Judicial Notice

Although it's not a topic tested extensively, it seems to me the rare MBE that doesn't include at least one question on judicial notice. There are a few things to know on this topic: the first is the kinds of facts that might be judicially noticed. Next is the procedure for taking judicial notice of a fact. Lastly is the timing of judicial notice and some differences depending on whether the case is civil or criminal. 

Here's the crux: A fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute might be judicially noticed. But then, what renders a fact not subject to reasonable dispute? A fact is not subject to reasonable dispute if it is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction or if it can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. 

Assume the above applies. If so, the court may take notice on its own. On the other hand, if a party requests judicial notice (and the fact to be noticed is as outlined above) the court must take judicial notice of that fact.

As for when judicial notice is appropriate, this rule is very broad. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on both the propriety and nature of the fact to be judicially noticed. If the court takes judicial notice without notifying a party, that party is still entitled to be heard on the same. 

Lastly, and this last point is tested often, in a civil case, the court must instruct the jury to accept the judicially noticed fact as conclusive. In contrast, in a criminal case, the court must instruct the jury that it can (but is not required to) accept the judicially noticed fact as conclusive.