MBE Questions Flashcards
Two police officers, a sergeant and a lieutenant, were charged with robbery and felony murder. The sergeant’s lawyer moved to have the two officers tried separately, and the court granted the motion. The sergeant’s trial was held first, and he was acquitted. At the lieutenant’s trial, his lawyer called the sergeant’s wife as a witness. The sergeant’s wife testified that after the sergeant was acquitted, the sergeant told her that he had committed the robbery because he wanted to buy her a new ring and that he felt bad because the lieutenant was not involved. Should the wife’s testimony be admitted?
(A) No, because the sergeant is estopped from contradicting the jury’s acquittal verdict.
(B) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
(C) Yes, because it is a statement by a co-conspirator.
(D) Yes, because it is a statement against a penal interest.
(B) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Paula and Pete were hit by a truck driven by an employee of the D Corporation, a company that manufactures widgets. The accident occurred in California, where Paula and Pete were living at the time. D Corporation is incorporated in Delaware, maintains its principal manufacturing plant in Florida, and is controlled from its offices in Michigan. After the accident, Paula and Pete moved to Miami, Florida, where they planned to retire. After moving, they contacted a lawyer, who filed suit against D Corporation in the appropriate U.S. District Court where Paula and Pete lived, alleging diversity jurisdiction. The suit alleged that each plaintiff had suffered personal injuries in excess of $75,000. D Corporation moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Should D Corporation’s motion be granted by the district court?
(A) Yes, because D Corporation’s headquarters are in Florida.
(B) Yes, because the plaintiffs were citizens of California when they were injured.
(C) No, because diversity subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
(D) No, because D Corporation is a citizen of Delaware only.
(C) No, because diversity subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
The plaintiff, a man from State A, was injured when the defendant, a citizen of State B, ran a red light in State A, causing $40,000 in damages. During an informal interview before any suit was filed, the defendant told a newspaper reporter that the plaintiff was “a drunk who should not be allowed to drive a car, let alone practice medicine.” The plaintiff believed that he suffered $50,000 in damages to his reputation as a result of the newspaper article. The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant in a State A federal court. The defendant objects, claiming that the federal court does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. May the federal court hear the case?
(A) Yes, because defamation actions are properly heard in federal court.
(B) Yes, because the elements for diversity jurisdiction are met.
(C) No, because even though the plaintiff’s damages arose out of the same case or controversy, both claims arose from violations of state law.
(D) No, because the plaintiff cannot aggregate unrelated claims.
(B) Yes, because the elements for diversity jurisdiction are met.
A man was driving to work when his truck collided with a car driven by a woman, who was backing out of her driveway very quickly without looking or yielding to oncoming traffic. The man subsequently filed suit to recover damages from the woman, asserting that he had severely injured his left arm in the accident and that this injury had rendered him unable to work, as he was left-handed. The woman, in turn, claimed that the man’s injury was completely unrelated to the car accident and was the result of repetitive-motion syndrome. The man’s employer required its employees to have an annual examination. The previous year, three months before the accident, the man had visited the doctor for his yearly exam. During the trial, the man testified that his injury had caused him severe pain and left him physically unable to work. He then called the doctor to the stand and testify that the man had told him during the annual exam that his previous arm problems had gone away. Should the doctor’s testimony be admitted over the woman’s objection?
(A) No, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
(B) No, because the man did not make the statement for the purpose of medical treatment.
(C) Yes, because the man made the statement for the purpose of medical treatment.
(D) Yes, as a statement by a party-opponent.
(C) Yes, because the man made the statement for the purpose of medical treatment.
Acme became involved in a labor dispute with the Steamrollers’ Union (the entity that ordinarily supplied workers for Acme’s plant). Acme commenced an action against the Steamrollers’ Union in the appropriate U.S. District Court, claiming $75,000 in damages as a consequence of the union’s conduct in harassing and intimidating nonunion workers in violation of the Federal National Labor Relations Act. Acme is an Indiana corporation, and the union (an unincorporated association) has members who are domiciled in every state except New York and New Jersey. The Steamrollers’ Union answered by denying Acme’s allegations and filing a $15,000 counterclaim, which asserted that Acme had deliberately made false accusations about the union to the local papers for the purpose of obtaining favorable press coverage. If the Steamrollers’ Union moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, should the court grant the motion?
(A) Yes, because Acme has not claimed monetary damages in excess of $75,000.
(B) Yes, because there is no diversity.
(C) No, because subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied.
(D) No, because a state claim has been asserted in a federal court.
(C) No, because subject-matter jurisdiction is satisfied.
A doctor is on trial for battery of a former patient. He claims that he was acting in self-defense, as the client became enraged at the doctor’s advice to no longer pursue his dream of attending law school. During trial, the doctor testified that he was warned by two of the patient’s friends that the patient had a short temper and to “beware.” The prosecution objected. How should the court rule?
(A) The statement is inadmissible, as hearsay not within an applicable exception.
(B) The statement is inadmissible, as a self-serving statement.
(C) The statement is admissible, as it is not hearsay.
(D) The statement is admissible, under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule.
(C) The statement is admissible, as it is not hearsay.
Plaintiff, a citizen of Utah, was involved in an auto accident with Defendant, a citizen of Minnesota. The accident occurred in Utah. Pursuant to the applicable Utah long-arm statute, Plaintiff and Defendant and Insureco, Defendant’s auto insurance company, in a Utah state court of general jurisdiction for $80,000. Insureco, which was joined with Defendant under an applicable state law, is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Utah. Both defendants were served with process on the same day. Twenty-nine days after being served, Insureco and Defendant filed a joint notice of removal to the applicable U.S. District Court. Plaintiff then filed a motion for remand. Should the court grant or deny Plaintiff’s motion?
(A) The court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied.
(B) The court should deny Plaintiff’s motion because the notice of removal was not filed in a timely fashion.
(C) The court should grant Plaintiff’s motion because the notice of removal was not filed in a timely manner.
(D) The court should grant Plaintiff’s motion because Insureco’s principal place of business is Utah.
(D) The court should grant Plaintiff’s motion because Insureco’s principal place of business is Utah.
Acme is a Georgia corporation that has its principal place of business in Alabama. Polly used to live in Alabama and work at Acme’s Alabama plant. However, she was recently terminated from her employment with Acme. She consulted an attorney, who advices her that her termination was wrongful under a law recently enacted by Congress. The lawyer also informed Polly that Georgia had the most liberal procedures for prosecuting this type of action. Polly moved to Georgia, where she is now working as a waitress, and commenced an action in the appropriate state court against Acme for wrongful termination under the applicable U.S. law and a similar Georgia statute. Polly seeks $80,000 in damages. Acme filed a notice of removal in the U.S. District Court in Gerogia. Polly then filed a motion for remand back to state court. How should the court rule on Polly’s motion?
(A) The motion should be granted, because there is a lack of diversity.
(B) The motion should be granted, because Polly moved to Georgia only for the purpose of acquiring a more litigationally advantageous forum.
(C) The motion should be denied, because one of Polly’s actions is a federal claim.
(D) The motion should be denied, because there is no diversity of citizenship.
(D) The motion should be denied, because there is no diversity of citizenship.
