Your FREE Bar Exam Flashcards 2026 – 150+ Cards

From International Shoe v. Washington — personal jurisdiction over a nonresident requires contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Through a federal question (the claim arises under federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331) or diversity of citizenship (complete diversity and more than $75,000 in controversy, § 1332).

A federal court sitting in diversity applies state substantive law and federal procedural law. There is no general federal common law (Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins).

For diversity jurisdiction, no plaintiff may be a citizen of the same state as any defendant. The amount in controversy must also exceed $75,000.

In both its state of incorporation and the state of its principal place of business — the 'nerve center' where officers direct activities (Hertz Corp. v. Friend).

Lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, and insufficient service — they are waived if not raised in the first response. Subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised any time.

A complaint must contain a short, plain statement showing a plausible claim for relief — enough factual matter to make the claim plausible, not merely conceivable.

When there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law (Rule 56).

A final judgment on the merits bars the same parties from relitigating the same claim or cause of action.

A final judgment bars relitigating an issue of fact or law that was actually litigated, determined, and necessary to the judgment.

In a district where any defendant resides (if all defendants reside in the same state) or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred.

A federal court may hear additional claims so related to the anchor claim that they form part of the same case or controversy (28 U.S.C. § 1367).

A claim that arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the opposing party's claim; it is waived if not asserted in the answer (Rule 13(a)).

Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

A court's power over the parties to a lawsuit. For an out-of-state defendant, due process requires minimum contacts with the forum such that the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

A court's power to hear a type of case. Federal courts have it through a federal question or diversity of citizenship (over $75,000 between citizens of different states).

The rule that a federal court sitting in diversity applies state substantive law and federal procedural law. There is no general federal common law.

Judicial review — the power of federal courts to declare an act of Congress or the executive unconstitutional. Chief Justice Marshall held it is the province of the judiciary to say what the law is.

Injury in fact (concrete and particularized), causation (traceable to the defendant), and redressability (a favorable decision would remedy the injury).

Congress may regulate the channels and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Even without congressional action, states may not unduly burden or discriminate against interstate commerce. Discriminatory laws face near-fatal scrutiny.

Valid federal law is the supreme law of the land and preempts conflicting state law (express, conflict, or field preemption).

Strict scrutiny (race, national origin, fundamental rights), intermediate scrutiny (gender, legitimacy), and rational basis (everything else).

That the law is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. It is the hardest standard to satisfy, and most laws fail it.

Most constitutional rights restrain only government conduct, not private actors — unless the private actor performs a public function or is sufficiently entangled with the state.

Procedural due process requires fair procedures (notice and a hearing) before deprivation of life, liberty, or property. Substantive due process protects fundamental rights from government interference.

When it targets speech based on its subject matter or viewpoint — it then faces strict scrutiny. Content-neutral regulations get intermediate scrutiny.

Incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, fighting words, obscenity, defamation, and child pornography.

Government action must be consistent with historical practices and understandings (the Court has moved away from the Lemon test toward a history-and-tradition approach).

Courts weigh the private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation and value of added procedures, and the government's interest, to decide what process is due.

The power of courts to declare a statute or executive act unconstitutional, established in Marbury v. Madison.

The most demanding level of constitutional review, applied to suspect classifications (such as race) and fundamental rights; the law must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

The constitutional guarantee of fair procedures (procedural due process) and protection of fundamental liberties (substantive due process) before the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.

A valid offer manifesting present intent to be bound, plus an acceptance on the offer's terms — supported by consideration.

When the contract is for the sale of goods (movable, tangible property). Common law governs services, real estate, and other contracts.

A bargained-for exchange of legal value — each party incurs a legal detriment or confers a benefit. A gratuitous or illusory promise lacks consideration.

At common law, an acceptance must match the offer exactly; an acceptance that adds or changes terms is a rejection and a counteroffer.

A definite acceptance with additional terms can still form a contract (the 'battle of the forms'); between merchants, additional terms become part of the contract unless they materially alter it or are objected to.

Acceptance is effective on dispatch (when sent), while rejections and revocations are effective on receipt.

Contracts for land (M)arriage, suretyship, goods of $500 or more, and agreements not performable within one year — they need a signed writing. Mnemonic: MY LEGS.

A promise the promisor should reasonably expect to induce reliance, on which the promisee detrimentally relies, is enforceable to avoid injustice — a substitute for consideration.

When parties have a final written contract, prior or contemporaneous oral or written agreements that contradict the writing are inadmissible to vary its terms.

Under the UCC, a buyer may reject goods that fail to conform to the contract in any respect, subject to the seller's right to cure within the contract time.

At common law, a party who performs the essential purpose of the contract, with only minor deviations, has not materially breached and can recover (less damages for the defect).

The default contract remedy — the amount needed to put the non-breaching party in the position it would have occupied had the contract been performed (the benefit of the bargain).

A non-breaching party cannot recover damages it could have avoided by reasonable effort; failure to mitigate reduces recovery.

When monetary damages are inadequate — typically for unique goods or real estate (every parcel of land is considered unique).

A non-party the contracting parties intended to benefit; once their rights vest, they can enforce the contract. An incidental beneficiary cannot.

Performing an act one is already legally bound to do is not new consideration for a modification. The UCC allows good-faith modifications without new consideration.

A clear, unequivocal statement before performance is due that a party will not perform; the non-breaching party may sue immediately or wait.

The meeting of the minds required to form a contract — a valid offer manifesting present intent to be bound, plus an acceptance on the offer's terms.

A bargained-for exchange of legal value. Each party must incur a legal detriment or confer a benefit; a gratuitous promise generally lacks consideration.

The rule that certain contracts — for land, suretyship, marriage, goods of $500 or more, and those not performable within one year — must be evidenced by a signed writing to be enforceable.

The common-law principle that an acceptance must match the offer exactly; an acceptance adding or changing material terms is a rejection and counteroffer (the UCC relaxes this for merchants).

Before custodial interrogation, police must warn: the right to remain silent, that statements can be used against you, the right to an attorney, and the right to appointed counsel if indigent.

Purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently — in descending order of culpability.

Intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, reckless indifference to human life (depraved heart), or intent to commit a dangerous felony (felony murder).

A killing committed during the commission of (or flight from) a dangerous felony; the felony supplies the malice, so no intent to kill is required.

A killing in the heat of passion upon adequate provocation that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control, with no cooling-off period.

Larceny is a trespassory taking of another's property; embezzlement is fraudulent conversion of property already lawfully possessed; false pretenses is obtaining title by a false representation of fact.

The breaking and entering of the dwelling of another, at night, with the intent to commit a felony inside.

An agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act, with intent to agree and intent to achieve the objective (most jurisdictions also require an overt act).

Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment, and its 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' is generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.

When the government intrudes on a reasonable expectation of privacy — unless an exception applies (search incident to arrest, automobile, plain view, consent, stop and frisk, exigent circumstances).

Under Miranda, during custodial interrogation. It is not offense-specific, and once invoked, interrogation must stop.

At the start of formal adversarial proceedings (charging). It is offense-specific — it applies only to the charged offense.

Independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, and good-faith reliance on a defective warrant (United States v. Leon).

It must be voluntary under the totality of the circumstances, and if from custodial interrogation, preceded by Miranda warnings and a valid waiver.

A brief investigative detention on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; a frisk for weapons is allowed if the officer reasonably suspects the person is armed and dangerous.

The mental state required for a crime. The Model Penal Code recognizes four levels: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.

An unlawful killing committed during the commission of (or flight from) a dangerous felony, which supplies the malice for murder even without intent to kill.

The rule that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment, and its fruits, is generally inadmissible in the prosecution's case-in-chief.

Warnings police must give before custodial interrogation — the right to silence, that statements may be used, and the right to (appointed) counsel — under Miranda v. Arizona.

An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is inadmissible under FRE 802 unless a non-hearsay definition, an exclusion, or an exception applies.

Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading the jury, or waste of time.

Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are inadmissible to prove propensity but admissible for non-character purposes: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake (MIMIC).

A statement offered against a party that the party made (or adopted or authorized). It is defined as non-hearsay under FRE 801(d)(2).

A statement about a startling event made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement it caused — admissible under FRE 803(2) regardless of availability.

A statement describing an event made while or immediately after perceiving it — admissible under FRE 803(1).

A record of a regularly conducted activity, made at or near the time by someone with knowledge, kept in the regular course of business, is admissible under FRE 803(6).

In a homicide or civil case, a statement made by an unavailable declarant who believed death was imminent, about its cause or circumstances (FRE 804(b)(2)).

In a criminal case, a testimonial out-of-court statement is barred unless the declarant testifies or was previously subject to cross-examination (Crawford v. Washington).

To prove the contents of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original must be produced, unless an exception applies (FRE 1002).

By prior inconsistent statements, bias or interest, sensory defects, a character for untruthfulness (reputation/opinion or specific instances), and certain criminal convictions.

Confidential communications between a client and attorney made to obtain legal advice; the privilege belongs to the client and survives the client's death.

When the witness has personal knowledge; lay opinion is allowed if rationally based on perception and helpful (FRE 701).

An expert may testify if the testimony is based on sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, reliably applied to the case (FRE 702).

An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It is inadmissible under FRE 802 unless a non-hearsay definition, an exclusion, or an exception applies.

The requirement (FRE 1002) that the original document be produced to prove its contents, subject to several exceptions for duplicates and lost originals.

A contingent future interest is void unless it must vest, if at all, no later than 21 years after the death of a life in being at the creation of the interest.

The largest estate in land — ownership of potentially infinite duration that is freely transferable, devisable, and inheritable, with no inherent conditions.

An estate that ends automatically upon a stated event ('so long as,' 'until'); the grantor holds a possibility of reverter.

An estate that the grantor may cut short upon a stated event ('but if,' 'provided that'); the grantor holds a right of entry (power of termination).

A future interest in an ascertained person, not subject to a condition precedent, that follows naturally at the end of the prior estate.

A future interest given to an unascertained person or subject to a condition precedent; it is subject to the rule against perpetuities.

Joint tenancy carries a right of survivorship (the survivor takes the whole); tenancy in common does not — each tenant's share passes to their heirs.

In residential leases, the landlord must maintain the premises in a habitable condition; breach lets the tenant repair-and-deduct, withhold rent, or terminate.

Race (first to record wins), notice (a later bona fide purchaser without notice wins), and race-notice (a BFP without notice who records first wins).

One who buys for value and without notice (actual, record, or inquiry) of a prior interest; recording acts protect the BFP.

Possession that is open and notorious, hostile (without permission), actual, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period.

A non-possessory right to use another's land for a specific purpose. It can be created expressly, by implication, by necessity, or by prescription.

An easement acquired by open, continuous, hostile use for the statutory period — like adverse possession but for a use right rather than title.

A real covenant is enforceable at law for damages and requires privity; an equitable servitude is enforceable in equity (injunction) and requires only notice plus touch-and-concern.

The lender may foreclose and sell the property to satisfy the debt; the borrower has an equity of redemption to pay off the debt before sale.

An oral land-sale contract can be enforced despite the Statute of Frauds if the buyer does acts (paying, taking possession, making improvements) that show a contract exists.

Present covenants (seisin, right to convey, against encumbrances) and future covenants (quiet enjoyment, warranty, further assurances).

The largest estate in land — ownership of potentially infinite duration, freely transferable, devisable, and inheritable, with no inherent conditions.

The rule voiding a contingent future interest unless it must vest, if at all, within 21 years after the death of a life in being when the interest was created.

Acquiring title to land by possession that is open and notorious, hostile, actual, exclusive, and continuous for the statutory period.

A non-possessory right to use another's land for a specific purpose, such as a right of way; it can be created expressly, by implication, by necessity, or by prescription.

Duty, breach, causation (actual but-for cause AND proximate cause), and damages. The plaintiff must prove each by a preponderance of the evidence.

An intentional harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff's person. Intent to cause the contact (not the harm) is enough.

An intentional act causing the plaintiff a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An intentional act confining the plaintiff to a bounded area, with no reasonable means of escape, of which the plaintiff is aware or harmed by.

Intent transfers when a defendant intends one tort but commits another, or intends to harm one person but harms another — for battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, and trespass to chattels.

The care a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances — an objective standard.

The test for actual causation: the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach. The substantial-factor test applies when multiple sufficient causes exist.

The legal limit on liability — a defendant is liable only for the foreseeable consequences of the breach; an unforeseeable superseding cause cuts off liability.

A doctrine that infers breach from the fact of an accident that ordinarily does not occur without negligence, where the instrumentality was in the defendant's exclusive control.

A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their share of fault. Pure comparative reduces recovery by any percentage; modified bars recovery if the plaintiff is more (or equally) at fault.

To abnormally dangerous activities, wild animals, and defective products — liability without proof of fault.

Manufacturing defect (departs from intended design), design defect (foreseeably unreasonably dangerous), and failure to warn (inadequate warnings/instructions).

A false statement of fact, of and concerning the plaintiff, published to a third party, that harms the plaintiff's reputation (plus fault and, for public figures, actual malice).

Knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for whether it was true — a public official or public figure must prove it (New York Times v. Sullivan).

An employer is vicariously liable for torts an employee commits within the scope of employment.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress — extreme and outrageous conduct, done intentionally or recklessly, causing severe emotional distress.

To an undiscovered trespasser, no duty; to a discovered trespasser and licensee, warn of known dangers; to an invitee, reasonable care including inspection.

Conduct that breaches a duty of reasonable care and causes harm. Its four elements are duty, breach, causation (actual and proximate), and damages.

The legal limit on liability for negligence — a defendant is liable only for the foreseeable consequences of the breach; an unforeseeable superseding cause cuts off liability.

Liability without fault, imposed for abnormally dangerous activities, certain animals, and defective products that are unreasonably dangerous.

The doctrine that an employer is vicariously liable for torts an employee commits within the scope of employment.

Actual authority comes from the principal's manifestations to the agent; apparent authority comes from the principal's manifestations to a third party that lead the third party to reasonably believe the agent is authorized.

General partners are jointly and severally liable for all partnership obligations; each partner is an agent of the partnership for ordinary business.

A presumption that directors act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief their decision serves the corporation — courts will not second-guess such decisions.

The duty of care (act with the care of a reasonably prudent person) and the duty of loyalty (act in the corporation's best interest, avoiding self-dealing and usurping corporate opportunities).

To hold shareholders personally liable when the corporation is an alter ego, is undercapitalized, ignores formalities, or is used to commit fraud or injustice.

Like shareholders, LLC members generally are not personally liable for the LLC's debts; they enjoy limited liability plus pass-through taxation.

A suit by a shareholder on behalf of the corporation to enforce a corporate right, typically after making (or being excused from) a demand on the board.

When a director self-deals, the transaction is reviewed for fair dealing and fair price, rather than under the deferential business judgment rule.

The presumption that corporate directors act on an informed basis, in good faith, and in the honest belief their decision serves the corporation; courts will not second-guess such decisions.

Testamentary capacity and intent, a writing, the testator's signature, and (usually two) witnesses who sign after witnessing the signing or acknowledgment.

The testator must understand the nature of the act, the nature and extent of their property, and the natural objects of their bounty (their heirs).

A handwritten will, signed by the testator, valid in many states without witnesses if the material provisions are in the testator's handwriting.

By a later valid will or codicil, or by a physical act (burning, tearing, canceling) done with the intent to revoke.

The default distribution of an estate when there is no valid will — property passes to the surviving spouse and descendants under the state's statute.

A settlor with intent, a trustee, identifiable trust property (res), one or more beneficiaries, and a valid purpose.

The duties of loyalty (act solely in the beneficiaries' interest, no self-dealing), prudence, impartiality among beneficiaries, and to account.

A trust that restricts a beneficiary's ability to transfer their interest and shields it from most creditors until distribution.

Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion — the structure for a bar essay: identify the issue, state the governing rule, apply it to the facts, and conclude.

Six 30-minute essay questions over three hours, worth 30% of the UBE score. Essays can test the MBE subjects and may combine two subjects.

Two 90-minute closed-universe tasks worth 20% of the UBE. Each provides a File (facts) and a Library (law) and asks for a work product like a memo or brief.

Lawyering skills — sorting relevant facts, analyzing the provided law, applying law to facts, and writing effectively — not memorized substantive law.

Reciting black-letter law without applying it to the specific facts. Examiners reward fact-based application far more than long rule statements.

Conflict of Laws, Family Law, Trusts and Estates, and Secured Transactions. From July 2026, the MEE-only subject is Business Associations (plus the seven MBE subjects).

MBE (50%) + MEE (30%) + MPT (20%) are combined into one scaled score out of 400. The score is portable to other UBE jurisdictions.

There is no national cut score; each jurisdiction sets its own, currently 260–270 out of 400 (e.g., New York and Maryland 266; Texas and Massachusetts 270).

A standardized bar exam, developed by NCBE and adopted by 41 jurisdictions, made up of the MBE, MEE, and MPT. It produces a single 400-point score that is portable to other UBE jurisdictions.

The 200-question, six-hour multiple-choice component of the bar exam (175 scored + 25 unscored pretest), testing seven subjects equally. It is 50% of the UBE score.

The essay component: six 30-minute essay questions over three hours, worth 30% of the UBE score, testing legal analysis and written communication.

The skills component: two 90-minute tasks worth 20% of the UBE, in which examinees complete a lawyering task using a provided File and Library rather than memorized law.