MBE Practice Questions Constitutional Law

[kavita]

Discuss about mbe practice questions constitutional law here. Welcome to MBA.ind.in and this page is for mbe practice questions constitutional law discussion. If you are looking for mbe practice questions constitutional law then ask your question is as much details as possible in the “Quick Reply” box provided below. The more detailed your question will be, the more easy will it be for our experts to answers your query. And if you have any information on mbe practice questions constitutional law, then please share you knowledge with our viewers in the “Quick Reply” box. You knowledge can help many people. Thanks for stopping by at MBA.ind.in. Please visit again.

Hello sir, for MBE practice I want Practice Questions of Constitutional Law. Will you please provide me MBE Practice Questions Constitutional Law?

[sumit]

The MBE consists of 200 multiple-choice questions: 175 scored questions and 25 unscored pre-test questions.

The pre-test questions are indistinguishable from those that are scored, so examinees should answer all questions.

The exam is divided into morning and afternoon testing sessions of three hours each, with 100 questions in each session.

There are no scheduled breaks during either the morning or afternoon session.

The 175 scored questions on the MBE are distributed evenly, with 25 questions from each of the seven subject areas: Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, and Torts.

Constitutional Law is surprisingly easy on the MBE, especially if youre familiar with how hard a subject it can be on the essays.


MBE Practice Questions Constitutional Law:

1 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 Walters negligence was the cause in fact of Peters injury.
(D) not prevail, if the chemistry set was as safe as possible, consistent with its educational purposes, and its benefits exceeded its risks.

2 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 Ohlsters 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 Geriatri
cs would otherwise
be unjustly enriched at Ohlsters
expense.
(B)
Yes, under the doctrine of frustration
of
purpose.
(C)
No, because Ohlsters 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 Ohlsters death it rejected, because of its commitment to Ohlster, an application for lifetime care from another elderly person.

3 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.

Harolds 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.

4 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. Bernards will left all of his estate to a satanic religious cult. Anna was very upset at the prospect of the cults acquiring Blackacre. The local taxing authority assessed the next real property tax bill on Blackacre to Bernards estate. Anna brought an appropriate action against Bernards 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 Bernards 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 Bernards 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.

5 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.

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

7 Swatter, a baseball star, contracted with the Municipal Symphony Orchestra, Inc., to perform for $5,000 at a childrens 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 Swatters appearance. Swatter sued the orchestra for breach of contract. His business agent testified without contradiction that the cancellation had resulted in Swatters 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 Swatters 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.

8 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.

9 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 vagrants death occurred in connection with the felony of
(A) arson.
(B) fraud.
(C) conspiracy.
(D) burglary.

10 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 courts 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.