FREE Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law I) Questions and Answers

Question 1

A psychopathic personality that has a long history of criminal violence frequently relishes the act of brutally brutalizing old
 people through cruel and shocking physical torture. For no apparent reason, he chooses to torture the victim's father.
 Following the assault, the father was taken to the hospital and placed in intensive care. The victim was not present, but learned 
about it through the authorities and read about it in the press. The victim was in excruciating emotional pain and needs medical 
attention. Is it possible for a victim to sue a perpetrator for intentional infliction of mental distress?

Accepted Answer

No, because the victim was not there when the heinous behavior took place.

Answer

For a plaintiff to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) as a bystander, most jurisdictions require the plaintiff to have been present at the scene of the outrageous conduct. In this case, the victim was not physically present during the assault on his father but learned about it later through authorities and the press. Therefore, the crucial element of contemporaneous presence is missing, preventing a successful IIED claim.

Question 2

A writer gave a Hollywood producer a four-page summary of a new television series proposal. He sent it in answer to an advertisement
 in an industry newsletter looking for innovative ideas. In a phone conversation with the producer's assistant, he indicated his expectation
 of pay. "Of course, we always pay for a writer's work," she replied. She stated that she would discuss it with her employer to see whether 
he approved. After a few months, the writer came upon a casting call for a new show. His synopsis outlined a plot and characters that
 were remarkably identical to those described in his book. He filed a lawsuit against the production for breach of contract. The producer 
defended himself by claiming that no contract existed.What is the court's most likely decision?

Accepted Answer

Based on the parties' actions, the court will conclude that there existed an implicit in fact contract between them.

Answer

An implied-in-fact contract is formed by the conduct of the parties, rather than their explicit words. Here, the writer submitted a proposal in response to an industry advertisement, indicated an expectation of payment, and the producer's assistant affirmed that they 'always pay for a writer's work.' The subsequent use of the writer's remarkably similar ideas demonstrates that both parties understood a contractual relationship for compensation existed, even without a formal written agreement.

Question 3

Some homeless persons began to live on a strip of land beneath a bridge. A local chemical plant owned the land. The 
squatters did not seek permission, and the corporation did not consider the situation to be urgent. The squatters bathed
 and drank water from a small lake on the site. Two squatters died within days from what was later discovered to be highly
 toxic water from the company's waste discharges. The corporation was well aware that it had a trash disposal issue. The two
 decedents' estates filed a lawsuit against the corporation. Despite the company's contention that the decedents were trespassers, 
are they likely to win their tort claim?

Accepted Answer

Yes, because the owner had an obligation to warn them even if they had trespassed because it knew they were in danger.

Answer

While landowners generally owe a limited duty to trespassers, an exception applies when the landowner knows or has reason to know of the trespassers' presence and also knows of a dangerous artificial condition on the land that the trespassers are unlikely to discover. The chemical plant was aware of the squatters and knew about its 'trash disposal issue' involving highly toxic water. This knowledge created a duty for the owner to warn the known trespassers of the hidden, severe danger.

Question 4

In federal court, a waitress sued her former employer, a restaurant, under Title VII. She alleged that the business owner had 
sexually harassed her and then fired her without cause. A jury awarded the former employee $100,000 in damages. The 
employer filed a petition to dismiss under Fed. Rule 12(b)(6) two weeks after the court delivered judgment on the verdict, 
arguing that it did not have at least 15 employees as needed under the civil rights statute's definition of "employer." As a result,
 the employer claimed there was no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The lower court concurred, dismissing the case and 
declaring the decision null and void. Will the appellate court likely affirm the lower court's ruling if the case is appealed to the
 United States Circuit Court of Appeals?

Accepted Answer

No, because this is a challenge to the existence of a cause of action, i.e., a failure to state a claim, which does not go 
to jurisdiction and cannot be brought after the judgment has been rendered.

Answer

The requirement of having at least 15 employees under Title VII is an element of the cause of action, defining who qualifies as an 'employer' under the statute, rather than a jurisdictional prerequisite. A challenge to the existence of a cause of action (failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)) must typically be raised earlier in the litigation. After a jury verdict has been rendered and judgment entered, it is generally too late to raise this defense, as it does not pertain to subject-matter jurisdiction which can be challenged at any time.

Question 5

In one state, the state constitution guaranteed the right to marriage to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples. A 
political group got a proposition on the ballot, and a majority of voters decided to take away the right to marry for 
same-sex couples. The proposal had no bearing on any other rights that same-sex couples might have derived from 
state law.People impacted sued the state government for taking away their rights in an unconstitutional and illegitimate 
manner, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process requirement. Will the court approve the lawsuit's 
requests, declaring the proposition void and restoring the ability to marry for same-sex couples?

Accepted Answer

Yes, no compelling state interest justifies depriving same-sex couples of their fundamental right to marry under 
the due process provision

Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court, in *Obergefell v. Hodges*, established that the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, extending to same-sex couples. Any state action infringing upon a fundamental right must be justified by a compelling state interest and be narrowly tailored. A popular vote alone cannot override a fundamental constitutional right without such a compelling justification, which is absent here.

Bar Exam Practice Test

Bar Exam Practice Test

FREE Bar Exam MBE (Constitutional Law I) Questions and Answers