Gas Station
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A - easy
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
A plaintiff, a management trainee, brought a sex discriminat...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A?
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Yes
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A man kidnapped a victim in State A and transported the vict...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
B
Cerebral Violent Gas Station
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
B
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
Amos owned Greenfield, a tract of land. His friend Bert want...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
B
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
A federal grand jury was investigating a corporation whose t...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
C
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
C
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
A woman was standing in the aisle of a subway car and put he...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
Holy shit, BarBri doesn't prepare you for this
insanely creepy boyish lay
  07/15/18
D
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
by force or threat of force – the use of force or threat of ...
insanely creepy boyish lay
  07/15/18
i used to think I could pass the bar without having to study...
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
you probably can. these sound like the hardest MBE question...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
D - during the commission of the crime, doesn't have to be f...
Pearly cracking national
  07/15/18
A defendant was convicted of fraud after a jury trial in sta...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
C
blue razzmatazz center
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A plaintiff sued an industrial facility in her neighborhood ...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
D
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
wait why is this not C seems like she can simply authenti...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Only the adverse party can introduce as an exhibit
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
is that specific to the lack of recollection? ...also jfc...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Yes, for the past recorded recollection exception, the party...
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
what stops her from simply introducing it after proper authe...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
The issue isn’t authentication bro, it’s whether it’s hearsa...
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
not suggesting authentication is an issue. seems like a con...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Present sense needs to be immediately after. Not enough in t...
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
There's a document though too. When it's used to refresh she...
Bisexual White Ticket Booth
  07/15/18
yeah, the document contains the impression. we got all that...
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
Well I think if the statement had just been "wow it sur...
Bisexual White Ticket Booth
  07/15/18
A defendant is on trial for kidnapping. The victim has testi...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
C
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
Cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A brick mason was hired by a builder under a written one-yea...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
B
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
A homeowner contracted in writing with a kitchen contractor ...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/15/18
President Trump tweeted from his personal Twitter account th...
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
A loretto v teleprompter MFH, etc
Exhilarant mexican
  07/15/18
cr
heady people who are hurt
  07/15/18
...
Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams
  07/16/18
good luck on the test this week, boys.
Ivory dilemma
  07/16/18


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:52 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Walter, a 16-year-old, purchased an educational chemistry set manufactured by Chemco.

Walter invited his friend and classmate, Peter, to assist him in a chemistry project. Referring to a library chemistry book on explosives and finding that the chemistry set contained all of the necessary chemicals, Walter and Peter agreed to make a bomb. During the course of the project, Walter carelessly knocked a lighted Bunsen burner into a bowl of chemicals from the chemistry set. The chemicals burst into flames, injuring Peter.

In a suit by Peter against Chemco, based on strict liability, Peter will

(A) prevail, if the chemistry set did not contain a warning that its contents could be combined to form dangerous explosives.

(B) prevail, because manufacturers of chemistry sets are engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.

(C) not prevail, because Walter’s negligence was the cause in fact of Peter’s injury.

(D) not prevail, if the chemistry set was as safe as possible, consistent with its educational purposes, and its benefits exceeded its risks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428885)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:14 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36430973)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:29 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

No

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431051)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:31 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

Either A or D. This one hard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431064)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:50 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

I would go with A on the exam, failure to provide notice is one of the triggers for strict product liability. The defendant's conduct, spilling the chemicals, is also foreseeable by the manufacture.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431174)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:31 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

D on the B>PL rule?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431073)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:53 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

It's D. I think because if D is true it wasn't defective for products liability. Not sure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431183)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:57 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

This is why I fucking hate these questions, they made it as safe as possible, I get that, but isn't this the same as fireworks where regardless of how safe someone makes things there is still liability due to inherently dangerous product?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431204)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:03 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

it's been a long time since i took torts but isn't the balancing equation part of the inherently dangerous product question?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431238)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:05 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

I think they're using the bomb thing as a distractor because the fire was started by knocking the burner into the bowl of chemicals

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431249)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:05 PM
Author: kink-friendly supple abode

lmao this one is in my barmax as well. the real MBE questions are fucking nuts.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431244)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:52 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

On August 1, Geriatrics, Inc., operating a “lifetime care” home for the elderly, admitted Ohlster, who was 84 years old, for a trial period of two months. On September 25, Ohlster and Geriatrics entered into a written lifetime care contract with an effective commencement date of October 1. The full contract price was $20,000, which, as required by the terms of the contract, Ohlster prepaid to Geriatrics on September 25. Ohlster died of a heart attack on October 2.

In a restitutionary action, can the administratrix of Ohlster’s estate, a surviving sister, recover on behalf of the estate either all or part of the $20,000 paid to Geriatrics on September 25?

(A) Yes, because Geriatrics would otherwise be unjustly enriched at Ohlster’s expense.

(B) Yes, under the doctrine of frustration of purpose.

(C) No, because Ohlster’s life span and the duration of Geriatrics’ commitment to him was a risk assumed by both parties.

(D) No, but only if Geriatrics can show that between September 25 and Ohlster’s death it rejected, because of its commitment to Ohlster, an application for lifetime care from another elderly person.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428888)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:31 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

C

he got lifetime care

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431062)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:55 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

I'd go w/ C as well.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431191)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:58 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

C is correct

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431206)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:52 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

While walking home one evening, Harold, an off-duty police officer, was accosted by Jones, a stranger. Jones had been drinking and mistakenly thought Harold was a man who was having an affair with his wife. Intending to frighten Harold but not to harm him, Jones pulled out a knife, screamed obscenities, and told Harold he was going to kill him. Frightened and reasonably believing Jones was going to kill him and that using deadly force was his only salvation, Harold took out his service revolver and shot and killed Jones. Harold is charged with murder.

Harold’s claim of self-defense should be

(A) sustained, because Harold reasonably believed Jones was planning to kill him and that deadly force was required.

(B) sustained, because the killing was in hot blood upon sufficient provocation.

(C) denied, because Jones did not in fact intend to harm Harold and Harold was incorrect in believing that he did.

(D) denied, because Harold was not defending his home and had an obligation to retreat or to repel with less than deadly force.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428889)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:16 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36430979)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:30 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Correct

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431055)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:59 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

A, easy one. Please exam be all these...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431217)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:53 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Anna entered a hospital to undergo surgery and feared that she might not survive. She instructed her lawyer by telephone to prepare a deed conveying Blackacre, a large tract of undeveloped land, as a gift to her nephew, Bernard, who lived in a distant state. Her instructions were followed, and, prior to her surgery, she executed a document in a form sufficient to constitute a deed of conveyance. The deed was recorded by the lawyer promptly and properly as she instructed him to do. The recorded deed was returned to the lawyer by the land record office, Anna, in fact, recovered from her surgery and the lawyer returned the recorded deed to her.

Before Anna or the lawyer thought to inform Bernard of the conveyance, Bernard was killed in an auto accident. Bernard’s will left all of his estate to a satanic religious cult. Anna was very upset at the prospect of the cult’s acquiring Blackacre.

The local taxing authority assessed the next real property tax bill on Blackacre to Bernard’s estate.

Anna brought an appropriate action against Bernard’s estate and the cult to set aside the conveyance to Bernard.

If Anna loses, it will be because

(A) the gift of Blackacre was inter vivos rather than causa mortis.

(B) the showing of Bernard’s estate as the owner of Blackacre on the tax rolls supplied what otherwise would be a missing essential element for a valid conveyance.

(C) disappointing Bernard’s devisee would violate the religious freedom provisions of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

(D) delivery of the deed is presumed from the recording of the deed.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428894)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:03 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

D, because constructive delivery?

Fuck, A isn't bad as well because aren't inter vivos gifts irrevocable?

Hate these questions...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431239)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:15 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431327)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:53 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

In a prosecution of Doris for murder, the government seeks to introduce a properly authenticated note written by the victim that reads: “Doris did it.” In laying the foundation for admitting the note as a dying declaration, the prosecution offered an affidavit from the attending physician that the victim knew she was about to die when she wrote the note.

The admissibility of the note as a dying declaration is

(A) a preliminary fact question for the judge, and the judge must not consider the affidavit.

(B) a preliminary fact question for the judge, and the judge may properly consider the affidavit.

(C) a question of weight and credibility for the jury, and the jury must not consider the affidavit.

(D) a question of weight and credibility for the jury, and the jury may properly consider the affidavit.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428895)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:21 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

I feel like they would need the doctor to testify to lay the foundation...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36430996)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:33 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

it seems like it would depend on the doc's testimony/affidavit language too

"she knew she was going to die" is speculation

"she was terminally ill, had been informed of that, her condition was..." is fact

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431079)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:35 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

You have to pick an answer choice though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431091)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:41 PM
Author: exciting gay wizard cuckoldry

b

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431121)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:57 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Correct

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431200)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:52 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

I’m going with A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431180)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:57 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

i would have, too. not sure why the judge can consider the affidavit if it contains separately objectionable material

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431201)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:59 PM
Author: exciting gay wizard cuckoldry

the judge can consider inadmissible evidence in his determination

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431215)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:04 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

i guess so. this is the exact sort of thing, of course, that i would look up and learn in ten seconds while researching for a motion in limine on the evidence in question

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431242)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:53 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

As Paul, a bartender, was removing the restraining wire from a bottle of champagne produced and bottled by Winery, Inc., the plastic stopper suddenly shot out of the bottle. The stopper struck and injured Paul’s eye. Paul had opened other bottles of champagne, and occasionally the stoppers had shot out with great force, but Paul had not been injured.

Paul has brought an action against Winery, Inc., alleging that the bottle that caused his injury was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its label did not warn that the stopper might suddenly shoot out during opening. The state has merged contributory negligence and unreasonable assumption of risk into a pure comparative fault system that is applied in strict products liability actions.

If the jury finds that the bottle was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a warning, will Paul recover a judgment in his favor?

(A) No, if the jury finds that a legally sufficient warning would not have prevented Paul’s injury.

(B) No, if a reasonable bartender would have realized that a stopper could eject from the bottle and hit his eye.

(C) Yes, with damages reduced by the percentage of any contributory fault on Paul’s part.

(D) Yes, with no reduction in damages, because foreseeable lack of caution is the reason for requiring a warning.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428897)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:32 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431460)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:34 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Wrong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431476)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:46 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

A?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431556)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:58 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431601)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:54 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Swatter, a baseball star, contracted with the Municipal Symphony Orchestra, Inc., to perform for $5,000 at a children’s concert as narrator of “Peter and the Wolf.” Shortly before the concert, Swatter became embroiled in a highly publicized controversy over whether he had cursed and assaulted a baseball fan. The orchestra canceled the contract out of concern that attendance might be adversely affected by Swatter’s appearance.

Swatter sued the orchestra for breach of contract. His business agent testified without contradiction that the cancellation had resulted in Swatter’s not getting other contracts for performances and endorsements.

The trial court instructed the jury, in part, as follows: “If you find for the plaintiff, you may award damages for losses which at the time of contracting could reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant as a probable result of its breach. However, the law does not permit recovery for the loss of prospective profits of a new business caused by breach of contract.”

On Swatter’s appeal from a jury verdict for Swatter, and judgment thereon, awarding damages only for the $5,000 fee promised by the orchestra, the judgment will probably be

(A) affirmed, because the trial court stated the law correctly.

(B) affirmed, because the issue of damages for breach of contract was solely a jury question.

(C) reversed, because the test for limiting damages is what the breaching party could reasonably have foreseen at the time of the breach.

(D) reversed, because under the prevailing modern view, lost profits of a new business are recoverable if they are established with reasonable certainty.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428900)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:27 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

D?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431022)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:31 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431070)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:36 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

I'd go w/ D on the test

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431497)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:54 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Road Lines is an interstate bus company operating in a five-state area. A federal statute authorizes the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to permit interstate carriers to discontinue entirely any unprofitable route. Road Lines applied to the ICC for permission to drop a very unprofitable route through the sparsely populated Shaley Mountains. The ICC granted that permission even though Road Lines provided the only public transportation into the region.

Foley is the owner of a mountain resort in the Shaley Mountains, whose customers usually arrived on vehicles operated by Road Lines. After exhausting all available federal administrative remedies, Foley filed suit against Road Lines in the trial court of the state in which the Shaley Mountains are located to enjoin the discontinuance by Road Lines of its service to that area. Foley alleged that the discontinuance of service by Road Lines would violate a statute of that state prohibiting common carriers of persons from abandoning service to communities having no alternate form of public transportation.

The state court should

(A) dismiss the action, because Foley lacks standing to sue.

(B) direct the removal of the case to federal court, because this suit involves a substantial federal question.

(C) hear the case on its merits and decide for Foley because, on these facts, a federal agency is interfering with essential state functions.

(D) hear the case on its merits and decide for Road Lines, because a valid federal law preempts the state statute on which Foley relies.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428902)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:43 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

D, though I'm tempted to say A.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431532)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:54 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Shore decided to destroy his dilapidated building in order to collect the insurance money. He hired Parsons to burn down the building. Parsons broke into the building and carefully searched it to make sure no one was inside. He failed, however, to see a vagrant asleep in an office closet. He started a fire. The building was destroyed, and the vagrant died from burns a week later. Two days after the fire, Shore filed an insurance claim in which he stated that he had no information about the cause of the fire.

If Shore is guilty of felony-murder, it is because the vagrant’s death occurred in connection with the felony of

(A) arson.

(B) fraud.

(C) conspiracy.

(D) burglary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428905)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:25 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

A?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431012)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:12 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

It's A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431299)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:50 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

How? That's not the common law definition of arson going on there

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431569)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:57 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

malicious burning of the dwelling house of another

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431598)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:01 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

hmm if it's a dilapidated building its not a dwelling house

unless its the dwelling house of the vagrant living in it

fucking bar exam

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431615)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:04 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

the critical pass flash card on arson has a note that says on the mbe it can be a nonresidential structure

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431638)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:30 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

gotta be C

Shore didn't commit arson or burglary, Parsons committed the arson

the death didn't occur during the commission of fraud, which happened after the fire

it did occur during the commission of an overt act intending to further a conspiracy to commit arson

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431058)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:31 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

Retard schitck. Fraud isn’t an inherently dangerous felony. Shore is an accomplice

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431068)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:07 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

A and D should work but I’m going with D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431257)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:16 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

You can’t die from a burglary dummy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431339)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:31 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

? Burglary is one of the most commonly used felonies for the felony murder rule

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431450)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:48 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

Didn't go in w/ intent to steal

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431562)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:51 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

he went in with the intent to commit arson, which would satisfy the criminal intent requirement

if he didn't commit burglary, its because he didn't illegally enter the building - he had permission from the owner

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431571)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:58 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

(Xo 2018)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431602)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:47 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

C?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431559)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 12:55 AM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a state tax law, alleging that it violated the equal protection clauses of both the United States Constitution and the state constitution. The state supreme court agreed and held the tax law to be invalid. It said:

“We hold that this state tax law violates the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and also the equal protection clause of the state constitution because we interpret that provision of the state constitution to contain exactly the same prohibition against discriminatory legislation as is contained in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

The state sought review of this decision in the United States Supreme Court, alleging that the state supreme court’s determination of the federal constitutional issue was incorrect.

How should the United States Supreme Court dispose of the case if it believes that this interpretation of the federal Constitution by the state supreme court raises an important federal question and is incorrect on the merits?

(A) Reverse the state supreme court decision, because the equal protection clause of a state constitution must be construed by the state supreme court in a manner that is congruent with the meaning of the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution.

(B) Reverse the state supreme court decision

with respect to the equal protection clause of the federal Constitution and remand the case to the state supreme court for further proceedings, because the state and federal constitutional issues are so intertwined that the federal issue must be decided so that this case may be disposed of properly.

(C) Refuse to review the decision of the state supreme court, because it is based on an adequate and independent ground of state law.

(D) Refuse to review the decision of the state supreme court, because a state government may not seek review of decisions of its own courts in the United States Supreme Court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36428913)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:55 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

B?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431591)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:59 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431606)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:03 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36430934)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:18 PM
Author: insanely creepy boyish lay

are these barbri questions? they look horrible.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36430983)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:20 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

these are all real bar exam questions

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36430989)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:27 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Two days before his home was to be sold at a foreclosure sale, a homeowner obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in federal court that prevented his lender from proceeding with the sale for 14 days or until a preliminary injunction hearing could take place, whichever was sooner. When a preliminary injunction hearing could not be scheduled within the original 14-day period, the court extended the TRO for another 30 days.

The lender appealed the court’s order extending the TRO. The homeowner has moved to dismiss the appeal.

Is the appellate court likely to dismiss the appeal?

(A) No, because a TRO is immediately appealable.

(B) No, because the 30-day extension makes the TRO equivalent to a preliminary injunction and therefore appealable.

(C) Yes, because a TRO is not appealable under the interlocutory appeals statute.

(D) Yes, because there is no final judgment from which an appeal may be taken.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431028)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:28 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

b

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431042)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 2:32 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431074)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:57 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431597)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:03 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for injuries arising out of an accident involving the parties. The plaintiff alleged and presented evidence at trial demonstrating that her injuries had left her legs permanently paralyzed. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded her $5 million in damages. Two months after the court entered judgment, the defendant was given a videotape made that day showing the plaintiff jogging with her doctor.

What is the best way for the defendant to seek relief from the judgment?

(A) Move for a new trial or in the alternative for remittitur to reduce the award in light of the shortened duration of the plaintiff’s injuries.

(B) Move for relief from the judgment on the ground that the judgment was based on the jury’s mistaken belief that the plaintiff’s injuries would be permanent.

(C) Move for relief from the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff committed a fraud in obtaining damages for permanent injuries.

(D) Move for relief from the judgment on
the ground that there is newly discovered evidence that the plaintiff’s injuries were not permanent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431237)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:08 PM
Author: exciting gay wizard cuckoldry

c

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431267)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:11 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431292)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:10 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431277)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:03 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

C seems like the only one that would result in a relief

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431624)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:11 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

In the wake of massive terrorist attacks carried out inside the United States by foreign citizens, President Trump stated that all Muslims are evil on his personal twitter account. Congress then declared war on the terrorists' nation of origin. It also passed a statute requiring every alien who is a citizen of the enemy nation to either immediately leave the United States voluntarily or be subject to deportation. An inseverable provision of the new statute provides that the United States Supreme Court will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over any action brought to challenge the validity of the statute.

Is the new statute constitutional?

(A) No, because the statute does not fall within the categories of cases specified in Article III as those over which the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.

(B) No, because the statute violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

(C) Yes, because among the powers of Congress enumerated in Article I, Section 8, is the power to enact laws governing immigration and naturalization.

(D) Yes, because Article III specifically provides that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall be subject to such exceptions and regulations as Congress shall make.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431288)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:13 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

(E) yes, because regardless of whether national origin is subject to EP analysis or Congress has the power in Art III to make exceptions to SCOTUS appellate/original jurisdiction, kicking out Muslims is #WINNING.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431319)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:59 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431608)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:17 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

If this was real, B? 5th doesn't have an equal protection clause, but functionally does and here they use the word 'component'

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431703)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:40 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

It's A.

Article III of the Constitution provides that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cases involving foreign ambassadors, cases involving other public ministers and consuls of foreign countries, and cases in which a state is a party. The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot give the Court original jurisdiction over any other type of case. The statute at issue is unconstitutional because it purports to give the Court original jurisdiction over cases that are not among those provided for in Article III.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431789)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:20 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Able and Baker are students in an advanced high school Russian class. During an argument one day in the high school cafeteria, in the presence of other students, Able, in Russian, accused Baker of taking money from Able’s locker.

In a suit by Baker against Able based on defamation, Baker will

(A)  prevail, because Able’s accusation constituted slander per se.

(B)  prevail, because the defamatory statement was made in the presence of third persons.

(C)  not prevail, unless Able made the accusation with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth.

(D)  not prevail, unless one or more of the other students understood Russian.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431368)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:24 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431390)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:33 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431465)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:20 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

D - not seeing the damage component though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431718)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:37 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

if he's accusing him of a criminal act he doesn't need to show the damage component. if not per se defamatory, you'd be right, as no understanding by third parties = no reputation damage = no damage

i think the analysis here is that it isn't an effective third party publication unless the third party is capable of understanding it. there's plenty of defamation caselaw about how the gist/understanding/"sting" is the crux of the tort

actually, the real answer here is (E) will prevail on his defamation claim, because by speaking Russian to him, A insinuates that B understands the godless Commie language and is colluding with Democrats to ruin America

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431780)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:21 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Dirk is on trial for the brutal murder of Villas. Dirk’s first witness, Wesley, testified that in her opinion Dirk is a peaceful and nonviolent person. The prosecution does not cross- examine Wesley, who is then excused from further attendance.

Which one of the following is INADMISSIBLE during the prosecution’s rebuttal?

(A)  Testimony by Wesley’s former employer that Wesley submitted a series of false expense vouchers two years ago.

(B)  Testimony by a police officer that Dirk has a long-standing reputation in the community as having a violent temper.

(C)  Testimony by a neighbor that Wesley has a long-standing reputation in the community as an untruthful person.

(D)  Testimony by Dirk’s former cell mate that he overheard Wesley offer to provide favorable testimony if Dirk would pay her $5,000.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431370)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:05 PM
Author: Cerebral Violent Gas Station

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431640)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:06 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Wrong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431657)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:12 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431682)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:43 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431800)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:24 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

D - hearsay w/ no exceptions?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431727)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:41 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431793)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:24 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A construction contractor brought a breach of contract claim in federal court against a homeowner who had hired the contractor to build an apartment over an existing garage. The action turned on the scope of the work covered by the contract. The contractor and the homeowner were the only witnesses at the bench trial, and they strongly disagreed about the scope of the work. At the end of the trial, the judge stated findings of fact on the record but never issued a written opinion. Neither party objected to the findings. The judge found in favor of the homeowner, and the contractor appealed.

Is the appellate court likely to overturn the findings?

(A)  No, because the appellate court must give due regard to the trial judge’s opportunity to determine witness credibility.

(B)  No, because the contractor failed to object to the ndings when the judge stated them in open court.

(C)  Yes, because a judge must set forth ndings of fact in a written opinion or memorandum of decision.

(D)  Yes, because there were disputed issues of fact at trial.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431388)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:03 PM
Author: Cerebral Violent Gas Station

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431628)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:06 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431651)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:27 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

A - easy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431738)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:29 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A plaintiff, a management trainee, brought a sex discrimination lawsuit against her employer for wrongful termination of her employment. At trial, the plaintiff is prepared to testify that a janitor at the company told her that he had heard her supervisor say to other male coworkers about her, “Make it hard for her. Maybe she’ll go home where she belongs.”

Is the plaintiff’s proposed testimony admissible?

(A) No, because the janitor’s statement is hearsay not within any exception.

(B) No, because the statements of both the janitor and the supervisor are hearsay not within any exception.

(C) Yes, because the janitor’s statement is a present sense impression, and the supervisor’s statement is a statement of his then-existing state of mind.

(D) Yes, because the statements of both the janitor and the supervisor are statements concerning a matter within the scope of their employment.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431424)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:33 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

A?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431759)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:42 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Yes

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431797)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 3:32 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A man kidnapped a victim in State A and transported the victim across the state border into State B. These actions violated the kidnapping laws of both states, which are identical. A jury convicted the man in a State A court, but the trial judge gave what prosecutors in State B deemed an unduly lenient sentence. The state prosecutor in State B then commenced a kidnapping case against the man for violating State B’s kidnapping statute.

The man’s lawyer has led a motion in State B to dismiss the charge based on the double jeopardy protection against a second prosecution for the man’s single act of kidnapping.

Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?

(A)  No, because the double jeopardy protection only prohibits a second prosecution following an acquittal for the same offense.

(B)  No, because the man’s conduct violated the laws of two different states, and each has the right to enforce its laws.

(C)  Yes, because the double jeopardy protection prohibits a second prosecution following a conviction for the same offense.

(D)  Yes, because the government is collaterally estopped under the double jeopardy protection from prosecuting a defendant a second time for the same conduct that led to an earlier conviction.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431461)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:06 PM
Author: Cerebral Violent Gas Station

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431653)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:10 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431676)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:38 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431785)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:10 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Amos owned Greenfield, a tract of land. His friend Bert wanted to buy Greenfield and offered $20,000 for it. Amos knew that Bert was insolvent, but replied, “As a favor to you as an old friend, I will sell Greenfield to you for $20,000, even though it is worth much more, if you can raise the money within one month.” Bert wrote the following words, and no more, on a piece of paper: “I agree to sell Greenfield for $20,000.” Amos then signed the piece of paper and gave it to Bert.

Three days later, Amos received an offer of $40,000 for Greenfield. He asked Bert if he had raised the $20,000. When Bert answered, “Not yet,” Amos told him that their deal was off and that he was going to accept the $40,000 offer.

The next week, Bert secured a bank commitment to enable him to purchase Greenfield. Bert immediately brought an appropriate action against Amos to compel Amos to convey Greenfield to him. The following points will be raised during the course of the trial.

I. The parol evidence rule.

II. Construction of the contract as to time of performance.

III. Bert’s ability to perform.

Which will be relevant to a decision in favor of Bert?

(A) I only.

(B) I and II only.

(C) II and III only.

(D) I, II, and III.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431675)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:48 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431829)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:13 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A federal grand jury was investigating a corporation whose tanker ship had spilled crude oil into environmentally sensitive waters. The grand jury issued a subpoena requiring the corporation to produce all emails and internal documents regarding the corporation’s knowledge of the risks of an oil spill. The corporation has objected, citing its Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

Can the subpoena be enforced?

(A) No, because the corporation was not granted transactional immunity.

(B) No, because the corporation was not granted use-and-derivative-use immunity.

(C) Yes, because a corporation has no Fifth Amendment privilege.

(D) Yes, because the Fifth Amendment privilege does not apply to the compelled production of documents.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431687)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:47 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431826)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:50 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431839)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:15 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A woman was standing in the aisle of a subway car and put her purse on the seat next to her. A man approached the woman from behind and grabbed the purse off the seat. He then pushed the woman out of the way and ran out of the subway car while carrying the purse. The man was apprehended on the subway platform while in possession of the purse.

In a jurisdiction that follows the common law with respect to criminal offenses, of what crime can the man properly be convicted?

(A) Larceny, because force was not used until after he took the purse.

(B) Larceny, because he made no threat to use force.

(C) Robbery, because he physically took the purse from the woman’s presence.

(D) Robbery, because he used force in leaving with the purse.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431692)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:19 PM
Author: insanely creepy boyish lay

Holy shit, BarBri doesn't prepare you for this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431713)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:20 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431717)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:23 PM
Author: insanely creepy boyish lay

by force or threat of force – the use of force or threat of force is the defining element of robbery. For there to be robbery there must be "force or fear" in perpetrating the theft.[27] Questions concerning the degree of force necessary for robbery have been the subject of much litigation. Merely snatching the property from the victim's person is not sufficient force unless the victim resists or one of the items is attached or carried in such a way that a significant amount of force must be used to free the item from the victim's person.[citation needed]

For robbery the victim must be placed in "fear" of immediate harm by threat or intimidation. The threat need not be directed at the victim personally. Threats to third parties are sufficient. The threat must be one of present rather than future personal harm. Fear does not mean "fright",[26] it means apprehension – an awareness of the danger of immediate bodily harm.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431723)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:29 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

i used to think I could pass the bar without having to study again

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431743)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:50 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

you probably can. these sound like the hardest MBE questions from the pile. I remember 75% of them being a lot more straightforward.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431835)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:52 PM
Author: Pearly cracking national

D - during the commission of the crime, doesn't have to be for the act itself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431850)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:19 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A defendant was convicted of fraud after a jury trial in state court. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.

The defendant timely moved for postconviction relief under the Sixth Amendment on the ground that his attorney had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial judge, after a hearing, found that the attorney had performed deficiently by failing to raise a proper objection that would have resulted in exclusion of important prosecution evidence.

What more, if anything, must the trial court find in order to sustain the defendant’s Sixth Amendment claim?

(A) Nothing more, because the unjustifiable failure to object to important prosecution evidence is structural error.

(B) That the attorney was court-appointed and not privately retained.

(C) That there is a reasonable probability that the trial’s outcome would have been different if the attorney had objected.

(D) That there is clear and convincing evidence that the trial’s outcome would have been different if the attorney had objected.



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431709)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:19 PM
Author: blue razzmatazz center

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431712)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:35 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431773)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:22 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A plaintiff sued an industrial facility in her neighborhood for injuries to her health caused by air pollution. At trial, the plaintiff was asked questions on direct examination about the days on which she had observed large amounts of dust in the air and how long the condition had lasted. She testified that she could not remember the specific times, but that she maintained a diary in which she had accurately recorded this information on a daily basis. When her attorney sought to refresh her recollection with her diary, she still could not remember. The plaintiff’s attorney seeks to have the information in the diary admitted at trial.

Is the information admissible?

(A) No, because reviewing it did not refresh the plaintiff’s recollection.

(B) No, unless it is offered by the defendant.

(C) Yes, and the plaintiff should be allowed the option of reading it into evidence or having the diary received as an exhibit.

(D) Yes, and the plaintiff should be allowed to read the diary into evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431721)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:41 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

D

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431792)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:45 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431810)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:52 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

wait why is this not C

seems like she can simply authenticate it as an exhibit. does she need to testify as to the contents to do so, and thus her lack of recollection fucks her on that?

...also JFC what litigant/witness would ever not remember the contents of a critical piece of evidence at trial after being prepped on it 3800 times by her counsel beforehand

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431847)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:07 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

Only the adverse party can introduce as an exhibit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431937)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:18 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

is that specific to the lack of recollection?

...also jfc how can you not "remember" something after reading it off a fucking page

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431985)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:19 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

Yes, for the past recorded recollection exception, the party using the exception can read it into evidence, but only opposing party can introduce it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431987)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:22 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

what stops her from simply introducing it after proper authentication if she doesn't use it to recall past recorded recollection?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432005)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:27 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

The issue isn’t authentication bro, it’s whether it’s hearsay. Past record recollection is an exception to hearsay



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432025)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:30 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

not suggesting authentication is an issue. seems like a contemporaneous diary of weather conditions is a present sense impression.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432037)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:33 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

Present sense needs to be immediately after. Not enough in the facts to draw that conclusion. Also every present sense question I’ve seen was an oral statement, never a diary or written statement

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432045)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:35 PM
Author: Bisexual White Ticket Booth

There's a document though too. When it's used to refresh she can't read it aloud and only the opposing party can offer into evidence what she used. When present recollection refreshing is ineffective then it's a recorded recollection and can be read into evidence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432052)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:42 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

yeah, the document contains the impression. we got all that, we're arguing over a separate way to get it in outside the recorded recollection exception.

in reality, this is extra masturbatory bc she would have simply "remembered" all of it through trial prep and reading it off the paper.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432086)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:56 PM
Author: Bisexual White Ticket Booth

Well I think if the statement had just been "wow it sure is dusty today" in isolation I think present sense impression would probably except it if not being used to refresh

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432153)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:23 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A defendant is on trial for kidnapping. The victim has testified that one of the kidnappers referred to the other as “Speed.” The prosecutor calls a jail employee to testify that, while the defendant was in jail awaiting trial, other inmates addressed the defendant as “Speed.”

Is the jail employee’s testimony admissible?

(A) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.

(B) No, because it is substantially more prejudicial than probative.

(C) Yes, as circumstantial evidence that the defendant was one of the kidnappers.

(D) Yes, to corroborate the truthfulness of the victim.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431724)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:41 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

C

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431794)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:05 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

Cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431926)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:28 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A brick mason was hired by a builder under a written one-year contract, at an annual salary of $45,000, with employment to begin on March 1. Because the builder was unable to secure enough building contracts to keep all its employees busy during the season beginning March 1, it notified the brick mason on February 15 that it could not afford to employ him as a mason. At the same time, however, the builder offered to employ the mason, for the same contract period, as a night guard at an annual salary of $25,000. The mason declined the offer and remained unemployed during the year. No employment for brick masons was available in the community during the year, but the mason could have obtained other employment as a day laborer that would have paid up to $25,000 a year.

At the end of the year, in an action against the builder for breach of contract, how much, if anything, is the mason entitled to recover?

(A) $20,000 (the $45,000 contract price less the $25,000 the mason could have earned in other employment).

(B) $45,000 (the contract price).

(C) Nothing, because the builder did not act in bad faith when it discharged the mason.

(D) Nothing, because the mason did not mitigate his damages.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431740)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 8:20 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

B

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432821)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:30 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

A homeowner contracted in writing with a kitchen contractor to renovate her kitchen for $25,000, “subject to the homeowner’s complete personal satisfaction.” The contractor replaced the cabinets, flooring, and countertops and then sought payment from the homeowner. The homeowner paid the contractor only $20,000, truthfully saying that she did not like the finish on the cabinets and was therefore not satisfied.

If the contractor sues the homeowner for the balance of the contract price, will the contractor be likely to prevail?

(A) No, because a condition to the homeowner’s obligation to pay was not satisfied.

(B) No, because the contractor breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing by supplying unsatisfactory materials.

(C) Yes, because the homeowner breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by rejecting the cabinets without justification.

(D) Yes, because the homeowner was the first party to breach the contract.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431751)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:35 PM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams

A

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36432049)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:57 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

President Trump tweeted from his personal Twitter account that “all Muslims love terrorism.” In order to combat terrorism, Congress enacted a statute authorizing President Trump to construct surveillance facilities on privately owned property if the President determined that the construction of such facilities was “necessary to safeguard the security of the United States.” The statute provided no compensation for the owner of the land on which such facilities were constructed and provided that the surveillance facilities were to be owned and operated by the United States government.

Pursuant to this statute, President Trump has determined that the construction of a surveillance facility on a very small, unused portion of an owner’s large tract of land is necessary to safeguard the security of the United States. The construction and operation of the facility will not affect any of the uses that the owner is currently making of the entire tract of land.

The owner has filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the construction of a surveillance facility on the parcel of land at issue without compensation.

How should the court decide?

(A) It would be a taking of the owner’s property for which the owner must be compensated.

(B)It would single out the owner for adverse treatment in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.

(C) It would not interfere with any use the owner is currently making of the entire tract of land and, therefore, would not entitle the owner to any compensation.

(D) It would be valid without any compensation, because it has been determined to be necessary to protect a compelling government interest in national security.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431879)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 4:59 PM
Author: Exhilarant mexican

A

loretto v teleprompter MFH, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431889)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 15th, 2018 5:05 PM
Author: heady people who are hurt

cr

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36431923)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 16th, 2018 10:27 AM
Author: Soul-stirring Institution Laser Beams



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36435977)



Reply Favorite

Date: July 16th, 2018 10:28 AM
Author: Ivory dilemma

good luck on the test this week, boys.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4026254&forum_id=2#36435981)