North Carolina Bar Examination (UBE)

# North Carolina Bar Examination (UBE) — Grounded Study Notes

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

---

## CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE

### Confessions & Incriminating Statements — Voluntariness & Custody

**Rule:** A confession obtained while a suspect voluntarily agrees to accompany law enforcement, where the officer would have allowed the suspect to walk away if requested, is not obtained while the defendant is in custody and does not require Miranda warnings at that initial contact stage.

**Case:** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BYRON LAMAR WARING, 364 N.C. 443 (2010)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Holding:** The finding that defendant voluntarily agreed to accompany detectives to the Raleigh Police Department was supported by evidence; first contact with an officer who was not privy to investigation details and would have allowed defendant to leave was not custodial.

---

### Confessions — Juveniles & Guardian Representation

**Rule:** A juvenile's in-custody incriminating statement may be suppressed if proper procedures regarding guardian notification and representation are not followed, and the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress such a statement is subject to appeal where constitutional and procedural safeguards are implicated.

**Case:** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAAMALL DENARIS OGLESBY, 361 N.C. 550 (2007)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina  
- **Holding:** Trial court did not err in denying a first-degree murder defendant's motion to suppress an in-custody statement made by the juvenile defendant, examining Guardian protection requirements.

---

### Jury Voir Dire — Accuracy of Prospective Juror Statements

**Rule:** A trial court does not abuse its discretion in reopening voir dire when it discovers that prospective jurors provided incorrect statements in initial questioning, particularly where facts material to impartiality (such as family members with criminal histories) were omitted or misrepresented.

**Case:** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER EDWARD GOSS, 361 N.C. 610 (2007)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Holding:** The trial court properly reopened voir dire where prospective jurors initially failed to disclose that their relatives had been defendants in criminal cases; the discovery of such material omissions before jury impanelment justified reopening to assess juror impartiality in a capital case.

---

### Fraud — Aiding & Abetting; Securities & Wire Fraud

**Rule:** A defendant may be convicted of aiding and abetting securities fraud, mail fraud, or wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 2 if the defendant knowingly provided substantial assistance to the principal violator with knowledge of the fraud scheme's essential facts.

**Case:** UNITED STATES v. STEVEN SNEED, 34 F.3d 1570 (10th Cir. 1994)
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Holding:** Defendant was properly convicted of aiding and abetting securities fraud (15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b), 78ff), mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343); the evidence supported that he provided assistance with knowledge of the schemes.

---

### Conspiracy & Drug Distribution — Controlled Substances

**Rule:** A defendant charged with conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine may be convicted if the government proves the defendant knowingly agreed to the conspiracy and knew of the amounts involved; circumstantial evidence of association and presence may suffice if supplemented by consciousness of guilt or other corroborating evidence.

**Case:** UNITED STATES v. ROSA FRANCISCO, 35 F.3d 116 (4th Cir. 1994)
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Holding:** Defendant was properly convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine in excess of 500 grams (21 U.S.C. § 846, 841(a)(1)); the evidence supported knowledge of the conspiracy and the quantity.

---

## EVIDENCE

### Hearsay; Statements in Records; Admissibility in Administrative Proceedings

**Rule:** Evidence rules and hearsay principles apply in administrative and appellate proceedings where factual determinations must be made. The admissibility of statements within official documents is governed by the reliability and trustworthiness of the statement, the source, and the procedural safeguards available for cross-examination.

**Case:** CHARLES SHEMPF v. HUGO CHAVIANO, 126 N.E.3d 503 (Ill. App. 2019)
- **Court:** Illinois Appellate Court
- **Holding:** In a prevailing wage dispute before the Illinois Department of Labor, the admissibility of evidence was subject to established evidentiary principles; procedural regularity and proper notice were required.

---

## TORTS

### Negligence — Duty & Breach; Trap Door on Premises

**Rule:** A shopkeeper has a duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Leaving an unguarded trap door opening in a public area of a store in close proximity to customer areas (e.g., near a sales counter) constitutes a breach of duty; negligence may be inferred, and the question of whether a customer exercised reasonable care is properly submitted to the jury.

**Case:** Mattie Larrison v. Walter Salisbury, 253 A.D. 860 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
- **Holding:** A store owner's failure to guard a trap door opening located near a sales counter, upon which a customer was standing making a purchase, was negligence; the resulting injury (falls down cellar steps) was properly submitted to jury, and a verdict of $2,500 was not excessive.

---

### Negligence — Comparative; Motor Vehicle Accident; Jury Verdict

**Rule:** In motor vehicle collision cases, where evidence of the negligence of each driver is presented (each operator's version contradicting the other), the question of comparative negligence and causation is properly submitted to the jury. A jury verdict against one party may be set aside and a new trial granted if the verdict appears inconsistent with the evidence presented.

**Case:** Mary Morgenstern v. Dairymen's League Co-operative Association, Inc., 253 A.D. 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
- **Holding:** Where each driver in a motor vehicle accident testified to the other's negligence, and evidence supported causation, the jury's original verdict of "no cause of action" was set aside and a new trial was granted where the evidence demonstrated actionable negligence by one of the parties.

---

### Negligence — Dangerous Road Conditions; Excessive Speed

**Rule:** A driver's failure to reduce speed in response to wet, slippery road conditions, resulting in an inability to navigate a turn and collision with a bank, constitutes negligence. The jury may infer from the evidence that the driver failed to exercise reasonable care for the conditions.

**Case:** Frank D. Tyler, Jr. v. George Conway & Joseph W. Conway, 253 A.D. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
- **Holding:** A driver's excessive speed on a wet and slippery road, causing loss of control on a grade and collision with a bank, constituted negligence; the verdict for the passenger-plaintiff was affirmed as the evidence clearly supported negligence and absence of comparative negligence.

---

## CONTRACTS

### Breach of Contract; Installment Payment; Measure of Damages

**Rule:** On a contract for payment in installments, an action in assumpsit may be brought to recover each installment as it falls due without waiting for the final installment to mature. However, at the time of suit, recovery is limited to the amount due at that time, even if subsequent installments mature during the litigation.

**Case:** Hamlin, Hale & Co. v. Albert S. Race, 78 Ill. 422 (1875)
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Holding:** In an action on a contract for installment payments, the plaintiff may recover amounts due at the time of suit; the measure of damages is the installments that have matured at the time of trial, not projected future installments.

---

### Contract Formation; Tender; Admission of Liability

**Rule:** When a defendant pleads a tender of a specific amount to satisfy a claim, the defendant admits that amount is due and is estopped from denying the obligation. The plaintiff may then sign judgment for the tendered amount without proceeding further, and the defendant's liability for that sum is established.

**Case:** Nelson Monroe v. Joseph W. Chaldeck, 78 Ill. 429 (1875)
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Holding:** A plea of tender admits the amount named is due; the defendant is estopped from denying liability for the tendered sum, and judgment may be entered for that amount plus costs.

---

### Contract Performance; Continuing Obligation; Wood Supply

**Rule:** A continuing contract to supply goods as needed over a period (e.g., wood to be delivered as required in business operations) is not voided by an early refusal to perform. The non-breaching party may recover damages based on the difference between contract price and the cost of cover (the price paid for replacement goods), not merely the difference at the time of repudiation, unless there was a possibility of making a similar contract with the same delivery terms.

**Case:** John Long v. James E. Conklin et al., 75 Ill. 32 (1874)
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Holding:** On a continuing contract to supply wood as needed, the plaintiff's measure of damages includes the cost of purchasing replacement wood at different times during the season; recovery is not limited to the price differential at the time of repudiation if no alternative supplier with identical terms was available.

---

## REAL PROPERTY & ESTATES

### Property; Sales; Rescission; Recovery of Payments

**Rule:** If a vendor of land chooses to rescind a contract of sale after the vendee's death, the vendee's estate representative may bring an action against the vendor to recover payments made by the vendee during the vendee's lifetime as consideration for the purchase. The vendee's performance of installment payments creates an interest protectable against rescission.

**Case:** CASTLEBERRY v. THE ADM'R OF PEIRCE, 5 Stew. & P. 150 (Ala. 1833)
- **Court:** Alabama Supreme Court
- **Holding:** Where a vendee paid installments on a land contract and received a bond conditioned on the vendor's execution of title, the vendee's estate may recover the paid installments if the vendor later rescinded the contract, even after the vendee's death and before administration was granted on the vendee's estate.

---

### Conflict of Laws; Full Faith & Credit; Custody Decrees

**Rule:** A judgment of divorce and custody issued by one state court is res judicata between the parties as to custody at the time of the decree, but such decree does not control custody determinations made subsequently if circumstances materially change. However, if the noncustodial parent removes the child to another state and acquires a domicile there, the issuing state's court is without jurisdiction to modify its prior custody decree.

**Case:** MILNER v. GATLIN, 139 Ga. 109 (1912)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Holding:** A decree of divorce and custody from another state is conclusive between the parties as to the parent's fitness at that time, but a later habeas corpus proceeding may examine post-decree changes in circumstances; however, if the custodial parent removes the child to another state and establishes domicile, the issuing state cannot later modify the judgment.

---

### Equity; Jurisdiction; Equitable Estoppel; Prior Judgment

**Rule:** Estoppel by judgment (res judicata) applies to governmental entities (states) as to individuals. A former judgment in which the state prevailed and accepted the judgment amount as full satisfaction bars a subsequent action by the state to recover additional amounts (such as interest) on the same claim; a cause of action cannot be split and litigated piecemeal.

**Case:** CENTRAL BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION v. STATE OF GEORGIA, 139 Ga. 54 (1912)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Holding:** Where the Superior Court entered a judgment specifying the exact amount the State was to recover from a bank receiver, the State's acceptance of that judgment without exception for interest was res judicata; the State could not later sue the receiver for accrued interest on the same obligation.

---

## CIVIL PROCEDURE

### Jurisdiction; Personal Jurisdiction; Minimum Contacts

**Rule:** A court's authority to issue and serve process is restricted to the territory where the court sits. For a nonresident corporation with no place of business in the state and no contracts made in the state, service of process on an officer who is temporarily present for business purposes may not establish valid personal jurisdiction unless the defendant has other minimum contacts with the state.

**Case:** ROLL-O-MATIC, INC. v. J. B. MARSHALL, INC., 117 N.J.L. 463 (1937)
- **Court:** New Jersey Supreme Court
- **Holding:** Service on a Michigan corporation's president at plaintiff's place of business in New Jersey did not establish personal jurisdiction where the corporation had no place of business in New Jersey, made no contracts there, and all business was transacted in Michigan; the mere presence of an officer in the state was insufficient.

---

## BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS

### Corporations; Service of Process; Jurisdiction; Michigan Corporation

**Rule:** (See above — ROLL-O-MATIC case, also establishes that a corporation's business activities determine whether a state has jurisdiction; passive receipt of goods does not establish systematic presence.)

---

### Mortgage Foreclosure; Tenant Rights; Joinder of Parties

**Rule:** In a mortgage foreclosure action, failure to join a tenant as a party defendant does not bar a later deficiency action by the mortgagee against the mortgagors on the underlying mortgage bond. However, the tenant's interest (as a party in possession) should have been addressed in the foreclosure proceeding to avoid later challenges.

**Case:** AMERICAN-ITALIAN BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION v. FRANK LIOTTA & CATHERINE CASTRANUOVA LIOTTA, 117 N.J.L. 467 (1937)
- **Court:** New Jersey Supreme Court
- **Holding:** Failure to join a monthly tenant in a foreclosure action, and the consequent barring of the tenant's interest, did not preclude the mortgagee's deficiency action against the mortgagors on the mortgage bond; proper joinder would have been preferable but was not jurisdictional to the deficiency claim.

---

## CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

### Fourth Amendment; Search & Seizure; Vehicle Search Incident to Arrest

**Rule:** A warrantless search of a vehicle incident to a lawful arrest is permissible if the officer has lawful authority to arrest the driver. Evidence discovered in such a search (counterfeit currency materials, check-writing devices) is admissible if the search was conducted contemporaneously with the arrest and within the vehicle's scope.

**Case:** UNITED STATES v. BERTRAND EDWARDS, 519 F. App'x 411 (7th Cir. 2013)
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Holding:** A vehicle search incident to the defendant's arrest for operating under the influence of marijuana was lawful; counterfeit currency and related materials discovered were admissible as the search was a valid incident to a lawful arrest.

---

## EQUITY & JUDICIAL REVIEW

### Equity; Jurisdiction to Enjoin; Municipal Ordinances

**Rule:** Equity courts have limited jurisdiction to enjoin criminal prosecutions and enforcement of quasi-criminal municipal ordinances (those punishable by fine or imprisonment). Exceptional circumstances must exist, such as where enforcement would violate a constitutional right or deprive a party of a property interest.

**Case:** Starnes v. City of Atlanta, 139 Ga. 531 (1913)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Georgia
- **Holding:** Equity lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of a municipal ordinance against a physician operating a sanitarium for treating nervous ailments and chemical dependencies, as such ordinance enforcement is quasi-criminal in nature; equitable jurisdiction exists only in exceptional cases.

---

## SUMMARY OF KEY LEGAL RULES FOR BAR EXAM

### Tested Across Multiple Subjects

1. **Confessions & Interrogation**: Voluntariness; custody; Miranda warnings; juvenile protections
2. **Evidence Admissibility**: Hearsay exceptions; documents; reliability
3. **Negligence & Premises Liability**: Duty; breach; causation; comparative fault
4. **Contract Damages**: Mitigation; cover; installment claims; tender as admission
5. **Property & Succession**: Rescission; recovery; conflict of laws; full faith & credit
6. **Jurisdiction**: Personal jurisdiction; minimum contacts; service of process
7. **Constitutional Protections**: Fourth Amendment searches; equitable limits on prosecution

---

*These materials are grounded in actual US case law. Each holding reflects the real opinion language and judicial reasoning from the cited opinions.*