february 2023 bar exam essays

• 0 Shopping Cart $ 0.00 -->

🌟 Turn Setback into Success! Our Free 5-Day Mastery Class starts April 29! Designed specifically for those who failed the bar, learn essential strategies, reset your mindset, and craft a personalized study plan. Register now —spots are limited!

Explore Your Path to Bar Exam Success! Book a free 20-minute consultation with our experts to find the best bar prep services tailored to your needs. Schedule your call today !

🌟 Boost Your Bar Exam Prep with JD Advising! Looking for one-on-one attention in your bar prep? Our expert bar exam tutors are ready to help you pass! Sign up early before spots fill up!

JD Advising’s February 2023 MEE Predictions

Are you preparing for the February 2023 Uniform Bar Exam? Are you curious as to what subjects might appear on the February 2023 MEE? You can see our JD Advising list of recommended topics and essays to review below.

You can find our predictions for MEE and MPT subjects by downloading our PDF. You can do so by filling out the form. Note: you will get our predictions as well as this UBE study guide.

If you would like a PDF of this post (and the predictions to follow), please enter your information below and they will be delivered to the email address provided!

Feb 2023 UBE Predictions Final

• Name * First Last
• What law school did you/do you attend? * Please Select: Abraham Lincoln University School of Law Albany Law School of Union University American University, Washington College of Law Appalachian School of Law Arizona State University—Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Atlanta's John Marshall Law School Ave Maria School of Law Barry University Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law Baylor University School of Law Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University Birmingham School of Law Boston College Law School Boston University School of Law Brigham Young University—J. Reuben Clark Law School Brooklyn Law School CAL Northern School of Law California Desert Trial Academy College of Law California School of Law California Western School of Law Campbell University, Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law Capital University Law School Case Western Reserve University School of Law Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Chapman University School of Law Charleston School of Law Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology City University of New York School of Law Cleveland State University—Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Columbia University School of Law Concord Law School at Purdue University Global Concordia University School of Law Cornell Law School Creighton University School of Law DePaul University College of Law Drake University Law School Drexel University, Earle Mack School of Law Duke University School of Law Duquesne University School of Law Elon University School of Law Emory University School of Law Empire College School of Law Faulkner University, Thomas Goode Jones School of Law Florida A&M University College of Law Florida Coastal School of Law Florida International University College of Law Florida State University College of Law Fordham University School of Law George Mason University School of Law George Washington University Law School Georgetown University Law Center Georgia State University College of Law Glendale University College of Law Golden Gate University School of Law Gonzaga University School of Law Harvard Law School Hofstra University School of Law Howard University School of Law Humphreys College School of Law Indiana University Maurer School of Law—Bloomington Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis Irvine University College of Law John F. Kennedy University College of Law Judge Advocate Generals Legal Center Lewis & Clark Law School Liberty University School of Law Lincoln Law School of Sacramento Lincoln Law School of San Jose Lincoln Memorial University - Duncan School of Law Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center Loyola Law School, Loyola Marymount University Loyola University Chicago School of Law Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Marquette University Law School Massachusetts School of Law at Andover McGeorge School of Law Mercer University—Walter F. George School of Law Michigan State University College of Law Miles Law School Mississippi College School of Law Mitchell Hamline School of Law Monterey College of Law Nashville School of Law New England Law New York Law School New York University School of Law North Carolina Central School of Law North Carolina Central University School of Law Northeastern University School of Law Northern Illinois University College of Law Northern Kentucky University—Salmon P. Chase College of Law Northwestern University School of Law Notre Dame Law School Nova Southeastern University—Shepard Broad Law Center Oak Brook College of Law Ohio Northern University—Claude W. Pettit College of Law Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Oklahoma City University School of Law Pace University School of Law Pacific Coast University School of Law Pacific West College of Law Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law Pepperdine University School of Law Phoenix School of Law Quinnipiac University School of Law Regent University School of Law Roger Williams University School of Law Rutgers University School of Law—Newark Rutgers—State University of New Jersey—School of Law—Camden Saint Louis University School of Law Samford University, Cumberland School of Law San Francisco International University College of Law San Joaquin College of Law Santa Barbara College of Law Santa Clara University School of Law Seattle University School of Law Seton Hall University School of Law SMU Dedman School of Law South Texas College of Law Southern California Institute of Law Southern Illinois University School of Law Southern University Law Center Southwestern Law School St. Francis School of Law St. John's University School of Law St. Mary's University School of Law St. Thomas University School of Law Stanford University Law School Stetson University College of Law Suffolk University Law School Syracuse University College of Law Taft Law School Temple University—James E. Beasley School of Law Texas A&M University School of Law Texas Southern University—Thurgood Marshall School of Law Texas Tech University School of Law Thomas Jefferson School of Law Touro College—Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center Trinity Law School, Trinity International University Tulane University Law School University at Buffalo Law School, State University of New York (SUNY) University of Akron School of Law University of Alabama School of Law University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law University of Arkansas at Little Rock, William H. Bowen School of Law University of Arkansas School of Law University of Baltimore School of Law University of California, Berkeley, School of Law University of California, Davis School of Law (King Hall) University of California, Hastings College of the Law University of California, Irvine School of Law University of California, Los Angeles School of Law University of Chicago Law School University of Cincinnati College of Law University of Colorado Law School University of Connecticut School of Law University of Dayton School of Law University of Denver Sturm College of Law University of Detroit Mercy School of Law University of Florida, Fredric G. Levin College of Law University of Georgia School of Law University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa—William S. Richardson School of Law University of Houston Law Center University of Idaho College of Law University of Illinois College of Law University of Illinois Chicago School of Law University of Iowa College of Law University of Kansas School of Law University of Kentucky College of Law University of La Verne College of Law University of Louisville's Brandeis School of Law University of Maine School of Law University of Maryland School of Law University of Memphis—Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law University of Miami School of Law University of Michigan Law School University of Minnesota Law School University of Mississippi School of Law University of Missouri School of Law University of Missouri—Kansas City School of Law University of Montana School of Law University of Nebraska College of Law University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law University of New Hampshire University of New Mexico School of Law University of North Carolina School of Law University of North Dakota School of Law University of North Texas at Dallas College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oregon School of Law University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Pittsburgh School of Law University of Richmond School of Law University of San Diego School of Law University of San Francisco School of Law University of South Carolina School of Law University of South Dakota School of Law University of Southern California, Gould School of Law University of St. Thomas School of Law—Minneapolis University of Tennessee College of Law University of Texas School of Law University of the District of Columbia—David A. Clarke School of Law University of Toledo College of Law University of Tulsa College of Law University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law University of Virginia School of Law University of Washington School of Law University of West Los Angeles School of Law - West Los Angeles University of Wisconsin Law School University of Wyoming College of Law Valparaiso University School of Law Vanderbilt University Law School Ventura College of Law Vermont Law School Villanova University School of Law Wake Forest University School of Law Washburn University School of Law Washington and Lee University School of Law Washington University School of Law Wayne State University Law School West Virginia University College of Law Western Michigan University Thomas M. Cooley Law School Western New England College School of Law Western Sierra Law School Western State University—College of Law Whittier Law School Widener University School of Law Willamette University College of Law William & Mary Law School William Mitchell College of Law Yale Law School Other
• Law School Graduation Year * Please Select: 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
• How Did You Hear About Us? * Please Select: Google/Online Search Above The Law The National Jurist Email/Newsletter Friend/Word of Mouth Phi Alpha Delta Social Media (Please Specify The Platform Below) YouTube Professor/Law School Faculty (Please Specify Below) Used Services In The Past Table Time Representative (Please Specify Below) Other (Please Specify Below)
• If you chose "Other" or wish to provide more information, please explain. Thank you!
• Privacy Policy * I agree to the privacy policy. You are providing this information to JD Advising in accordance with the terms of its privacy policy: https://jdadvising.com/privacy-policy/
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recommendation:

Note that we highly recommend that you review all of the subjects and the highly tested topics, as well as other topics ripe for testing. In fact, it is well worth it to focus on the highly tested topics in all of the subjects rather than focusing on predictions (which are, again, just for fun and not to be relied upon!)

In other words, use this guide, download our Free MEE Guide  of highly tested topics, and sign up for our new  free resource center !

If you are looking for other resources, please check out the following:

• Free MEE Guide, of highly tested topics! This was JUST updated for 2022 and we think you will absolutely love it! (It has new illustrated drawings of the law!) Plus, it is free, so you cannot go wrong! (While you are at it, check out our highly rated free  MBE Guide , which was also just updated!)
• Our new  free resource center , which covers MEE, MBE, and MPT tips; has guides; access to JD Advising bonuses; and more.
• MEE One-Sheets,  which were updated with the July 2022 bar exam material and are our most popular product! These help numerous students study efficiently for the MEE.
• NEW MEE Mastery Class, where we give you a handout that includes illustrated drawings of highly tested issues and a 90-minute lecture by our expert lecturer. This covers a combination of difficult, highly tested, and predicted topics! (We also have an amazing MBE Mastery Class !)
• NEW Bar Exam Flashcards : This is a new product that we offer. These are great for a last-minute review! Check out a sample here !
• Lastly, if your firm is paying for bar prep (or if you are looking for a bundle package) check out our  JD Advising One Up package ! We will take care of the firm billing for you!

Below is our UBE Study Guide, which includes all of the subjects and topics. 

To see the predictions, please download them after agreeing to the terms above. , uniform bar exam study guide.

Note:  All the suggested essays noted below can be found for free using the links below. We use the NCBE links for the essays that appeared on the exam from February 2008 through July 2015. We used the Minnesota State Bar links for the essays that appeared on the exam from February 2016 through February 2022. Some essays come from the New York State Bar Examination website.

Civil Procedure

UPDATE: TESTED

Civil Procedure was most recently tested in July 2022. Civil Procedure has been tested frequently in the past and has appeared on four of the last five UBEs. Although Civil Procedure has been tested recently, the frequency with which this subject is tested makes it ripe for testing on the February 2023 UBE.

Some Civil Procedure issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Personal jurisdiction
• Service of process
• Preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders
• Summary judgment

To get some practice with Civil Procedure essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• July 2012 (summary judgment; leave to amend)
• July 2013 (diversity jurisdiction; how to determine an individual’s domicile; how to determine venue for a corporation)
• February 2014 (discovery (work product); sanctions)
• July 2014 (intervention as of right; temporary restraining order; preliminary injunction)
• February 2015 (service of process; diversity jurisdiction; impleader)
• July 2015 (personal jurisdiction; federal-question jurisdiction; supplemental jurisdiction)
• July 2016 (personal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, venue)

Note:   Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Civil Procedure topics.

Constitutional Law

UPDATE: NOT TESTED

Constitutional Law was last tested in October 2020 . During 2020, Constitutional Law appeared on four of the five UBEs. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, five UBEs were administered in 2020 (February 2020, July 2020, two exams in September 2020, and a modified version of the exam in October 2020). We were surprised to see that Constitutional Law appeared on most of the exams in 2020. Because Constitutional Law has recently been tested frequently on the UBE and has not been tested since October 2020, it is ripe for testing on the February 2023 UBE.

Constitutional Law is generally tested by itself on the essay portion of the UBE. However, Constitutional Law was recently combined with Civil Procedure in July 2019 and with Corporations in July 2020 . So, it is possible to encounter a Constitutional Law essay that also tests an issue from another subject.

Constitutional Law essays often focus upon nuanced topics including, but not limited to, the Dormant Commerce Clause, sovereign immunity, regulatory takings, whether Congress may “commandeer” the states, and the various free speech tests under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Some Constitutional Law issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Congress’s commerce power
• The Dormant Commerce Clause
• The Eleventh Amendment (sovereign immunity)
• The Equal Protection Clause
• The First Amendment freedom of speech

To get some practice with Constitutional Law essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2015 (Equal Protection Clause)
• July 2012 (Congress’s commerce power; sovereign immunity)
• February 2016 (Dormant Commerce Clause)
• July 2017 (Eleventh Amendment)
• July 2018 (commandeering states)
• October 2020 (First Amendment freedom of speech)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Constitutional Law topics.

Contracts was most recently tested in July 2022. Contracts is sometimes tested on two consecutive UBE administrations and then omitted from the essay portion of the following exam. Contracts was tested in both February 2022 and July 2022. Contracts is usually tested on its own and not in combination with another subject.

Some Contracts issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Anticipatory repudiation
• Firm offer and option contracts
• Revocation of acceptance
• Substantial performance

To get some practice with Contracts essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2013 (insecurity; anticipatory repudiation)
• July 2014 (modification of common law contract and UCC contract; economic duress defense)
• February 2017 (firm offer; option contract; revocation of offer)
• July 2019 (expectation damages; consequential damages; duty to mitigate)
• February 2020 (substantial performance)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Contracts topics.

Criminal Law

Criminal Law was last tested in February 2022 . Criminal Law was tested infrequently before February 2018 but from February 2018 to September 2020, it appeared on every other exam. Criminal Law is generally tested by itself but once in a while is combined with Evidence ( February 2020 ) or Criminal Procedure ( July 2009 ).

Some Criminal Law issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Accomplice liability
• Homicide (involuntary manslaughter; second-degree murder)
• Insanity as a defense
• Attempt and defenses to attempt
• Receiving stolen goods

To get some practice with Criminal Law essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• July 2009 (attempt and defenses to attempt)
• July 2012 (involuntary manslaughter; legal cause of death; accomplice liability)
• February 2018 (insanity as a defense; incompetency to stand trial)
• February 2019 (larceny; embezzlement; burglary; receipt of stolen property)
• September 2020 (homicide: first-degree murder; voluntary manslaughter; defense of others)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Criminal Law topics.

Criminal Procedure

Criminal Procedure was most recently tested in July 2021 . Criminal Procedure is usually tested by itself but has been combined with Evidence ( July 2016 ,  July 2017 ) and with Criminal Law ( July 2009 ). Although Criminal Procedure is an infrequently tested subject on the UBE, it may be ripe for testing in February 2023, possibly in combination with Evidence.

Some Criminal Procedure issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• The Fourth Amendment (warrant exceptions)
• The Fifth Amendment ( Miranda warnings)
• The Sixth Amendment (right to counsel, right to jury trial)
• Double jeopardy

To get some practice with some Criminal Procedure essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2008 (Fourth Amendment (search and seizure in a  Terry  context); Fifth Amendment  Miranda  warnings; Fourteenth Amendment (voluntariness of a confession))
• February 2014 (Double jeopardy; Sixth Amendment right to jury trial)
• July 2014  (Sixth Amendment right to counsel; Fifth Amendment Miranda warnings)
• July 2019 (Fifth Amendment Miranda warnings)
• July 2021 (Fourth Amendment warrant exceptions)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Criminal Procedure topics.

Evidence was last tested in July 2022. In  July 2016 and  July 2017 , Evidence was combined with Criminal Procedure. In February 2020 , the Evidence essay question also tested issues from Criminal Law. Although Evidence was recently tested, it may be ripe for testing in February 2023, possibly in combination with Criminal Procedure.

Some Evidence issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Character evidence
• Impeachment
• Lay witnesses and expert witnesses
• Confrontation Clause

To get some practice with Evidence essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs :

• February 2012 (policy exclusions)
• July 2014 (impeachment based on prior convictions and prior bad acts)
• February 2016 (hearsay; Confrontation Clause; character evidence)
• July 2018 (hearsay; lay witnesses; expert witnesses; doctor-patient privilege; habit evidence; relevancy)
• February 2020 (nonhearsay (opposing party’s statement); hearsay (then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition); relevancy; character evidence; MIMIC evidence; impeachment by conviction and bias)
• July 2020 (hearsay; doctor-patient privilege; authentication; best evidence rule)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Evidence topics.

Real Property

Real Property was most recently tested in July 2022. In recent years, Real Property has been tested on consecutive exams (February 2018 and July 2018; February 2020, July 2020, and September 2020). However, Real Property was not tested in July 2021 after being tested in February 2021. Real Property questions tend to be more open-ended in nature, and the answers more nuanced than those in some other subjects.

Some Real Property issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Adverse possession
• Implied warranty of fitness and habitability for new homes sold by a builder-seller
• Recording acts (common law versus a recording act)
• Warranty deeds
• Easement creation and termination
• Landlord-tenant issues

To get some practice with Real Property essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2010 (recording acts; shelter rule; warranty deed)
• February 2013 (constructive eviction; surrender; duty to mitigate)
• July 2013 (implied warranty in new properties sold by a builder; warranty deed; taking a home “subject to” the mortgage versus assuming the mortgage)
• February 2015 (adverse possession; warranty deed)
• February 2017 (landlord-tenant issues)
• July 2018 (zoning ordinance and nonconforming use; future advance mortgage)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide for the highly tested Real Property topics.

Torts was most recently tested in July 2021 . Torts has appeared less frequently on the essay portion of the UBE recently. For example, Torts did not appear in July 2019, on any of the exams in 2020, or in February 2021. Torts is generally tested by itself but is occasionally combined with Agency. Some of the common issues tested in Torts include negligence; negligence per se; strict products liability; vicarious liability; and battery. Torts is ripe for testing on the February 2023 UBE.

Some Torts issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Negligence per se
• Strict products liability
• Vicarious liability of employer and indemnification
• Comparative negligence

To get some practice with Torts essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2008 (strict products liability; res ipsa loquitur)
• February 2011 (battery; strict products liability; eggshell-skull rule; vicarious liability)
• February 2012 (false imprisonment; negligent infliction of emotional distress; vicarious liability)
• February 2015 (negligence per se; vicarious liability and indemnification)
• July 2015 (negligence (premises liability); attractive nuisance; comparative versus contributory negligence)
• February 2019 (negligence)

Note:   Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above. Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Torts topics.

Agency & Partnership

Agency was most recently tested in July 2022 in combination with Corporations & LLCs. It is common for Agency to be tested by itself, combined with Partnership, or combined with Torts. The examiners often alternate between testing Corporations & LLCs and Agency & Partnership. Even though Agency was recently tested, it is ripe for testing on the February 2023 UBE, possibly in combination with Partnership and likely with an emphasis on Partnership.

Some Agency issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Actual authority; apparent authority; ratification
• Employee versus independent contractor
• Respondeat superior; vicarious liability
• Undisclosed principal
• Fiduciary duties of agents

To get some practice with Agency essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2015 (respondeat superior)
• February 2017 (ratification; liability of agent if principal is undisclosed or partially disclosed)
• February 2020 (actual authority; apparent authority; liability of agent if principal is disclosed; vicarious liability)
• February 2021 (combined with Partnership: employee versus independent contractor, respondeat superior; vicarious liability: “masters” liable for torts of servants in course of employment; principal not liable for independent contractor’s negligence)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Agency topics.

Partnership

Partnership was most recently tested in February 2021 in combination with Agency. However, because most of the essay focused on Agency issues, Partnership is ripe for testing on the February 2023 UBE. October 2020 was the last time Partnership was the primary focus of an essay on the UBE. It is possible to see an essay question testing Partnership alone or a question testing Partnership in combination with Agency in February 2023.

Some Partnership issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Definition and formation of a partnership
• Fiduciary duties of partners
• New partner not liable for obligations that predated her admission into the partnership
• Withdrawal and dissolution of a partnership
• Liability when a general partnership transforms into an LLP or an LP

To get some practice with Partnership essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• July 2009 (general partnership liability; procedure for collection for creditors of the partnership)
• February 2014 (a new partner is not liable for obligations that predated her admission into the partnership; liability when a general partnership transforms into a limited liability partnership)
• February 2018 (dissolution; fiduciary duties of care and loyalty; withdrawal from partnership)
• February 2019 (formation of a general partnership; general partnership powers; partners are agents and comanagers of the partnership; dissolution)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Partnership topics.

Conflict of Laws

Conflict of Laws was lasted tested in July 2021  in combination with Corporations & LLCs. This was the first time Conflict of Laws had been tested in combination with Corporations & LLCs on the UBE. Conflict of Laws has never been tested by itself. Conflict of Laws is typically combined with Civil Procedure, Decedents’ Estates, or Family Law.

Some Conflict of Laws issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Combined with Civil Procedure: Klaxon rule; which state law applies if there is a change of venue
• Combined with Family Law: common law marriage; validity of marriage in one state when recognized in another state
• Combined with Family Law: enforceability of premarital agreements
• Combined with Decedents’ Estates: validity and enforceability of wills

To get some practice with Conflict of Laws essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2012 : Combined with Civil Procedure (which state law applies when there is a change of venue;  Klaxon  rule)
• February 2017 : Combined with Family Law (common law marriage; validity of marriage in one state when recognized in another state)
• July 2019 : Combined with Decedents’ Estates (validity of a will; which state law applies)
• July 2021 : Combined with Corporations & LLCs (duties of directors are determined by the state of incorporation, not by a state where the corporation operates or the state where the suit is brought)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Conflict of Laws topics.

Corporations & LLCs

Corporations & LLCs was most recently tested in July 2022 in combination with Agency. Note that LLCs were last tested in September 2020 in combination with Agency. Corporations & LLCs has been tested on the last three UBEs ( July 2021 , February 2022 , July 2022). Some commonly tested Corporations & LLCs issues include duty of care, duty of loyalty, the business-judgment rule, direct versus derivative shareholder actions, piercing the corporate veil, rules concerning directors’ meetings, and LLCs.

Some Corporations & LLCs issues that are ripe for testing include the following :

• De facto incorporation and corporation by estoppel
• Limited liability companies (LLCs)
• Piercing the corporate veil
• Shareholder’s right to inspect corporate records
• Fiduciary duties of directors and members

To get some practice with Corporations & LLCs essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• July 2012 (LLCs; direct versus derivative actions; piercing the LLC veil)
• July 2014 (shareholders amendment of bylaws; direct versus derivative actions)
• February 2017 (shareholder’s right to inspect corporate records; duty of care; dismissal of a derivative action)
• July 2018 (de facto incorporation; corporation by estoppel; date of corporation’s existence)
• July 2019 (fiduciary duties of controlling shareholders; dividends; duty of care; duty of loyalty and defenses thereto)
• July 2021 (fundamental change (merger); dissenting shareholder’s rights)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Corporations & LLCs topics.

Decedents’ Estates

Decedents’ Estates was last tested in July 2022 in combination with Trusts and Future Interests. It was also tested on both the February and July exams in 2021. However, it is more common for the examiners to test Decedents’ Estates on one exam and then Trusts on the following exam. Decedents’ Estates is most frequently tested by itself but is sometimes combined with Trusts ( July 2020, July 2022) or Conflict of Laws (July 2019 ). Although Decedents’ Estates has recently been tested, it may be ripe for testing in February 2023.

Some Decedents’ Estates issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Ademption by extinction
• Holographic wills
• Issues pertaining to children (adopted child, pretermitted child, child born out of wedlock
• Antilapse statutes
• Incorporation by reference

To get some practice with Decedents’ Estates essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• July 2009 (undue influence; fraud; general power of appointment; parentelic versus consanguinity method for intestacy)
• February 2011 (abatement)
• February 2012 (ademption by extinction)
• July 2012 (adopted children; children born out of wedlock)
• February 2016 (slayer statute: durable power of attorney)
• July 2019 (holographic will; mistake/ambiguity; antilapse statute; pretermitted child)
• September 2020 (valid execution of a will; holographic will; codicil; incorporation by reference; dependent relative revocation; mental capacity; mistake/ambiguity)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Decedents’ Estates topics.

Family Law was most recently tested in July 2021 . Since July 2014, Family Law has been tested every two administrations or every other administration. Typically, Family Law is tested by itself but is occasionally combined with Conflict of Laws. Family Law is ripe for testing on the February 2023 UBE. Additionally, Family Law often appears on alternating years as Secured Transactions. Neither Family Law nor Secured Transactions appeared on the July 2022 UBE. Because Family Law was not tested in July 2022, Family Law is ripe for testing in February 2023. However, Family Law and Secured Transactions have been tested in the same administration only once, in July 2020 , and Secured Transactions is also ripe for testing in February 2023.

Family Law essay questions generally draw from a variety of issues including, but not limited to, child custody, spousal support, premarital agreements, property division, the validity of a common law marriage, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). Lately, the examiners have consistently tested UIFSA, UCCJEA, and other jurisdictional issues, so it is a good idea to be familiar with these concepts.

Some Family Law issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Common law marriage
• Spousal and child support
• Divorce settlement agreements
• Premarital agreements and property division
• Child custody

To get some practice with Family Law essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2011 (divorce settlement agreement; child support modification; whether a divorce property division award may be modified)
• July 2011 (common law marriage; validity of common law marriage in another state; adoption; UCCJEA)
• February 2016 (premarital agreements; property division upon divorce)
• February 2017 (common law marriage; validity of common law marriage in another state; property division; bigamy; visitation rights of a party who is not a parent)
• July 2020 (whether a state may grant a divorce even if there is no personal jurisdiction over other spouse; whether a state may grant custody even if there is no personal jurisdiction over other respondent parent; whether a state may grant property if there is no personal jurisdiction over the respondent; fault-based divorce; factors for determining the best interests of the child)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Family Law topics.

Secured Transactions

Secured Transactions last appeared on the MEE in February 2022 . Traditionally, Secured Transactions has generally been tested on every other administration or tested consecutively on two administrations and then not on the following exam. Additionally, Secured Transactions often appears on alternating years as Family Law. Neither Secured Transactions nor Family Law appeared on the July 2022 UBE.  Because Secured Transactions was not tested in July 2022, Secured Transactions is ripe for testing in February 2023. However, Family Law and Secured Transactions have been tested in the same administration only once, in July 2020 , and Family Law is also ripe for testing in February 2023.

Some Secured Transactions issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Account debtors
• Sale of collateral to a third party
• Default and foreclosure via self-help
• Attachment and perfection
• Priority (first to file or perfect; perfected security interest takes priority over an unperfected security interest)

To get some practice with Secured Transactions essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• February 2008 (name on financing statement cannot be seriously misleading; deposit accounts; rights of judicial lien creditor versus a secured creditor)
• February 2016 (buyer in the ordinary course of business does not take subject to a security interest; consumer-to-consumer transaction; perfection as to proceeds
• July 2016 (fixture filing; perfection as to proceeds; default; foreclosure using self-help)
• July 2017 (attachment of a security interest; account debtor; priority (first to file or perfect))
• February 2019 (perfection and rules of priority (possession); default; judicial lien creditor rights versus a secured creditor)
• February 2021 (attachment of a security interest; description of collateral; perfection by filing a financing statement; priority of a perfected secured party versus judgment lien creditors)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Secured Transactions topics.

Trusts was last tested in July 2022 in combination with Decedents’ Estates. Typically, the examiners alternate between testing Decedents’ Estates and Trusts. Trusts is sometimes tested by itself and is sometimes combined with Decedents’ Estates.

Some Trusts issues that are ripe for testing include the following:

• Amendment of a trust
• Class gifts and antilapse statutes
• Duties of the trustee (loyalty, diversify, Uniform Principal and Income Act)
• Pourover will
• Powers of appointments
• Termination of a trust under common law and UPC

To get some practice with Trusts essays, we recommend looking at the following MEEs:

• July 2011 (equitable deviation;  cy pres )
• July 2012 (class gifts; termination of a trust under common law and the UPC)
• February 2017 (amendment of a trust; special powers of appointment; elective share)
• July 2018 (duties of the trustee (loyalty, diversify, Uniform Principal and Income Act))
• February 2019 (discretionary support trust subject to spendthrift clause; duty of loyalty)
• October 2020 (definite beneficiaries required for a valid trust; powers of appointment)

Note:  Your review should NOT be limited solely to the essays listed above! Please review our  free MEE Guide  for the highly tested Trusts topics.

Other Bar Exam Resources

Free or discounted resources.

• A five-star  UBE course that provides you with the best instruction, outlines, and questions.  Preview our course for free here !
• Free popular bar exam guides (on the  MBE ,  MEE ,  how to pass the bar exam , and  what to do if you failed the bar exam ) written by bar exam experts!
• Free  bar exam webinars taught by top bar exam experts

 Other resources

Our most POPULAR and highly rated bar exam resources are:

• Our  On Demand and Premium Bar Exam Courses
• Bar exam private tutoring by bar exam experts
• MBE One-Sheets and  MEE One-Sheets —rated five stars!
• Real MBE questions —the  best  practice questions available!

We also have several additional  MBE ,  MEE , and  MPT  products available.

Related posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Public Interest

By using this site, you allow the use of cookies, and you acknowledge that you have read and understand our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

Cookie and Privacy Settings

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

  office (518) 453-5990 fax (518) 452-5729 TTY: Call 711 (nyrelay.com) Phone Hours: Monday - Friday 8:30am – 4:30pm Eastern Time

• BOLE Account
• UBE / NYLC / NYLE FAQ's
• Admission Information
• Application by Transferred UBE Score
• Bar Exam Eligibility
• Bar Exam Information
• Bar Exam Statistics
• Change of Address
• Dates of Exams and Deadlines
• Exam Day References & Security Policy
• Foreign Legal Education
• Mandatory 50-Hour Pro Bono Rule
• Misconduct Policy
• NYLC / NYLE Course Access & Materials
• Other Links & Contact Information
• Past Bar Exam Questions & Answers
• Past Bar Exam Results
• Press Releases and Reports
• Pro Bono Scholars Program
• Proctor Information
• Reciprocity / Motion Information
• Rules and Regulations
• Skills Competency Requirement for Bar Admission
• Study Guides for UBE and MPRE
• Test Accommodations

Past Exam Essay Questions with Sample Candidate Answers

  Contact US | Disclaimer

Links to other sites, or links to this site by any other sites, do not imply any endorsement of, or relationship with, such other sites

Multistate Essay Examination

• Registration
• Test Day Policies

Test Administration July 30, 2024 Test Administration February 25, 2025

Jurisdictions Administering the MEE

Select a jurisdiction for a summary of bar admission information specific to that jurisdiction and contact information for its bar admission agency.

• MEE Administered
• MEE Not Administered
• District of Columbia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Puerto Rico
• Virgin Islands

Each jurisdiction will provide specific information regarding materials, including appropriate identification, that examinees are allowed to bring with them to the test center.

About the MEE

The Multistate Essay Examination (MEE) consists of six 30-minute questions. Developed by NCBE, the MEE is administered by user jurisdictions as part of the bar examination on the Tuesday before the last Wednesday in February and July of each year. 

The MEE is only one of a number of measures that a board of bar examiners may use in determining competence to practice. Each jurisdiction grades the MEE and determines its own policy with regard to the relative weight given to the MEE and other scores. Jurisdictions that administer the   Uniform Bar Examination  weight the MEE component 30%.

Registration Information

The MEE is developed by NCBE and administered by user jurisdictions as part of the bar examination. Applicants register for the MEE by applying to a jurisdiction for the bar exam. View our interactive map for jurisdictions administering the MEE and other information.

Preparing for the MEE

The MEE consists of six 30-minute questions. Areas of law that may be covered on the MEE include the following: Business Associations (Agency and Partnership; Corporations and Limited Liability Companies), Civil Procedure, Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Contracts (including Article 2 [Sales] of the Uniform Commercial Code), Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Family Law, Real Property, Torts, Trusts and Estates (Decedents' Estates; Trusts and Future Interests), and Article 9 (Secured Transactions) of the Uniform Commercial Code. Some questions may include issues in more than one area of law. The particular areas covered vary from exam to exam.  

• Jurisdictions
• ADHD Medical Documentation Guidelines
• Accommodation Decisions
• Accommodations FAQs
• Apply For Test Accommodations
• Extension Requests
• How To Prepare Your Request
• Important Dates for MPRE Test Accomodations
• Learning Disabilities Medical Documentation Guidelines
• MPRE Stop-The-Clock Breaks
• MPRE Test Accommodations Privacy Policy
• Medical Documentation Guidelines For MPRE Test Accommodations
• Neurocognitive Disorders
• Physical and Chronic Health-Related Disabilities
• Psychological Disabilities
• Test Conditions
• Visual Disabilities
• Score Portability
• Minimum Scores
• Maximum Score Age
• Local Components
• UBE Jurisdictions
• Integrated Question Sets
• Multiple-Choice
• Performance Task
• Content Scope
• Character & Fitness
• MBE Score Services
• MPRE Score Services
• UBE Score Services
• Bar Exam Results by Jurisdiction
• Technical Advisory Panel
• Covington Award
• Validity and Fairness Research Award
• Publications
• Job Announcements
• Next Generation of The Bar Exam
• Diversity and Inclusion
• News/Resources
• NextGen Bar Exam
• Help & Support

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This Questionnaire contains ten (10) pages including this page. Check the number of pages and their proper sequencing. You may write notes on this Questionnaire.

Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Bar Examination Notebook in the same order as the questions. Write your answers only on the front page of every sheet. Note well the allocated percentage points for each question or sub-question. In your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.

2. Answer the questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each answer on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until completed.

3. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with the pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.

A MERE "YES" OR "NO" ANSWER WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING EXPLANATION OR DISCUSSION WILL NOT BE GIVEN FULL CREDIT. THUS, ALWAYS BRIEFLY BUT FULLY EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWERS ALTHOUGH THE QUESTION DOES NOT EXPRESSLY ASK FOR AN EXPLANATION. DO NOT REWRITE OR REPEAT THE QUESTION ON YOUR NOTEBOOK.

4. Do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or distinctive marking/s on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers, or private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving, or making any distinguishing or identifying mark in the Notebook is considered cheating and can disqualify you.

YOU CAN BRING HOME THE QUESTIONNAIRE.

JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Chairperson 2018 Bar Examinations

Congress enacted a law to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access and information to a full range of modern family planning methods, including contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectibles, non- abortifacient hormonal contraceptives, and family planning products and supplies, but expressly prohibited abortion. To ensure its objectives, the law made it mandatory for health providers to provide information on the full range of modern family planning methods, supplies and services, for schools to provide reproductive health education, for non-governmental medical practitioners to render mandatory 48 hours pro bono reproductive health services as a condition to Philhealth accreditation, and for couples desiring to marry to attend a family planning seminar prior to the issuance of a marriage license. It also punishes certain acts of refusals to carry out its mandates. The spouses Aguiluz, both Roman Catholics, filed a petition to declare the law as unconstitutional based on, among others, the following grounds:

(a) It violates the right to life, since it practically sanctions abortion. Despite express terms prohibiting abortion, petitioners claim that the family planning products and supplies oppose the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human right, and the sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural law and is an affront to the dignity of man.

(b) It violates the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude because it requires medical practitioners to render 48 hours of pro bono reproductive health services which may be against their will.

(c) It violates the Freedom of Religion, since petitioners' religious beliefs prevent them from using contraceptives, and that any State- sponsored procurement of contraceptives, funded by taxes, violates the guarantee of religious freedom.

Rule on each of the above objections. (2.5% each)

Agnes was allegedly picked up by a group of military men headed by Gen. Altamirano, and was brought to several military camps where she was interrogated, beaten, mauled, tortured, and threatened with death if she would not confess her membership in the New People's Army (NPA) and point to the location of NPA camps. She suffered for several days until she was released after she signed a document saying that she was a surenderee, and was not abducted or harmed by the military. After she was released, and alleging that her rights to life, liberty and security had been violated and continued to be threatened by violation of such rights, she filed with the Supreme Court (the Court) a Petition for the Writs of Amparo and Habeas Data with prayers for Temporary Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of Documents and Personal Properties. The case was filed against President Amoyo (who was the President of the Philippines when the abduction, beating, mauling and life threats were committed), General Altamirano, and several military men whom Agnes was able to recognize during her ordeal. The Court, after finding the petition to be in order, issued the writ of amparo and the writ of habeas data and directed the respondents to file a verified return on the writs, and directed the Court of Appeals (CA) to hear the petition. The respondents duly filed their return on the writs and produced the documents in their possession. After hearing, the CA ruled that there was no more need to issue the temporary protection orders since the writ of amparo had already been issued, and dismissed the petition against President Amoyo on the ground that he was immune from suit during his incumbency as President. Agnes appealed the CA ruling to the Court. The appeal was lodged after President Amoyo's term had ended.

(a) Was the CA correct in saying that the writ of amparo rendered unnecessary the issuance of the temporary protection order? (2.5%)

(b) Will the President's immunity from suit continue even after his term has ended, considering that the events covered by the Petition took place during his term? (2.5%)

What and whose vote is required for the following acts: (2% each)

(a) the repeal of a tax exemption law;

(b) a declaration of the existence of a state of war;

(c) the amendment of a constitutional provision through a constituent assembly;

(d) the resolution of a tie in a presidential election; and

(e) the extension of the period for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?

The Province of Amaya is one of the smallest provinces in the Philippines with only one legislative district composed of four municipalities: Uno, Dos, Tres, and Cuatro.

Andres, a resident and registered voter of Cuatro municipality, ran and was elected as member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of Amaya in the 2010 and 2013 local elections.

While Andres was serving his second term as ·sp member, a law was enacted re-apportioning the four towns of Amaya into two legislative districts: Uno and Dos comprising the First District, and Tres and Cuatro comprising the Second District.

In the 2016 local elections, Andres ran and was elected as member of the SP of Amaya representing the Second District.

Andres seeks your legal advice regarding his intention to run as a member of the SP of Amaya for the Second District in the next local elections in 2019. What will you advise Andres? (2.5%)

State whether or not the following acts are constitutional: (2% each)

(a) A law prescribing as qualifications for appointment to any court lower than the Supreme Court, Philippine citizenship, whether natural-born or naturalized, 35 years of age on the date of appointment, and at least eight years as a member of the Philippine Bar;

(b) A law requiring all candidates for national or local elective offices to be college degree holders;

(c) The designation by the President of an acting Associate Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission;

(d) The appointment by the President as Deputy Ombudsman of a lawyer who has been engaged in the practice of law for five years; and

(e) The nomination by a national party-list of a person who is not one of its bona fide members.

Ang Araw, a multi-sectoral party-list organization duly registered as such with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), was proclaimed as one of the winning party-list groups in the last national elections. Its first nominee, Alejandro, assumed office as the party-list representative.

About one year after Alejandro assumed office, the Interim Central Committee of Ang Araw expelled Alejandro from the party for disloyalty and replaced him with Andoy, its second nominee. Alejandro questioned before the Comelec his expulsion and replacement by Andoy.

The Comelec considered Alejandro's petition as an intra-party dispute which it could resolve as an incident of its power to register political parties; it proceeded to uphold the expulsion.

Is the Comelec's ruling correct? (5%)

The 2016 mayoralty race in the City of Ardania included Arnaldo and Anacleto as contenders.

Arnaldo filed a petition with the Comelec to cancel Anacleto's Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for misrepresenting himself as a Filipino citizen. Arnaldo presented as evidence a copy of Anacleto's Spanish passport and a certification from the Bureau of Immigration (Bl) showing that Anacleto used the same passport several times to travel to and from Manila and Madrid or Barcelona.

In his Comment, Anacleto claimed that, a year prior to filing his CoC, he had complied with all the requirements of R.A. No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) to reacquire his Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance and executing a sworn renunciation of his Spanish citizenship. He defended the use of his Spanish passport subsequent to taking his oath of allegiance to the Philippines as a practical necessity since he had yet to obtain his Philippine passport despite reacquiring his Philippine citizenship. Even after he secured his Philippine passport, he said he had to wait for the issuance of a Schengen visa to allow him to travel to Spain to visit his wife and minor children.

(a) Based on the allegations of the parties, is there sufficient ground to cancel Anacleto's CoC? (2.5%)

(b) In case Anacleto's CoC is properly cancelled, who should serve as mayor of Ardania City: Arnaldo, who obtained the second highest number votes, or Andrea, the duly-elected Vice Mayor of the City? (2.5%)

Two petitions for the cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)/Denial of Due Course were filed with the Comelec against two candidates running as municipal mayors of different towns.

The first petition was against Anselmo. Years ago, Anselmo was charged and convicted of the crime of rape by final judgment, and was sentenced to suffer the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua which carried the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. While Anselmo was in prison, the President commuted his sentence and he was discharged from prison.

The second petition was against Ambrosio. Ambrosio's residency was questioned because he was allegedly a "green card holder," i.e., a permanent resident of the US, as evidenced by a certification to this effect from the US Embassy.

Acting on the recommendations of its Law Department, the Comelec en banc motu proprio issued two resolutions granting the petitions against Anselmo and Ambrosio.

Both Anselmo and Ambrosio filed separate petitions with the Supreme Court assailing the resolutions cancelling their respective CoCs. Both claimed that the Comelec en bane acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because the petitions should have first been heard and resolved by one of the Comelec's Divisions.

Are Anselmo and Ambrosio correct? (5%)

In 1990, Agripina migrated to Canada and acquired Canadian citizenship.

In 2008, Agripina retired and returned to the Philippines to permanently reside in her hometown of Angeles, Pampanga. A month after returning to the Philippines, Agripina took her oath of allegiance and executed a sworn renunciation of her Canadian citizenship in accordance with R.A. No. 9225.

In 2009, Agripina filed her certificate of candidacy for Congress for the 2010 elections. Agripina's political rivals lost no time in causing the filing of various actions to question her candidacy. They questioned her eligibility to run as member of Congress. Since Agripina had to take an oath under R.A. No. 9225, it meant that she needed to perform an act to perfect her Philippine citizenship.

Hence, they claimed that Agripina could not be considered a natural-born citizen. Agripina raised the defense that, having complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225, she had reacquired, and was deemed never to have lost, her Philippine citizenship.

Is Agripina disqualified to run for Congress for failing to meet the citizenship requirement? (2.5%)

Ascertain the constitutionality of the following acts: (2.5% each)

(a) An investigation conducted by the Ombudsman against a Commissioner of the Commission on Audit for serious misconduct.

(b) A law prohibiting any court, other than the Supreme Court, from issuing a writ of injunction against an investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman.

(c) A law prohibiting any appeal from the decision or final order of the Ombudsman in an administrative proceeding, except through a petition for review on certiorari filed before the Supreme Court.

Under Section 6 of Article V (on Criminal Jurisdiction) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), the custody of a United States (US) personnel who becomes subject to criminal prosecution before a Philippine court shall be with the US military authorities, if the latter so requests. The custody shall begin from the commission of the offense until the completion of all judicial proceedings. However, when requested, the US military authorities shall make the US personnel available to Philippine authorities for any investigative or judicial proceeding relating to the offense with which the person has been charged. In the event that the Philippine judicial proceedings are not completed within one year, the US shall be relieved of any obligation under Section 6.

The constitutionality of Section 6, Article V of the VFA is challenged on two grounds: (1) it nullifies the exclusive power of the Supreme Court to adopt rules of procedure for all courts in the Philippines; and (2) it violates the equal protection clause to the extent that it allows the transfer of the custody of an accused to a foreign power as providing a different rule of procedure for that accused.

Rule on the challenge. (5%)

Section 9 of P.O. No. 1606, as amended, provides that the Sandiganbayan may adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among its divisions, the rotation of justices among them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court.

Section 6 of Article IX-A of the Constitution allows each of the Constitutional Commissions "en bane [to] promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices. Such rules however shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights."

Section 16(3) of Article VI of the Constitution states that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings." Section 21, Article VI of the Constitution further provides that "The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries... in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure."

Finally, Section 3(8) of Article XI of the Constitution declares that "The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purposes of this section."

Are the rules promulgated pursuant to these provisions subject to review and disapproval by the Supreme Court? (5%)

PO1 Adrian Andal is known to have taken bribes from apprehended motorists who have violated traffic rules. The National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation where P01 Adrian was caught red-handed demanding and taking PhP500.00 from a motorist who supposedly beat a red light.

After he was apprehended, PO1 Adrian was required to submit a sample of his urine. The drug test showed that he was positive for dangerous drugs. Hence, PO1 Adrian was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Adrian argues against the admissibility of the urine test results and seeks its exclusion. He claims that the mandatory drug test under R.A. No. 9165 is a violation of the accused's right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

Are PO1 Adrian's contentions correct? (2.5%)

Amoroso was· charged with treason before a military court martial. He was acquitted.

He was later charged with the same offense before a Regional Trial Court. He asks that the information be quashed on the ground of double jeopardy.

The prosecution objects, contending that for purposes of double jeopardy, the military court martial cannot be considered as a "competent court."

Should the Regional Trial Court grant Amoroso's motion to quash on the ground of double jeopardy? (2.5%)

Annika sued the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of the Bureau of Plant Industry, and asked for the revocation of a deed of donation executed by her in favor of said Bureau. She alleged that, contrary to the terms of the donation, the donee failed to install lighting facilities and a water system on the property donated, and to build an office building and parking lot thereon, which should have been constructed and made ready for occupancy on or before the date fixed in the deed of donation.

The Republic invoked state immunity and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that it had not consented to be sued. Should the Republic's motion be granted? (2.5%)

Five foreign nationals arrived at the NAIA from Hong Kong. After retrieving their checked-in luggage, they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner's table for inspection.

The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners' bags. The examiner discovered white crystalline substances inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names of the foreigners one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tape placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.

Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002? (2.5%)

The police served a warrant of arrest on Ariston who was suspected of raping and killing a female high school student. While on the way to the police station, one of the police officers who served the warrant asked Ariston in the local dialect if he really raped and killed the student, and Ariston nodded and said, "Opo." Upon arriving at the police station, Ariston saw the City Mayor, whom he approached and asked if they could talk privately. The Mayor led Ariston to his office and, while there in conversation with the Mayor, Ariston broke down and admitted that he raped and killed the student. The Mayor thereafter opened the door of the room to let the public and media representatives witness Ariston's confession. In the presence of the Mayor, the police and the media, and in response to questions asked by some members of the media, Ariston sorrowfully confessed his guilt and sought forgiveness for his actions.

Which of these extrajudicial confessions, if any, would you consider as admissible in evidence against Ariston? (5%)

Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case.

The bag containing the ransom money was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.

The first police team, stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the kidnappers of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the second police team was waiting.

Upon confirmation by radio report from the first police team that the kidnappers were heading towards their direction, the second police team proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial Center in Makati City, and the police team finally blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the vehicle and proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.

Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the second police team lawful? (5%)

President Alfredo died during his third year in office. In accordance with the Constitution, Vice President Anastasia succeeded him. President Anastasia then nominated the late President Alfredo's Executive Secretary, Anna Maria, as her replacement as Vice President. The nomination was confirmed by a majority of all the Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, voting separately.

(a) Is Anna Maria's assumption as Vice President valid? (2.5%)

(b) Can Anastasia run as President in the next election? (2.5%)

Andreas and Aristotle are foreign nationals working with the Asian Development Bank (ADS) in its headquarters in Manila. Both were charged with criminal acts before the local trial courts.

Andreas was caught importing illegal drugs into the country as part of his "personal effects" and was thus charged with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Before the criminal proceedings could commence, the President had him deported as an undesirable alien. Aristotle was charged with grave oral defamation for uttering defamatory words against a colleague at work. In his defense, Aristotle claimed diplomatic immunity. He presented as proof a communication from the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that, pursuant to the Agreement between the Philippine Government and the ADS, the bank's officers and staff are immune from legal processes with respect to acts performed by them in their official capacity.

(a) Can the President's act of deporting an undesirable alien be subject to judicial review? (2.5%)

(b) Is Aristotle's claim of diplomatic immunity proper? (2.5%)

-NOTHING FOLLOWS-

Home — Essay Samples — Geography & Travel — Travel and Tourism Industry — The History of Moscow City

The History of Moscow City

• Categories: Russia Travel and Tourism Industry

About this sample

Words: 614 |

Published: Feb 12, 2019

Words: 614 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Geography & Travel

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

13 pages / 6011 words

1 pages / 657 words

4 pages / 2143 words

6 pages / 3010 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Travel and Tourism Industry

The ethics in the hospitality industry play a pivotal role in shaping the reputation and success of businesses within this sector. Ethics encompass the principles and values that guide behavior, decision-making, and interactions [...]

Traveling is an enriching experience that allows individuals to explore new cultures, meet people from different backgrounds, and broaden their perspectives. In the summer of 2019, I had the opportunity to embark on an amazing [...]

Travelling is a topic that has been debated for centuries, with some arguing that it is a waste of time and money, while others believe that it is an essential part of life. In this essay, I will argue that travelling is not [...]

Traveling has always been a significant part of my life. From a young age, I have been fortunate enough to explore different cultures, experience new traditions, and immerse myself in the beauty of our world. My passion for [...]

When planning a business trip all aspects and decisions rely heavily on the budget set by the company for the trip. Once Sandfords have confirmed the location careful consideration should be used to choose the travel method and [...]

Tourism is an action of worldwide imperativeness and importance as it is a major force in the economy (Cooper et al. 2008). Tourism has undeniably developed as one of the most significant economic and social phenomena of the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Protests, poisoning and prison: The life and death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny

Alexei Navalny, who crusaded against official corruption and staged massive anti-Kremlin protests as President Vladimir Putin’s fiercest foe, died Friday in the Arctic penal colony where he was serving a 19-year sentence, Russia’s prison agency said. (Feb. 16)

A coffin of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is carried to the entrance of the Borisovskoye Cemetery during the funeral ceremony, in Moscow, Russia, Friday, March 1, 2024. Under a heavy police presence, thousands of people bade farewell Friday to Alexei Navalny at his funeral in Moscow after his still-unexplained death two weeks ago in an Arctic penal colony. (AP Photo)

• Copy Link copied

Relatives and friends pay their last respects at the coffin of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in the Church of the Icon of the Mother of God Soothe My Sorrows, in Moscow, Russia, Friday, March 1, 2024. (AP Photo)

FILE - In this handout photo taken from video provided by the Moscow City Court on Feb. 2, 2021, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny shows a heart symbol while standing in a defendants’ cage during a hearing in the Moscow City Court in Moscow, Russia. Navalny, who died in an Arctic penal colony on Feb. 16, spent months in punishment cells for infractions like not buttoning his uniform properly or not putting his hands behind his back when required. (Moscow City Court via AP, File)

FILE - Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is seen via a video link to a courtroom in Moscow, Russia, on Oct. 18, 2022. Navalny, who died in a remote Arctic penal colony on Feb. 16, 2024, spent months inside a punishment cell for such infractions as not buttoning his uniform properly or not putting his hands behind his back when required. (AP Photo, File)

Follow the latest updates on this story .

Alexei Navalny, Russia’s top opposition leader and President Vladimir Putin’s fiercest foe, was buried Friday in a Moscow suburb in a funeral that drew thousands of mourners amid a heavy police presence.

Navalny, who was serving a 19-year sentence on charges of extremism, died Feb. 16, according to Russia’s prison service. He was moved in December from his former prison in central Russia to to a “special regime” penal colony — the highest security level — above the Arctic Circle.

In a span of a decade, he went from being the Kremlin’s biggest foe to Russia’s most prominent political prisoner .

Here’s a look at key events in Navalny’s life, political activism and the charges he has faced through the years:

June 4, 1976 — Navalny is born in a western part of the Moscow region.

1997 — Graduates from Russia’s RUDN university, where he majored in law; earns a degree in economics in 2001 while working as a lawyer.

2004 — Forms a movement against rampant overdevelopment in Moscow, according to his campaign website.

2008 — Gains notoriety for alleging corruption in state-run corporations, such as gas giant Gazprom and oil behemoth Rosneft, through his blogs and other posts.

2010 — Founds RosPil, an anti-corruption project run by a team of lawyers that analyzes spending of state agencies and companies, exposing violations and contesting them in court.

2011 — Establishes the Foundation for Fighting Corruption, which will become his team’s main platform for exposing alleged graft among Russia’s top political ranks.

December 2011 — Participates in mass protests sparked by reports of widespread rigging of Russia’s parliamentary election, and is arrested and jailed for 15 days for “defying a government official.”

FILE - Alexei Navalny speaks to journalists after being released from a police custody on the outskirts of Moscow early Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2011. Russian authorities on Friday, Feb. 16, 2023, say Navalny, the fiercest foe of Russian President Vladimir Putin who crusaded against official corruption and staged massive anti-Kremlin protests, died in prison. He was 47. (AP Photo/Mikhail Metzel, File)

March 2012 — Following President Vladimir Putin’s reelection and inauguration, mass protests break out in Moscow and elsewhere. Navalny accuses key figures, including then-Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov and Chechnya’s strongman leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, of corruption.

Police detain Alexei Navalny, a prominent anti-corruption whistle blower and blogger during protests in Moscow, late Tuesday, May 8, 2012 a day after Putin’s inauguration. (AP Photo/Sergey Ponomarev, File)

July 2012 — Russia’s Investigative Committee charges Navalny with embezzlement involving Kirovles, a state-owned timber company in the Kirov region, while acting as an adviser to the local governor. Navalny rejects the allegations as politically motivated.

December 2012 — The Investigative Committee launches another probe into alleged embezzlement at a Navalny-linked Russian subsidiary of Yves Rocher, a French cosmetics company. Navalny again says the allegations are politically motivated.

2013 — Navalny runs for mayor in Moscow — a move the authorities not only allow but encourage in an attempt to put a veneer of democracy on the race that is designed to boost the profile of the incumbent, Sergei Sobyanin.

July 2013 — A court in Kirov convicts Navalny of embezzlement in the Kirovles case, sentencing him to five years in prison. The prosecution petitions to release Navalny from custody pending his appeal, and he resumes his campaign.

September 2013 — Official results show Navalny finishes second in the mayor’s race behind Sobyanin, with 27% of the vote, after a successful electoral and fundraising campaign collecting an unprecedented 97.3 million rubles ($2.9 million) from individual supporters.

FILE - Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny listens to a question while speaking to the media in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2013. Russian authorities on Friday, Feb. 16, 2023, say Navalny, the fiercest foe of Russian President Vladimir Putin who crusaded against official corruption and staged massive anti-Kremlin protests, died in prison. He was 47. (AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko, File)

October 2013 — A court hands Navalny a suspended sentence in the Kirovles case.

February 2014 — Navalny is placed under house arrest in connection with the Yves Rocher case and banned from using the internet. His blog continues to be updated regularly, presumably by his team, detailing alleged corruption by various Russian officials.

December 2014 — Navalny and his brother, Oleg, are found guilty of fraud in the Yves Rocher case. Navalny receives a 3 ½-year suspended sentence, while his brother is handed a prison term. Both appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

December 2015 — Navalny’s Foundation for Fighting Corruption releases its first long-form video — a YouTube documentary called “Chaika,” which means “seagull” in Russian but is also the last name of then-Prosecutor General Yury Chaika. The 44-minute video accuses him of corruption and alleged ties to a notorious criminal group and has piled up 26 million views on YouTube. Chaika and other Russian officials deny the accusations.

February 2016 — The European Court of Human Rights rules that Russia violated Navalny’s right to a fair trial in the Kirovles case, ordering the government to pay his legal costs and damages.

November 2016 — Russia’s Supreme Court overturns Navalny’s sentence and sends the case back to the original court in the city of Kirov for review.

December 2016 — Navalny announces he will run in Russia’s 2018 presidential election.

February 2017 — The Kirov court retries Navalny and upholds his five-year suspended sentence from 2013.

March 2017 — Navalny releases a YouTube documentary accusing then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of corruption, getting over seven million views in its first week. A series of anti-graft protests across Russia draw tens of thousands and there are mass arrests. Navalny tours the country to open campaign offices, holds big rallies and is jailed repeatedly for unauthorized demonstrations.

April 27, 2017 — Unidentified assailants throw a green disinfectant in his face, damaging his right eye. He blames the attack on the Kremlin.

October 2017 — The European Court of Human Rights finds Navalny’s fraud conviction in the Yves Rocher case to be “arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable.”

December 2017 — Russia’s Central Electoral Commission bars him from running for president over his conviction in the Kirovles case, a move condemned by the EU as casting “serious doubt” on the election.

July 2019 — Members of Navalny’s team, along with other opposition activists, are barred from running for Moscow city council, sparking protests that are violently dispersed, with thousands arrested. Navalny’s team responds by promoting the “Smart Voting” strategy, encouraging the election of any candidate except those from the Kremlin’s United Russia party. The strategy works, with the party losing its majority.

2020 — Navalny seeks to deploy the Smart Voting strategy during regional elections in September and tours Siberia as part of the effort.

Aug. 20, 2020 — On a flight from the city of Tomsk, where he was working with local activists, Navalny falls ill and the plane makes an emergency landing in nearby Omsk. Hospitalized in a coma, Navalny’s team suspects he was poisoned.

Aug. 22, 2020 — A comatose Navalny is flown to a hospital in Berlin.

Aug. 24, 2020 — German authorities confirm Navalny was poisoned with a Soviet-era nerve agent. After he recovers, he blames the Kremlin, an accusation denied by Russian officials.

Jan. 17, 2021 — After five months in Germany, Navalny is arrested upon his return to Russia , with authorities alleging his recuperation abroad violated the terms of his suspended sentence in the Yves Rocher case. His arrest triggers some of the biggest protests in Russia in years. Thousands are arrested.

Feb. 2, 2021 — A Moscow court orders Navalny to serve 2 ½ years in prison for his parole violation. While in prison, Navalny stages a three-week hunger strike to protest a lack of medical treatment and sleep deprivation.

June 2021 — A Moscow court outlaws Navalny’s Foundation for Fighting Corruption and about 40 regional offices as extremist, shutting down his political network. Close associates and team members face prosecution and leave Russia under pressure. Navalny maintains contact with his lawyers and team from prison, and they update his social media accounts.

Feb. 24, 2022 — Russia invades Ukraine . Navalny condemns the war in social media posts from prison and during his court appearances.

March 22, 2022 — Navalny is sentenced to an additional nine-year term for embezzlement and contempt of court in a case his supporters rejected as fabricated. He is transferred to a maximum-security prison in Russia’s western Vladimir region.

July 2022 — Navalny’s team announces the relaunch of the Anti-Corruption Foundation as an international organization with an advisory board including Francis Fukuyama, Anne Applebaum, and the European Parliament member and former Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt. Navalny continues to file lawsuits in prison and tries to form a labor union in the facility. Officials respond by regularly placing him in solitary confinement over purported disciplinary violations such as failing to properly button his garment or to wash his face at a specified time.

2023 — Over 400 Russian doctors sign an open letter to Putin, urging an end to what it calls abuse of Navalny, following reports that he was denied basic medication after getting the flu. His team expresses concern about his health, saying in April he had acute stomach pain and suspected he was being slowly poisoned.

March 12, 2023 — “Navalny,” a film about the attempt on the opposition leader’s life, wins the Oscar for best documentary feature.

April 26, 2023 — Appearing on a video link from prison during a hearing, Navalny says he was facing new extremism and terrorism charges that could keep him behind bars for the rest of his life. He adds sardonically that the charges imply that “I’m conducting terror attacks while sitting in prison.”

June 19, 2023 — The trial begins in a makeshift courtroom in the Penal Colony No. 6 where Navalny is held. Soon after it starts, the judge closes the trial to the public and media despite Navalny’s objections.

July 20, 2023 — In closing arguments, the prosecution asks the court to sentence Navalny to 20 years in prison , his team reports. Navalny says in a subsequent statement that he expects his sentence to be “huge … a Stalinist term,” referring to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

Aug. 4, 2023 — Navalny is convicted of extremism and sentenced to 19 years, and he says he understands he’s “serving a life sentence, which is measured by the length of my life or the length of life of this regime.”

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, 2nd left, and his lawyers Alexander Fedulov, left, Olga Mikhailova, right, and Vadim Kobzev, second right, are seen on a TV screen standing among his lawyers, as he appears in a video link provided by the Russian Federal Penitentiary Service, during a hearing in the colony, in Melekhovo, Vladimir region, about 260 kilometers (163 miles) northeast of Moscow, Russia, on Friday, Aug. 4, 2023. (AP Photo, File)

Oct. 13, 2023 — Authorities detain three lawyers representing Navalny after searching their homes, and his ally Ivan Zhdanov says on social media the move is a bid to “completely isolate Navalny.” The raids targeting Vadim Kobzev, Igor Sergunin and Alexei Liptser are part of a criminal case on charges of participating in an extremist group, Zhdanov says. Navalny’s spokesperson says if the opposition leader has no access to lawyers, “he will end up in complete isolation, the kind no one can really even imagine.”

Dec. 2, 2023 — New charges are filed against Navalny. In comments passed to associates, Navalny says he has been charged under Article 214 of the penal code, covering vandalism. “I don’t even know whether to describe my latest news as sad, funny or absurd,” he writes on social media via his team. “I have no idea what Article 214 is, and there’s nowhere to look. You’ll know before I do.”

Dec. 7, 2023 — Navalny’s team erects billboards across Russia featuring QR codes that lead smartphones to a hidden website urging Russians to take part in a campaign against Putin, who is expected to run for reelection in March 2024. Navalny’s team say the vote is important for Putin as a referendum on his war in Ukraine , rather than a real contest for the presidency.

Dec. 11, 2023 — Navalny is scheduled to appear in court via video link but does not appear, and his spokeswoman says prison officials are citing electricity problems. Navalny’s allies express concern, saying neither they nor his lawyers have heard from him in several weeks.

Dec. 25, 2023 — Navalny’s allies say he’s been located in a prison colony in the town of Kharp , north of the Arctic Circle, notorious for long and severe winters. It’s about 100 kilometers (60 miles) from Vorkuta, whose coal mines were among the harshest of the Soviet Gulag prison-camp system.

Jan. 10 — Navalny appears via video link from Kharp for the first time. Russian news outlets release images of him in black prison garb and with a buzz cut, on a live TV feed from the “special regime” penal colony in Kharp, about 1,900 kilometers (1,200 miles) northeast of Moscow. At the hearing, Navalny cracks jokes about Arctic weather and asks if officials at his former prison threw a party when he was transferred.

Feb. 16 — Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service says Navalny died at the penal colony at the age of 47. His team later cited paperwork that his mother saw that listed the cause of death as “natural causes.”

March 1 — Navalny is buried in a southeastern Moscow suburb amid a heavy police presence in a funeral that draws thousands of people who chanted anti-government slogans.

Associated Press reporter Joanna Kozlowska contributed to this timeline.