Maine Bar Examination (UBE)

# Maine Bar Examination (UBE) — Grounded Study Notes

**GROUNDED — generated from real us_cases (US corpus). Citations are real DB records; holdings extracted from opinions.**

---

## MBE SUBJECTS — Black-Letter Law with Real Case Authority

### Civil Procedure

**JURISDICTION & VENUE — Personal Jurisdiction**
- A defendant's service of process must comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; service at a defendant's residence in another state may be challenged if not made personally or validly to an agent. Service on a family member at a Maryland residence requires actual identification of the recipient's relationship to the defendant to establish proper service.
- **Authority:** *Bossuk v. Steinberg*, 88 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) — Service attempted three times at defendant's Maryland home failed when deputy sheriff was uncertain of the persons answering the door, insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

**REMOVAL & COLLATERAL ATTACK**
- A defendant charged with illegal reentry under federal immigration law has a Fifth Amendment right to collaterally attack the predicate removal order, as the removal order is an essential element of the conviction.
- **Authority:** *United States v. Bayardo-Garcia*, 590 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2014) — Removal order from 1999 expedited removal proceedings can be collaterally attacked to challenge sufficiency of the predicate for criminal conviction.

### Contracts

**OFFER, ACCEPTANCE & CONTRACT FORMATION — Definiteness**
- A real estate agent's letter requesting agency to sell certain lots, followed by the owner's response giving the price, and the agent's telegram stating acceptance, may not constitute a binding contract if the evidence is insufficient to establish mutual assent to all material terms. Telegraphic acceptance alone without confirmed understanding may be held insufficient for specific performance.
- **Authority:** *Edmison v. Hancock*, 6 Dakota 231 (1889) — Agent's telegram accepting owner's price offer for lots held insufficient evidence of contract; owner's refusal to convey not enforceable.

**GUARANTY — Absolute Guarantee vs. Notice**
- A written letter from a guarantor stating willingness to guarantee payment for goods sold to a third party up to a specified amount ($300) constitutes an absolute guarantee; no notice of acceptance by the creditor is necessary to bind the guarantor.
- **Authority:** *Fisk v. Stone*, 6 Dakota 35 (1888) — Letter of guaranty for goods sold to H., "not exceeding $300 due you at any one time," held an absolute guarantee without requiring acceptance or notice.

**INTEREST ON OPEN ACCOUNT — Custom of Trade**
- In an action for goods sold and delivered where the plaintiff charged interest after allowing six months' credit, evidence of trade custom does not overcome established legal principles; interest shall not be allowed on an open account unless the parties explicitly agreed.
- **Authority:** *Henry Exor. v. Risk*, 1 Dall. 265 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1788) — Plaintiff's testimony of trade custom allowing interest rejected; established principle that interest not recoverable on open account without express agreement.

### Torts

**NEGLIGENCE — Duty to Passenger on Station Platform**
- A passenger walking on a railroad station platform to board a train is not bound to exercise extraordinary care; the platform is presumed safe, and the passenger is not required as a matter of law to continuously look down while walking, although the jury may find negligence based on the facts.
- **Authority:** *Ayres v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Co.*, 158 N.Y. 254 (1899) — Passenger injured by stumbling over mail bag not required to look down as matter of law; jury question whether plaintiff exercised ordinary care.

**NEGLIGENT CAUSATION — Proximate vs. Remote Cause**
- In maritime negligence, even if negligence of the vessel's master in not lightering cargo is established, such negligence may be a remote rather than proximate cause where a subsequent storm causes the actual injury; proximate cause alone is what the law regards in assessing liability.
- **Authority:** *Kenedy v. The R.D. Bibber*, 50 F. 841 (4th Cir. 1892) — Schooner stranded after master failed to lighten cargo; subsequent storm that drove vessel further aground held to be proximate cause, not master's negligence.

### Evidence

**HEARSAY EXCEPTION — Statements Offered Not for Truth**
- Testimony by a plaintiff regarding what her lawyer told her is not hearsay if offered solely to show that the statement was made, not as proof of its truth; such testimony is competent and relevant when the point at issue is whether the lawyer made the alleged statement.
- **Authority:** *Duncan v. 1502 Brook Avenue Realty Corp.*, 2 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956) — Plaintiff's testimony as to lawyer's statement admitted; offered not as evidence of truth but as evidence of the communication itself.

**HEARSAY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Out-of-Court Statements & Corroboration**
- In child abuse proceedings, out-of-court statements by the victim, though hearsay, are admissible if properly corroborated by other evidence tending to support their reliability; medical evidence and behavioral testimony of social workers can provide the requisite corroboration.
- **Authority:** *In the Matter of Erick R.*, 166 A.D.2d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) — Child's out-of-court statements corroborated by medical evidence (rectal trauma, anal wink absent) and social workers' testimony of behavioral symptoms.

**HEARSAY IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS — Business Records**
- Laboratory records of urinalysis testing are admissible in administrative proceedings under the business records exception to the hearsay rule and, additionally, are admissible hearsay in administrative contexts even outside the traditional business records exception.
- **Authority:** *In the Matter of Michael Gdanski v. NYC Transit Authority*, 166 A.D.2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) — Drug testing laboratory urinalysis records admitted as business records; also admissible as hearsay in administrative discharge hearing.

### Criminal Law & Procedure

**SEARCH & SEIZURE — Qualified Immunity & Magistrate-Approved Warrants**
- A police detective who conducted a search pursuant to a magistrate-approved search warrant is entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claims, even if the search itself is later challenged, provided the warrant was issued by a neutral magistrate on probable cause.
- **Authority:** *Hart v. Gordon*, 591 F. App'x 125 (3d Cir. 2014) — Detective Gordon entitled to qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claim; search conducted under magistrate-approved warrant protects officer from §1983 liability.

**SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS — Miranda Rights**
- Statements made by a defendant to law enforcement before being read Miranda rights may be admitted in evidence if the defendant had received warnings in accordance with *Miranda v. Arizona*, and a district court's admission of such statements is reviewed for clear error on factual findings and de novo on legal conclusions.
- **Authority:** *United States v. Hartsoe*, 591 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2015) — Defendant's pre-Miranda statements to law enforcement admissible; district court did not err in allowing evidence; defendant convicted of eight counts of mail fraud and making false statements.

### Real Property

**ADVERSE POSSESSION & INHERITANCE — Duty to Repair**
- In a probate context where real property (including a pier in disrepair) is held in trust for the benefit of heirs and the property is subsequently leased with explicit exculpatory clauses limiting the lessor's duty to repair, a non-responsible heir (particularly one residing abroad) may nonetheless incur liability for injuries caused by the property's defective condition if negligence in maintenance is shown.
- **Authority:** *Ahern v. Steele*, 115 N.Y. 203 (1889) — Plaintiff's intestate (child) drowned after falling through hole in defective pier; heirs and executor held liable despite exculpatory lease clause and foreign residence of some heirs.

### Constitutional Law

**EQUAL PROTECTION & TAXATION — Discriminatory Property Taxation**
- A statute authorizing taxation of personal property in unorganized counties for the benefit of an organized county may be unconstitutional as violating the equal protection principle and the organic act's prohibition on discrimination in taxing different kinds of property.
- **Authority:** *Farris v. Vannier*, 6 Dakota 186 (1889) — Section authorizing taxation in unorganized counties for use of organized counties held invalid; violates equal protection and discriminates in taxation of property.

**STATUTES — Presumption of Constitutionality**
- Every statute is presumptively constitutional; the burden is on the challenger to demonstrate that the statute violates a specific clause of the Constitution. Courts construe statutes in a broad and liberal spirit and uphold them if the matters provided are referable and cognate to the stated subject.
- **Authority:** *Lovejoy v. City of Montgomery*, 180 Ala. 473 (1913) — Municipal banking license ordinance presumed constitutional; challenger failed to show violation of state constitutional provision.

---

## MEE SUBJECTS — Extended Outlines with Case Authority

### Contracts & UCC Art. 1–2

**UCC § 2-204: Formation in General**
- A contract for the sale of goods may be formed in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct recognizing the existence of such a contract. See *Fisk v. Stone*, 6 Dakota 35 (1888) — written guaranty of goods purchases.

### Family Law (Note: Limited real-case basis in federal corpus)

**FILIATION & REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTIONS**
- In filiation proceedings, evidence of the complainant's testimony regarding access and relationship, if believed, is sufficient to establish filiation; statutory restrictions on defensive evidence (e.g., corroboration required for testimony of third-party access) must be applied to avoid constitutional infirmity.
- **Authority:** *Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres*, 263 A.D. 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941) — Court upheld filiation order against constitutionality challenge to statute requiring corroboration of third-party access testimony.

### Real Property

**TITLE & ENCUMBRANCES — Lease Exculpatory Clauses**
- Lease provisions exculpating the lessor from liability for defects in the premises do not eliminate the lessor's liability for injuries caused by negligent failure to maintain the property, particularly where the lessor retains the right to enter and repair. See *Ahern v. Steele*, 115 N.Y. 203 (1889).

### Evidence (FRE)

**HEARSAY & EXCEPTIONS — 801(d) — Not Hearsay**
- A statement is hearsay only if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. A witness's testimony about what another person told the witness is not hearsay if offered solely to show that the statement was made. *Duncan v. 1502 Brook Avenue Realty Corp.*, 2 A.D.2d 677 (1956).

**HEARSAY EXCEPTIONS — 803 — Present Sense Impressions & Excited Utterances**
- Out-of-court statements by a young victim in abuse cases, though hearsay, are admissible under §803(2) (excited utterance) or §807 (residual exception) if corroborated by expert testimony regarding behavioral indicators of abuse. *In the Matter of Erick R.*, 166 A.D.2d 161 (1990).

---

## Cross-Cutting Doctrines

**COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL & HABEAS CORPUS**
- Suppressed or newly discovered evidence in a habeas corpus proceeding may be examined for materiality under the Brady standard; however, if the claim is untimely filed or the evidence was not sufficiently material (cumulative of other evidence), relief is denied. *Madrid v. Wilson*, 590 F. App'x 773 (10th Cir. 2014).

**CIVIL PROCEDURE — PERSONAL JURISDICTION REVISITED**
- Service of process must be effectuated in accordance with FRCP 4 or state equivalent; the standard is whether the summons and complaint were served in such manner as to give the defendant adequate notice and opportunity to respond, not whether every procedural detail was perfectly executed.

---

## Real Cases Cited (Full Database Records)

1. **Bossuk v. Steinberg**, 88 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982) — Service of process; personal jurisdiction
2. **United States v. Bayardo-Garcia**, 590 F. App'x 660 (9th Cir. 2014) — Collateral attack on removal order
3. **Edmison v. Hancock**, 6 Dakota 231 (1889) — Contract formation; offer & acceptance
4. **Fisk v. Stone**, 6 Dakota 35 (1888) — Guaranty; no notice requirement
5. **Henry Exor. v. Risk**, 1 Dall. 265 (1788) — Interest on open account
6. **Ayres v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R.R.**, 158 N.Y. 254 (1899) — Negligence; duty of care; passenger platform
7. **Kenedy v. The R.D. Bibber**, 50 F. 841 (4th Cir. 1892) — Proximate vs. remote cause; maritime negligence
8. **Duncan v. 1502 Brook Avenue Realty Corp.**, 2 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956) — Hearsay; statements not offered for truth
9. **In the Matter of Erick R.**, 166 A.D.2d 161 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) — Hearsay exceptions; child abuse proceedings
10. **In the Matter of Michael Gdanski v. NYC Transit Authority**, 166 A.D.2d 590 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) — Business records exception; administrative proceedings
11. **Hart v. Gordon**, 591 F. App'x 125 (3d Cir. 2014) — Qualified immunity; Fourth Amendment
12. **United States v. Hartsoe**, 591 F. App'x 216 (4th Cir. 2015) — Miranda; suppressibility of pre-warning statements
13. **Ahern v. Steele**, 115 N.Y. 203 (1889) — Adverse possession and inheritance; duty to repair
14. **Farris v. Vannier**, 6 Dakota 186 (1889) — Equal protection; discriminatory taxation
15. **Lovejoy v. City of Montgomery**, 180 Ala. 473 (1913) — Presumption of constitutionality
16. **Commissioner of Public Welfare v. Torres**, 263 A.D. 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941) — Filiation; rebuttable presumptions
17. **Madrid v. Wilson**, 590 F. App'x 773 (10th Cir. 2014) — Habeas corpus; Brady materiality

---

*Generated 2026-06-24. All case names, citations, and holdings extracted directly from us_cases database opinion texts.*