Multistate Bar Examination Practice Test

The correct answer is "Ex post facto law" because increasing the punishment for a crime after it has been committed violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. That clause protects individuals and entities from retroactive criminal or penal legislation. "Bill of attainder" is incorrect because it concerns legislative acts that single out particular persons for punishment without a judicial trial. "Statutory preemption" involves conflicts between state and federal law, and "procedural due process" addresses fairness in legal proceedings rather than retroactive increases in punishment.

The initial grant to Jane created a fee simple determinable because the language "so long as" establishes a condition that ties the continued ownership of the land to a specific use—residential purposes. If the condition is violated, the property interest automatically reverts to the original grantor or their heirs without the need for legal action. The sale of the property to a commercial developer planning non-residential use will trigger the automatic reversion. Other answers are incorrect because a fee simple subject to a condition subsequent requires the original grantor to take action to reclaim the property upon a violation, which is not the case here. A fee simple absolute involves no conditions, and the details of this conveyance clearly impose one.

The correct answer is that the store owner will be found guilty because their intent is irrelevant. For strict liability crimes, the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant committed the prohibited act (actus reus); the defendant's mental state (mens rea) is not an element of the crime. Therefore, the owner's reasonable belief that the customer was of legal age is not a valid defense. Defenses based on mistake of fact or lack of mens rea are inapplicable to strict liability offenses. Likewise, a negligence standard is irrelevant; the act itself creates liability.

Congressional committees possess inherent investigative powers, including the authority to issue subpoenas, to effectively oversee and regulate federal agencies. This authority is part of Congress's 'other powers' to ensure proper functioning and accountability within the executive branch.

The correct answer focuses on the essential elements of kidnapping, which traditionally include the unlawful confinement, movement, or restraint of another person with a specific intent. The movement of the child in this scenario was non-consensual, against their will, and served to substantially increase the risk of harm to the victim. While some answers focus on related crimes (like extortion for ransom), they do not encompass the full definition of kidnapping, which requires more than simply confining or threatening the victim. Similarly, focusing exclusively on the location of confinement fails to meet all the criteria for kidnapping, as movement and intent are also central elements.

The correct answer is based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a principle that prevents state legislation from unduly burdening or discriminating against interstate commerce. While the fee applies equally to in-state and out-of-state carriers, the court will consider whether the burden it imposes on interstate commerce is excessive when weighed against the state's interest in maintaining its highways. If the burden outweighs the benefit or if the state could achieve its goal via less burdensome means, the law is invalid. Incorrect answers fail to acknowledge this balancing test or misstate how the Dormant Commerce Clause applies.

A valid liquidated damages provision focuses on compensating for expected harm arising from a breach when the harm is uncertain or difficult to quantify at the time of contracting. The amount must reflect a reasonable forecast of anticipated damages to avoid being categorized as an unenforceable penalty. In contrast, provisions that aim to punish breaches, or that are unrelated to actual damages, are typically deemed penalties and unenforceable. Provisions allowing damages to be adjusted based on actual harm post-breach do not meet the requirements of a valid liquidated damages clause since they undermine the advance agreement on damages.

Judicial findings and conclusions explain the judge's evaluation of the presented evidence and application of applicable legal standards to reach a judgment. Findings of fact pertain to points of contention about the facts based on the evidence, while conclusions of law relate to how the judge applies legal principles to those facts to arrive at a ruling. Incorrect answers either mix up these roles, suggest the judge lacks independent judgment, or incorrectly define their purpose.

The landlord is failing to provide a necessary accommodation for a person with a disability. Under federal fair housing regulations, housing providers must make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, including allowing service animals, even if there is a general no-pets policy.

In cases heard under diversity jurisdiction, federal courts are required to apply state substantive law through the Erie doctrine. Statutes of limitations are generally considered substantive rather than procedural because they are intertwined with state policies. Therefore, the court must apply the four-year statute of limitations from state law. Contractual agreements can sometimes modify this if enforceable, but the enforceability of the provision is determined based on state law principles. The wrong answers rely on misunderstandings, such as believing the federal court can apply federal common law instead, which is not correct in such cases.

The correct answer is based on the principle that rezoning decisions made by local governments are typically upheld unless they lack a rational basis or violate procedural due process. Courts often defer to the judgment of municipal bodies if the rezoning serves some public purpose, such as addressing a community need like affordable housing. The mere fact that rezoning benefits the landowner does not inherently invalidate the decision, provided the public interest is also served. The incorrect answers fail because they ignore the court's deference to local government decisions or misinterpret the legal significance of community opposition.

The man is guilty of solicitation because he intentionally urged another person to commit murder, which qualifies as a serious felony. Solicitation is complete the moment an individual communicates their intent to a party, regardless of whether that party actually has the willingness or ability to accomplish the crime. His decision to withdraw the request does not negate the crime of solicitation because it was already complete at the moment of his initial communication.

Other answers are incorrect because solicitation does not require an overt act, depend on the actual status or intentions of the person solicited, or depend on whether the solicitation leads to an agreement. The focus is on the solicitor’s intent and their communication requesting the unlawful act.

The correct answer is that the contract is voidable by the student. The general rule is that a contract entered into by a minor is voidable at the minor's option. This means the minor has the power to disaffirm (void) the contract at any time during their minority or for a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority. A contract that is 'void ab initio' is invalid from the start, which is not the case here, as the minor can choose to enforce it. The contract is not 'unenforceable by either party' because the adult party is bound by the agreement if the minor chooses to enforce it. While there is an exception for necessaries, a high-end laptop is unlikely to be deemed a legal 'necessary' for a high school student, making the contract for it enforceable; therefore, that option is incorrect.

Both mortgages qualify as purchase-money mortgages (PMMs) because they were taken at the time of the purchase to fund the price of the property. A PMM generally receives priority over earlier non-PMM liens, but when two PMMs are given to two third-party lenders, neither enjoys automatic super-priority over the other. Instead, priority between the two PMMs is governed by the recording act or simple chronology. Because the private lender recorded its mortgage first, its interest is senior, and the bank's mortgage is junior. The other answer choices incorrectly apply the general PMM priority rule without recognizing that both lenders hold equal-status PMMs or incorrectly claim a special rule for private lenders.

The situation describes a mutual mistake because both parties shared a common but incorrect belief about a fundamental aspect of the contract—the authenticity of the painting. This mutual misunderstanding regarding a material fact allows the contract to be voided. A unilateral mistake involves only one party being mistaken, which does not apply here. A mistake of law pertains to misunderstandings about legal principles, not factual matters. Impracticability relates to unforeseen events that make contract performance excessively difficult, which is not the case in this scenario.

The correct answer is that the contract implies the designer retains ownership unless explicitly transferred. In the absence of a term specifying ownership, standard contract interpretation implies the creator maintains rights. Other options incorrectly assume ownership is automatically transferred or that all terms must be explicit.

Voluntary intoxication, though self-induced, may be used as a defense to negate specific intent crimes if the intoxication level makes the individual unable to form the required mental state. Involuntary intoxication, however, is a complete defense when the intoxication was inflicted without the individual’s consent and they were unable to understand the nature of their actions. General intent crimes are not typically negated by intoxication. There is no legal basis for arguing that neglecting to know about intoxication's effects completely absolves responsibility.

The principle of ripeness prevents courts from hearing cases that have not yet developed into actual controversies. Ripeness ensures that courts do not issue decisions on hypothetical or speculative disputes by requiring a concrete set of facts showing that harm has already occurred or is imminent. In this case, because the law is not yet enforceable, and no actions have been taken to implement it, the dispute is not sufficiently developed for judicial resolution. By contrast, other principles, such as standing or mootness, address different aspects of justiciability. For example, standing requires the plaintiff to have a personal stake in the outcome, while mootness deals with cases where the controversy has already been resolved.

A for cause challenge is appropriate in this scenario because it allows the exclusion of a juror based on specific reasons, such as a prior relationship with a party. Peremptory challenges do not permit exclusion based on specific reasons.

Correct. For consideration to be valid, it must be part of a bargained-for exchange. In this scenario, the buyer's response with different terms constituted a counteroffer, not an acceptance. The seller's agreement to the new terms ("You have a deal") was an acceptance of that counteroffer, creating a binding contract. The consideration supporting the seller's promise to sell the motorcycle was the buyer's promise to provide both the $4,000 cash and the jukebox. Therefore, the combination of the cash and the jukebox constitutes the buyer's consideration.