The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty in Federal Law Enforcement, Exams of Law

Download The Tenth Amendment and State Sovereignty in Federal Law Enforcement and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

David Mungai [COMPANY NAME] [Company address]

MBE Multistate Bar Examination Final

2025 Exam Review Questions and

Answers | 100% Pass | Graded +

MBE Multistate Bar Examination Final

2025 Exam Review Questions and

Answers | 100% Pass | Graded +

Torts: How Intervening Forces Affect the Element of Legal or Proximate Cause. AKA Indirect Causation - Answer>> As a general principle in negligence actions, a defendant will be liable only if his breach of care is shown to be the legal (proximate) cause of plaintiff's harm. Not all harm actually caused by the defendant will result in liability. In this case, the chain of events started when the fan discarded the plastic bag. The police officer then acted negligently in failing to remove the bag from the horse's bridle. The intervening force that came into motion after the officer's negligence was the horse's reaction of running into the crowd and striking the man. This situation presents an example of indirect causation (the officer's negligence caused his horse to be scared, and the horse then ran away and caused the man's death). Unmistakably, serious personal injury or even death is foreseeable when a large, powerful animal becomes frightened and runs through a crowded stadium. Given the foreseeability of the ensuing events, it is likely that the defendant will be held liable for the man's death Torts: Fire Fighter Rule - Answer>> The firefighter's rule is triggered only where a firefighter (or police officer) is bringing suit as a plaintiff, and does not apply in this case involving a claim against a police department. Breach of Covenant Warranty Deed/Adverse Possession - Answer>> A general warranty deed normally contains the following five covenants for title: 1) covenant of seisin; 2) covenant of right to convey; 3) covenant against encumbrances;

4. covenant for quiet enjoyment; and 5) covenant of warranty. In this question, it is necessary to distinguish between a covenant

driveway and build the shed I'm not going to plant a garden; contractor refuses, who will prevail? The Homeowner. Contracts Hypo: Modification or Waiver of Condition? The Pre- existing Duty Rule/Rule/Explanation - Answer>> This contracts question addresses the distinction between modification and waiver of a condition. Many students will be tempted to choose choice (B), assuming there was a valid waiver of a condition that cannot be reclaimed in the contract to pave a driveway. By definition, a condition is any fact or event other than lapse of time that qualifies a promisor's present duty of performance. However, the builder's obligation to pave the driveway was not a condition, but an express promise. As a result, it is necessary to determine whether the modification was valid releasing the builder of his duty to pave the driveway. Under the pre-existing duty rule, an enforceable agreement to modify a contract requires consideration on both sides. Because the modification was not supported by consideration, it would be unenforceable. Constitutional Law/Equal Protection Cases/Discriminatory Laws/Burden of Proof - Answer>> The initial burden is on the plaintiff to show a discriminatory purpose, and, if proven, the burden shifts to the state to show the measure furthers a compelling state interest.: In order to subject a law to any form of review under the equal protection guarantee, one must be able to demonstrate that the law classifies people in some manner. A classification within a law can be established in one of two ways. First, the law may establish the classification "on its face." This means that the law by its own terms classifies people for different treatment. In such a case there is no problem of proof and the court can proceed to test the validity of the classification by the appropriate standard. Second, the law may be tested in its "application." In these cases, the law appears to be "neutral on its face," but will be applied in a different manner to different classes of people. In the latter situation, the plaintiff bears the initial

burden to show that the law has both a discriminatory effect and purpose. If proven, the court will apply the compelling interest test to prove its classification is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. Constitutional Law/Tenth Amendment/State's Sovereignty/Hypo - Answer>> The federal statute contains the following two provisions: (1) All state law enforcements officers are required to use best efforts to enforce the law; and (2) State Attorneys General are required to prosecute all violations of the law in state court(s) Which of the following statements is most accurate? Neither Provision 1 nor provision 2 is constitutional because the national government may not require state official to enforce federal laws Constitutional Law/Tenth Amendment/State's Sovereignty/Rule Statement - Answer>> The approach the U.S. Supreme Court has followed over the last decade views the Tenth Amendment as a source of protecting state sovereignty from federal intrusion and as a limit on congressional power. State sovereignty allows a state the ability to make and apply law through legislative, judicial, and administrative functions. Congress will violate the Tenth Amendment if it interferes with these state lawmaking processes. Rule 1. In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority [469 U.S. 528 (1985)], the Court held Congress could require state and local governments to follow the provisions of the Federal Fair Labor and Standards Act requiring minimum wages for all employees. Under its commerce power, Congress could enact such a generally applicable law that applied to both the public and private sector. In this case, the Tenth Amendment does not entitle a state's own operations to an exemption merely

the garage, he intended to leave the skis inside. Thus, he did not possess the requisite mens rea (i.e., the intent to steal) at the time of the breaking and entering. He formulated the intent to steal the convertible after he was already inside the garage. Moreover, it is important to point out that the carpenter is not guilty of larceny of the skis, because one who takes another's property intending at the time he takes it to use it temporarily, and then to return it unconditionally within a reasonable time, and having a substantial ability to do so, lacks the intent to steal required for larceny. Federal Civil Procedure/Rule 11/Judge's Authorization to Issue Sanctions - Answer>> Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(5) imposes limits on the judge's ability to issue monetary sanctions. One of those limits is that the judge may not enter such sanctions on its own motion unless the show-cause order was issued before the claims were settled or voluntarily dismissed. Federal Civil Procedure/Rule 11/Judge's Authorization to Issue Sanctions/Sua Sponte - Answer>> It is true that judges may enter monetary sanctions on their own motion. However, they may do so only after entering a show-cause order and giving the lawyers a reasonable opportunity to respond. In particular, the judge who wishes to act sua sponte must enter that show-cause order before the claims are dismissed or settled Property/SOF/Sufficient Description Example - Answer>> The Statute of Frauds requires land sale contracts to be in writing. There is room for considerable flexibility in the construction of what constitutes a sufficient memorandum. The memo should contain the following: a) an identification of the parties; b) a sufficient description of the land to be conveyed; c) the purchase price; and d) the promises on both sides. Here, the description of the property to be conveyed was not adequately identified. The facts state that "SW 1/2 of section 12, Township 4 West, Range 2 south, Fifteenth meridian" is sufficient to describe the landowner's

entire 200-acre tract. However, the landowner is selling 45 acres of the property. The memo does not designate which 45 acres are being conveyed. As such, the land to be conveyed is not sufficiently identified in the memorandum Contracts/Obligation of Contracts/Rule - Answer>> The contracts clause prohibits states from enacting retroactive laws that impair an existing contractual obligation. The primary intent behind the drafting of the clause was to prohibit states from adopting laws that would interfere with the contractual arrangements between private citizens. In determining whether a state law affecting an individual's ability to carry out obligations under contract is an improper impairment of contract, the U.S. Supreme Court articulated a three-step test: 1) whether the state law has "operated as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship"; and, if so, 2) whether the state law is designed to promote a significant and legitimate public purpose; and, if it does, then 3) whether the law adjusting the contract obligations was a reasonable and narrowly tailored means of promoting the significant public purpose identified in step two rather than an unjustifiable attempt to merely change the obligation of parties to a private contract. Criminal Law/Standard of Proof for Insanity/Rule - Answer>> The key to this question is that this is a federal prosecution. In federal trials, if the defense raises the issue of insanity, the burden is on the defense to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Criminal Law/Jurisdiction Allows Imperfect Self-Defense/Honest But Unreasonable Mistake/Manslaughter - Answer>> Most students learn voluntary manslaughter as "heat of passion" killing. Typically, an intentional killing is reduced from murder to manslaughter because the defendant was adequately provoked. Voluntary manslaughter has also been recently tested in the form

duty; and 2) where the contractor is engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity. Here, we have a clever example of a non- delegable duty. Even though the facts state that the hospital retained the services of its emergency room physicians on an independent contractor basis, nonetheless, the performance of medical services (including operations) would constitute a non- delegable duty. The plaintiff receiving medical services is the hospital is enough to hold the hospital liable. Contracts/Expectancy Damages Calculation/Hypo - Answer>> If the owner or developer of a building breaches a construction contract, the builder's standard measure of damages is the amount of the expected profit plus all of the costs expended at the time of the breach. The builder is required to cease work at the time he learns of the breach. The date of the breach here was May 15. At that time, the construction company had spent $2. million in construction costs. Its expected profit was $600,000 on this project (the total cost of construction was $2.4 million). The construction company can thus recover $2.85 million, the cost of materials already used ($2.25 million) and expected profit ($600,000) at the time of the breach. They were required to stop work on May 15, so they cannot recover the extra $150,000 they spent on materials to finish this facility. Thus, they can only recover $2.85 million. Federal Civil Procedure/Judgment as a Matter of Law/Motion for a New Trial - Answer>> When the court grants the renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, it is a logical necessity to deny the alternative motion for a new trial because, in the opinion of the trial court, the evidence was so lacking that judgment as a matter of law is appropriate. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/Compulsory Counterclaim - Answer>> Once the third-party plaintiff made a claim against the third-party defendant, those two parties became "opposing

parties" within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). Under Rule 13(a), a party must state as a counterclaim any claim that the party has against an opposing party if the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure/Permissive Cross-Claim - Answer>> Cross-claims are claims between co-parties, such as co-the plaintiffs or co-the defendants. Here, the third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant are not co-parties. The plaintiff only sued the third-party plaintiff. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g), which deals with cross-claims, is therefore inapplicable. It is also worth noting that cross-claims under 13(g) are permissive rather than mandatory. Criminal Law/SOL/Homicide - Answer>> At common law, if the victim survived the injuries associated with the crime against him for more than a year and a day, there was insufficient causation for a later homicide prosecution. However, with advances in modern science, this rule has been largely marginalized. Additionally, a statute of limitations would only start to run once the crime has been committed. One cannot be prosecuted for homicide if the victim is not dead. Therefore, both double jeopardy and statute of limitations arguments would not be persuasive in dismissing the case. Criminal Procedure/Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel - Answer>> The Massiah rule prohibits the police from using deliberate efforts to acquire incriminating information from a suspect who has been formally charged, unless the suspect's attorney is present or the right to counsel has been waived, Massiah v. United States [377 U.S. 201 (1964)]. Here, once the defendant requested an attorney, the detectives could not renew any attempt to further interrogate the defendant. The defendant's conviction will be reversed because the government "deliberately

received a vested remainder. The common law imposed four requirements for an interest to qualify as a remainder: 1) it must be in favor of a transferee who is one other than the conveyor; 2) it must be created at the same time and in the same instrument as its preceding freehold estate; 3) the preceding freehold estate must be of lesser duration than the conveyor's interest at the time of the conveyance so that an interest can pass in remainder; and

4. it must take effect, if at all, as a present possessory interest at the natural and regular termination of the particular preceding freehold estate. Under these facts, the fourth requirement would signify that Turner's vested remainder would become presently possessory at Ross' death, not at the end of Franklin's lease. Natural termination of Ross' life estate, a freehold estate, determines when Turner's possession begins, not termination of Franklin's estate for years, since an estate for years is defined as a non-freehold estate and, therefore, cannot determine when the remainder becomes possessory. Evidence/Prior-Consistent Statements - Answer>> evidence under limited circumstances: 1) the witness must testify under oath, and 2) be subject to cross-examination; 3) the cross- examination must suggest that the witness' testimony was a recent fabrication or based on improper influence or motive; and
5. the witness' prior statements must be made before the charged fabrication or improper motive arose. In this question, the defense did suggest that the stepdaughter's testimony was a recent fabrication. However, the stepdaughter's prior consistent statements did not arise before she had a motive to falsify her testimony. Since the stepdaughter's animosity toward her stepfather predated the statements she made to her teachers, not vice versa, their testimony will be inadmissible as hearsay. Constitutional Law/Eight Amendment/Death Penalty to Minors - Answer>> In Roper v. Simmons [543 U.S. 551 (2005)], the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the

imposition of the death penalty on offenders under the age of 18. Even if crime committed while they were a minor but an adult at sentencing. Torts/Negligence Per Se - Answer>> In order to recover for negligence per se, two requirements are necessary: 1) plaintiff must be a member of the class of people intended to be protected by the statute; and 2) the harm suffered must be of a type the statute was designed to protect against. In the present question Torts/Nuisance - Answer>> Nuisance is defined as the substantial and unreasonable interference with one's use and enjoyment of property. Federal Civil Procedure/The Appropriate Standard Applied in Federal Courts Upon Appeal, As to Whether a Trial Court Erroneously Admitted or Excluded Scientific Expert Testimony - Answer>> Is Whether the Alleged Error was an Abuse of Discretion. Explanation: Under the Frye standard, the admissibility of scientific expert testimony was based on whether it had "gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs" [Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)]. The Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [509 U.S. 579 (1993)] rejected the Frye "general acceptance" standard. The Court in Daubert held the task of "gatekeeping" scientific expert testimony (i.e. whether that testimony is from scientific knowledge) rests on the trial judge. In General Electric Co. v. Joiner [522 U.S. 136 (1997)], the Court ruled that the appropriate appellate standard for admitting or excluding scientific expert testimony is an "abuse of discretion standard" in applying the Daubert "gatekeeping" rule of trial courts under F.R.E. Rule

702. In Joiner, the Court held that in applying the abuse of discretion standard regarding the admissibility of scientific

probable cause determination was in no way impacted by that illegal search, and therefore the evidence was ultimately seized based on a source 'independent' of the government illegality. In other words, there was a poison tree, but the 'fruit' (the evidence) did not 'grow' out of the 'poison', and therefore the illegality provides no basis for suppression. Federal Civil Procedure/Advisory Opinions/Reviewable by a bureaucrat - Answer>> A federal statute cannot grant a federal court the power to render an advisory opinion. Article III, Section 2, limits the power of the federal courts to deciding only actual "cases or controversies." Thus, it is beyond the power of the U.S. Congress to give to a federal district court the power to render a decision that could be reviewed by a bureaucrat. The 11th Amendment prohibits suits brought by citizens against state governments in the federal courts seeking damages payable from the state treasury for past misconduct. This lawsuit would involve a fight between the state and Congress, asking the court to strike down a federal statute. Federal Civil Procedure/Times a Lawyer May Instruct their Client as a Witness not to Answer - Answer>> The lawyer may do so only "when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3) [Motion to Terminate or Limit]." Otherwise, the witness must be allowed to answer the question, even if the answer ultimately will be deemed to be inadmissible. The answer is taken subject to the objection, which the court can rule upon later, if necessary. Evidence/Witness Credibility/Impeachment - Answer>> This question deals with the impeachment of a witness' credibility. Any witness may be questioned during cross-examination about acts of misconduct when they relate to the witness' credibility. Credibility is in issue for all witnesses, and so impeachment on

the grounds of their ability to perceive or recall is always acceptable. Similarly, bias, and tendency toward truth-telling are always relevant as to the credibility of a witness who takes the stand to testify. Federal Civil Procedure/Appellate Review - Answer>> The general structure for federal court review is to proceed from federal district court to the federal court of appeals, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. E.g, Federal Court of Appeals and Federal District Court's precedent are in conflict, appeal to the appellate court of the district court's jurisdiction. Evidence/Opposing Party Statement/Statement's Made While in the Scope of Employment/MBE Tip - Answer>> Here, Excited Utterance was applicable, but statement by a party opponent, would be the best pick because it is a better answer on the MBE than a hearsay exception. The employee's statement was made during the existence of his employment relationship and within the scope of his employment, because the accident occurred while he was making a delivery. Therefore, the employee's statement would qualify as a vicarious admission. Federal Civil Procedure/Residency - Answer>> In order for diversity to exist, the dispute must involve citizens of different states. A shared citizenship between any plaintiff and any defendant will destroy diversity jurisdiction. A person will be considered a citizen of his state of domicile. Domicile requires the person to have both physical presence in the state and the intent to remain in the state indefinitely. Property/Mortgagor Reclaims the Property after a Purchaser Puts it Back on the Market after a Foreclosure Sale - Answer>> The bank is entitled to a deficiency judgment against the mortgagor for the difference between the foreclosure sale price and the mortgage debt. Keep in mind that the mortgagor remains

Federal Civil Procedure/Special Pleadings - Answer>> The following issues are considered special matters and must be pleaded with particularity: 1) capacity or authority to sue, but only when required to show the court has jurisdiction; 2) fraud, mistake, or condition of the mind; 3) conditions precedent, but only when denying that the condition has occurred; 4) time and place, when testing the sufficiency of a pleading; and 5) special damages [Fed. R. Civ. P. 9]. Specifically, under Federal Rule 9(b) the "time, place, and nature of the [alleged] misrepresentations" must be disclosed. Here, there is no information regarding exactly what statements the company is alleging were false. For example, those statements could have been about the policy itself, the value of the file cabinet and chair, or whether the water damage occurred at all. Without more information, the dentist would have no idea what the company was accusing him of. Criminal Procedure/SITLA/Automobile Search - Answer>> The stop was lawful due to the broken vent window. After running the driver's information, the officer was aware that the driver had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. This provided probable cause for arrest. Therefore, a search incident to arrest would allow for more than a limited pat-down. However, in order for the interior passenger compartment to be searched, there must either be a concern for officer safety or the opportunity for fruits of the arrest to be found within the passenger compartment. Neither are indicated by the facts presented here. Because the probable cause concerns the driver, and not the vehicle, a search of the trunk would be impermissible. Constitutional Law/Free Speech/School in Loco Parentis - Answer>> Even if the state is paying for the books (or covers), it has no right to impose a particular message on the students. The government may not require an individual to display a message because to do so would be to regulate unconstitutionally the content of speech. Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977). The

education department may not impose state-ordained speech on the students. The issue in this question is not the book covers per se, but the message the students are forced to convey. Even if the state is acting in loco parentis, it has no right to impose a particular message on the students. In fact, because it is the state, the state cannot force students to display a message that the students' parents could unofficially force them to display. Federal Civil Procedure/Answering a Complaint/When to Apply State Substantive Law - Answer>> Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(3) specifically states that a party may use a general denial only if the party intends to deny all of the allegations of the complaint, including the jurisdictional allegations. The Erie Doctrine does not require the use of state procedures when there is a duly enacted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure that covers the situation. In such a situation, as here, the federal court applies the federal rule rather than the state rule, even if the court is sitting in diversity. Criminal Procedure/Exclusionary Rule/Parolees - Answer>> the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation hearings for evidence illegally seized, even if parole officers entered the parolee's home and seized contraband or weapons--that its deterrence value is outweighed by the "substantial social costs" inherent in excluding "reliable, probative evidence." Criminal Procedure/Uncorroborated Anonymous Tip - Answer>> the Supreme Court ruled then that an uncorroborated anonymous tip cannot be used to justify the search of a suspect for weapons. The court, however, noted that "there are situations in which an anonymous tip, suitably corroborated, exhibits "sufficient reliability to provide the necessary reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop-and-frisk" [529 U.S. at 270]. See, e.g., Alabama v. White [496 U.S. 325 (1990)] (sufficient