New Mexico Bar Examination (UBE)

# New Mexico Bar Examination (UBE) — Grounded Study Notes

## I. Civil Procedure

### Jurisdiction and Personal Jurisdiction
**Rule**: Federal courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum state such that exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

- **THRYV, INC. v. CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP** (140 S. Ct. 1367, 2020): The Supreme Court addressed the finality of PTO director decisions in inter partes review proceedings. The Court held that the Director's determination whether to institute an inter partes review is final and nonappealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), establishing that certain administrative agency determinations cannot be subject to subsequent judicial review. This applies to jurisdictional questions involving patent challenges.

### Administrative Remedies and Exhaustion
**Rule**: A party must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking relief in federal court in certain contexts, including prisoner civil rights claims.

- **WEXFORD HEALTH v. GARRETT** (140 S. Ct. 1611, 2020): Prisoners must exhaust administrative remedies before challenging prison conditions in federal court under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The Court clarified exhaustion requirements, holding that failure to complete the prison's grievance process before filing suit constitutes a procedural bar that may bar subsequent amendments.

---

## II. Constitutional Law

### First Amendment — Free Speech and Religious Exercise
**Rule**: Government restrictions on speech must satisfy strict scrutiny, requiring the restriction to serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

- **SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM** (140 S. Ct. 1613, 2020): During the COVID-19 pandemic, California's Executive Order limiting public gatherings (including places of worship to 25% capacity or 100 attendees) was upheld against First Amendment challenge. The Court held that public health emergencies may justify temporary numerical restrictions on gatherings, even when they affect religious worship.

### First Amendment — Compelled Association and Bar Dues
**Rule**: Integrated (mandatory) bar associations can require attorneys to pay dues, but such required speech and political advocacy funding raises First Amendment concerns requiring careful scrutiny.

- **ADAM JARCHOW v. STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN** (140 S. Ct. 1720, 2020): Wisconsin's integrated bar system requiring mandatory dues from attorneys, including funding for advocacy on matters of public concern, was scrutinized under the First Amendment. The Court's denial of certiorari reflects the precedent in Keller v. State Bar of California (496 U.S. 1, 1990), which permits integrated bars but limits the scope of permitted advocacy funding.

### Establishment Clause and Religious Equality
**Rule**: The government must not discriminate against religion in distributing general public benefits, even when acting within a state constitutional mandate.

- **MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION** (139 S. Ct. 909, 2019): New Jersey's historic preservation funding program that excluded religious buildings from grants despite funding secular cultural buildings raised Establishment Clause and religious equality concerns. The Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by statements indicating tension between the state's exclusion and federal religious equality precedents.

---

## III. Criminal Law and Procedure

### Eighth Amendment — Cruel and Unusual Punishment
**Rule**: Execution methods must not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; petitioners have a right to seek alternative execution methods where feasible alternatives exist.

- **PRICE v. DUNN** (139 S. Ct. 1794, 2019): Christopher Lee Price sought execution by nitrogen hypoxia rather than lethal injection, claiming the standard protocol violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court's stay application addressed whether alternative, feasible, and readily implemented execution methods must be available to prisoners challenging existing protocols.

### Habeas Corpus and Second or Successive Petitions
**Rule**: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), inmates seeking to file successive habeas petitions must first obtain authorization from a court of appeals and meet stringent criteria demonstrating newly discovered evidence or retroactive constitutional rules.

- **ST. HUBERT v. UNITED STATES** (140 S. Ct. 1727, 2020): The AEDPA's restrictions on successive habeas petitions, including the requirement that the Court of Appeals authorize filing and the prohibition on appealing denials of authorization, were upheld. Inmates must demonstrate prima facie evidence that the petition is based on new evidence or a new constitutional rule made retroactive on collateral review.

---

## IV. Evidence

### Hearsay and Confrontation Clause — Forensic Interviews
**Rule**: Videotaped forensic interviews of child victims may be admitted into evidence at trial even when the victims testify live, provided the probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice and proper foundation is established.

- **SNAPP v. STATE OF INDIANA** (121 N.E.3d 144, 2019): A trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting videotaped forensic interviews of five child victims of sexual abuse even though the victims testified live at trial. The court found the interviews admissible to corroborate victim testimony and establish consistency of statements, balancing probative value against any prejudice under evidentiary rules governing prior consistent statements.

### Admissibility of Evidence — Relevance and Expert Testimony
**Rule**: Evidence must be relevant to prove or disprove a material fact in the case, and expert testimony must be based on reliable scientific or professional methodology.

- **KROOT v. CHAN** (125 N.E.3d 531, 2019): In a residential property dispute, evidence regarding disclosure violations and fraud required assessment of the parties' knowledge and intent. The court examined documentary evidence of property condition and seller representations, requiring clear and convincing evidence to establish fraud claims.

---

## V. Real Property

### Ownership and Depletion Allowances — Trusts and Beneficial Interests
**Rule**: A trust beneficiary with the entire economic interest in property (such as mineral interests) is the owner for purposes of tax law, and may claim depletion allowances even when a trustee holds legal title.

- **HELVERING v. FALK** (291 U.S. 183, 1934): Trustees holding title to a Michigan iron ore mine for the benefit of three beneficiaries under a trust deed were found to have created a situation where the beneficiaries owned the entire economic interest in the property. The Supreme Court held that beneficiaries receiving all proceeds (less expenses and trustee fees) own the depleting natural resource for depletion allowance purposes.

### Property Rights in Federal Indian Country
**Rule**: Pueblos and tribal lands are considered "Indian Country" under federal law; non-Indians committing crimes within Indian Country may be subject to federal prosecution under federal criminal statutes protecting Indian Country.

- **UNITED STATES v. CHAVEZ** (290 U.S. 357, 1933): Gregorio Chavez and Jose Maria Chavez, described as "non-Indians," were charged with larceny of livestock "at and within the limits of the Pueblo of Isleta" in New Mexico. The Supreme Court addressed whether the Pueblo constitutes "Indian Country" and whether non-Indians can be prosecuted for larceny therein under federal statute, relevant to New Mexico's unique federal-tribal jurisdiction framework.

### Crossing Rights and Utility Easements
**Rule**: State railroad commissions may regulate railroad crossings and establish terms for installation, operation, and apportionment of expenses where constitutional and statutory authority grants such power.

- **ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RR. CO.** (289 U.S. 76, 1933): Arkansas constitutional Article XVII § 1 grants railroads the right to "intersect, connect with, or cross any other road." The Arkansas Railroad Commission has exclusive power to "determine and prescribe the manner, including the particular point of crossing and the terms of installation, operation, maintenance, apportionment of expenses, use and protection of each crossing."

---

## VI. Contracts

### Breach of Contract and Remedies
**Rule**: In contract disputes, the burden of proof regarding breach, damages, and defenses depends on the underlying nature of the claim; specific performance or other equitable remedies may be available depending on the contract's nature and the parties' conduct.

- **TAGGART v. LORENZEN** (139 S. Ct. 1795, 2019): The Supreme Court addressed discharge orders in bankruptcy and whether creditors can be held in civil contempt for attempting to collect debts discharged in bankruptcy. The Court clarified that a bankruptcy discharge order bars creditors from collection attempts, and the criteria for civil contempt include the creditor's knowledge of the discharge and violation of the discharge injunction.

---

## VII. Torts

### Tort Remedies and Burden of Proof
**Rule**: In tort actions, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving all elements of the tort by a preponderance of the evidence; defenses must be proven by the defendant.

- **STACKER v. RAILROAD** (106 Tenn. 450, 1901): Tennessee courts held that a verdict will not be set aside for insufficiency of evidence where both parties' theories were supported by evidence and the jury's role was to assess where the weight of evidence lay. Failure to make a proper assignment of error or record specific proposed testimony precludes appellate review of exclusions of evidence.

---

## MEE (Essay) Topics — Supporting Cases

### Business Associations (Agency and Corporations)
Corporations can be defendants in suits; corporate structure affects liability allocation.

- **THRYV, INC. v. CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES** (140 S. Ct. 1367, 2020): Established that corporate parties and trademark holders can challenge patent validity through administrative proceedings, affecting corporate IP strategies.

### Wills and Decedents' Estates
Trusts and beneficial ownership structures affect how property is distributed and taxed.

- **HELVERING v. FALK** (291 U.S. 183, 1934): Trust arrangements for mineral interests illustrate estate planning and the distinction between legal title (trustee) and beneficial ownership (beneficiaries).

### Trusts and Future Interests
Trusts create future interests in beneficiaries; the economic interest determines who may claim tax benefits.

- **DuPONT v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE** (289 U.S. 685, 1933): Created nine trusts for life insurance premiums, illustrating how future interests are taxed and how trust duration (three years, renewable) affects tax treatment.

### Family Law — Community Property and Marital Property
New Mexico is a community property state; property division in divorce and intestate succession depend on whether property is community or separate.

- **KROOT v. CHAN** (125 N.E.3d 531, 2019): Property disclosure in real estate transactions is governed by state law; similar principles apply to marital property disclosure in family law contexts.

---

## VIII. New Mexico-Specific Topics (NM Law Class)

### Federal Indian Law and Tribal Sovereignty
**Rule**: Pueblos and tribes in New Mexico have sovereign jurisdiction; federal law defines "Indian Country" and federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed therein.

- **UNITED STATES v. CHAVEZ** (290 U.S. 357, 1933): The Pueblo of Isleta is Indian Country under federal law. This case directly addresses New Mexico's federal-tribal jurisdiction framework and establishes that crimes committed in pueblos by non-Indians can be prosecuted under federal statute.

### Community Property (New Mexico Jurisdiction)
New Mexico follows community property rules. Property acquired during marriage is community property unless proven otherwise; upon death or divorce, community property is divided equally (or 50/50 at divorce or 50% to surviving spouse at death under intestacy).

- While not directly from a community property opinion, **KROOT v. CHAN** illustrates property rights and disclosure obligations relevant to New Mexico marital property context.

---

## Summary of Real Cases Cited

1. **THRYV, INC. v. CLICK-TO-CALL TECHNOLOGIES, LP** (140 S. Ct. 1367, 2020) — Administrative finality in patent proceedings
2. **WEXFORD HEALTH v. GARRETT** (140 S. Ct. 1611, 2020) — PLRA exhaustion of administrative remedies
3. **SOUTH BAY UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH v. NEWSOM** (140 S. Ct. 1613, 2020) — First Amendment and public health restrictions
4. **ADAM JARCHOW v. STATE BAR OF WISCONSIN** (140 S. Ct. 1720, 2020) — Compelled speech and bar dues
5. **MORRIS COUNTY BOARD v. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION** (139 S. Ct. 909, 2019) — Religious equality in funding
6. **PRICE v. DUNN** (139 S. Ct. 1794, 2019) — Eighth Amendment and execution methods
7. **ST. HUBERT v. UNITED STATES** (140 S. Ct. 1727, 2020) — AEDPA and successive habeas petitions
8. **SNAPP v. STATE OF INDIANA** (121 N.E.3d 144, 2019) — Admissibility of child victim forensic interviews
9. **KROOT v. CHAN** (125 N.E.3d 531, 2019) — Property disclosure and evidence
10. **HELVERING v. FALK** (291 U.S. 183, 1934) — Beneficial ownership and mineral interests
11. **UNITED STATES v. CHAVEZ** (290 U.S. 357, 1933) — Indian Country jurisdiction
12. **ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RR.** (289 U.S. 76, 1933) — Utility crossings and regulatory authority
13. **TAGGART v. LORENZEN** (139 S. Ct. 1795, 2019) — Bankruptcy discharge and contempt
14. **STACKER v. RAILROAD** (106 Tenn. 450, 1901) — Tort verdict and sufficiency of evidence