imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Rupert held a majority ownership interest in one of the three daily newspapers in City, as well as numerous other media outlets across the country. When a popular City radio station was put on the market, he entered into negotiations to purchase it. However, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") blocked the sale on the basis of a regulation forbidding ownership of a radio or television station to any entity owning a daily newspaper in the same city. The next year, however, the FCC suspended enforcement of that regulation to permit the radio station to be sold to Sumner, the owner of another daily newspaper in City. Rupert filed an action in federal district court seeking to enjoin the sale. The court should:

Options:
A. Decide the case on the merits, because Rupert can claim that the FCC's unequal treatment of the two transactions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
B. Decide the case on the merits, because Rupert can claim that the FCC's refusal to allow him to own the station violated his freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment.
C. Dismiss the action, because Rupert cannot show that enjoining the transaction will eliminate any injury that he might have suffered.
D. Dismiss the action, because the federal government has the power to regulate ownership of the broadcast media.
Answer: C
Question: The state of Petrolia derived most of its income from extractive industries, especially its extensive oil and natural gas fields. However, a worldwide drop in the price of petroleum was severe enough to cause a depression in Petrolia, and the state's unemployment rate soared. To counter the effect the depression was having on Petrolia's citizens, the state legislature passed a law requiring all employers operating in the state's oil and natural gas fields to give preference in hiring to residents of Petrolia. The bill banned the hiring of nonresidents unless no other qualified person could be found to fill an oilfield or natural gas field position. Under prevailing economic conditions, the statute was tantamount to a total ban on hiring of nonresidents because so many unemployed oil and gas workers had been created by the depression and little new exploration was taking place. "Roughnecks," as oilfield workers call themselves, tend to be an itinerant lot, moving from place to place as new fields are brought into production. Driller was a 48-year-old roughneck whose permanent residence was in Louisiana. He had worked on offshore rigs in the Gulf waters off his home state, but Driller had also worked in Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Kuwait, Indonesia, and Venezuela. Upon hearing that one of the few independent companies actively exploring in Petrolia had struck a new field in that state, Driller drove to the field office of Ewing Exploration Company in Petrolia and applied for a job. Looking at Driller's extensive experience as described on Driller's resume, Ewing's personnel officer sadly shook his head. He indicated that Driller's qualifications were better than anyone's working in the field, but that he had more applications from experienced Petrolia residents than he had jobs to offer. The sole reason given for not hiring Driller was the preferential hiring statute favoring state residents. Driller filed suit in federal district court challenging the statute. The court should rule in favor of:

Options:
A. Petrolia, because employment discrimination is only unconstitutional if it involves race, religion, alienage, or sex.
B. Petrolia, because the state's interest in hiring local residents outweighs the interest of nonresidents.
C. Driller, because the law denies him the privileges and immunities of state citizenship.
D. Driller, because the preferential hiring law impairs Driller's rights under the Contract Clause of the federal Constitution.
Answer: C
Question: Devlin is being tried for murder in the bludgeoning death of Vandross. Devlin denies any involvement in the crime. He calls Westin to the stand. Westin testifies that, in his opinion, Devlin is a nonviolent, peaceable man. Which of the following, if offered by the prosecution, would most likely be admissible?

Options:
A. A neighbor's testimony that Westin has beaten his wife on several occasions.
B. A police officer's testimony that Devlin has a general reputation in the community as a violent person.
C. A neighbor's testimony that Devlin has a reputation for being untruthful.
D. Evidence that Devlin has a conviction for aggravated battery.
Answer: B
Question: Oiler, an investment banker in Big City, began having cash flow problems. Seeing no other way out, he decided to sell Cattlefork, a distant ranch that had been in his family for generations, to his childhood nemesis, Astro. Not wanting to lose control of the family property forever, Oiler inserted a provision in the deed to Astro binding "Astro, his heirs, and assigns" to offer "Oiler, his heirs, and assigns" the right of first refusal to purchase Cattlefork when it was offered for sale. Astro was not happy with the provision, but Oiler refused to sell the property without the covenant included. Astro reluctantly agreed. Cattlefork was conveyed to Astro, and the deed containing the right of first refusal was duly recorded. Astro lived on Cattlefork for 23 years. His dislike for Oiler was so great that he did not want Oiler to ever get the property back. Therefore, Astro devised a stratagem to get around the covenant. When informed that Cowboy was interested in buying the property, Astro decided to execute his plan. Astro's friend Ranger agreed to act as a "straw man" to avoid the consequences of the covenant. Astro deeded Cattlefork as a "gift" to Ranger. Ranger recorded the deed, which did not contain the right of first refusal covenant, and Ranger then sold the land to Cowboy for $ 200,000$, giving the proceeds of the sale to Astro. Cowboy knew nothing about the right of first refusal because he inspected only Ranger's deed from Astro. When Oiler learned of what had happened, he filed suit to compel conveyance of the land to him. To back up his words, Oiler produced a $ 200,000$ letter of credit. The jurisdiction in which the property is located has an unmodified common law Rule Against Perpetuities and the following recording statute: Any conveyance of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, shall not be valid against any subsequent purchaser for value, without notice, whose conveyance is first recorded. How will the court most likely rule in this case?

Options:
A. Oiler will prevail, because a deed with the covenant granting the right of first refusal was in Cowboy's chain of title.
B. Oiler will prevail, because Astro and Ranger acted in bad faith.
C. Oiler will not prevail, because the covenant is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
D. Oiler will not prevail, because the covenant, although enforceable against Astro personally, does not run with the land. 
Answer: C
Question: Owen owned Copperacre, a large tract of mineral-rich land in a sparsely populated area. He entered into a lease with Yukon, a prospector who was interested in developing the land for mining. The term of the lease was two years and gave Yukon an option to buy the property at any time after the first year. Yukon did not record the lease. Six months later, Yukon left Copperacre for a period of time to prospect in Mexico, leaving no goods on the land that would identify him. Owen then conveyed Copperacre in fee simple to Darlene, who had inspected the property while Yukon was in Mexico and was unaware of the prior transaction. Darlene did not immediately record her deed. After three months in Mexico, Yukon returned to Copperacre and encountered Darlene. A statute in the jurisdiction provides, in part: No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land, other than a lease for less than one year, is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded. If Darlene brings an action to quiet title to Copperacre, how should the court rule?

Options:
A. Darlene takes title subject to Yukon's leasehold interest and his option to purchase because Yukon acquired his interest first.
B. Darlene takes title subject to Yukon's leasehold interest but not his option to purchase because he does not yet have the power to exercise the option. 
C. Darlene takes title subject to Yukon's leasehold interest and option to purchase regardless of whether she now records, because she will have had notice of Yukon's interest before recording.
D. Darlene takes title free of Yukon's leasehold interest and option because Yukon failed to record before Darlene purchased the property without notice of his interest.
Answer: A
Question: Soar Airlines Flight 226 was a flight from Miami to Washington, D.C., with an hour stopover in Orlando. At the Orlando Airport, Mike and Nick, holding tickets to Washington, D.C., disembarked from the plane. Each carried a rather large piece of carry-on baggage. Mike went into a telephone booth and placed a call, while Nick stood with his back to the booth, looking around in all available directions. Sam, an officer of the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration assigned to watch for drug activities at the Orlando Airport, noticed Mike and Nick. As soon as Mike emerged from the phone booth, Sam approached the two men. Sam identified himself and asked Mike and Nick, "Do you mind if I ask you a few questions?" Both agreed. After asking about such matters as their destination, Sam asked, "Do you mind if we go into my office and inspect what's in your hand baggage?" Both Mike and Nick agreed. In the office, Sam searched both pieces of luggage and found nothing suspicious in either. He then proceeded to pat down Mike and Nick. He found nothing on Mike, but he felt a bulge around Nick's stomach. Further investigation revealed that Nick was wearing a pouch around his waist which proved to contain cocaine. Mike and Nick were charged with possession of cocaine. Assume for purposes of this question only that Nick pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. At Mike's preliminary hearing it has been stipulated that Mike owns the cocaine, but Mike's attorney brings a motion at the hearing to suppress the introduction of the cocaine at trial. How should the court rule on the motion?

Options:
A. In favor, because Mike was not in possession of the cocaine.
B. In favor, because Mike and Nick had a reasonable expectation of privacy when Sam elected to search them.
C. Against, because Mike has already stipulated that he owns the cocaine.
D. Against, because the search of Nick did not violate Mike's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Answer: C
Question: Tommy was in his third year of college, and Tommy's father, Dad, often sent Tommy money to help Tommy pay for books and for living expenses. During the last winter break, Tommy brought his girlfriend Gidget home to meet his family. Dad took an instant dislike to Gidget, and has continually lectured Tommy about her, insisting that Tommy could find someone "more refined" to date. In early March, Tommy telephoned Dad from College Village, where the university was located. Tommy asked Dad for $ 1,000$. Dad told Tommy, "I'll send you the thousand bucks, but if you don't find a classier girlfriend than that Gidget person, this is the last subsidy you'll get from me, young man." Tommy thanked Dad, and promptly went to a jeweler with Gidget, where Tommy and Gidget selected an engagement ring priced at $ 5,000$. Tommy, who was 21 years of age, signed a contract to purchase the ring. The contract required Tommy to make a $1,000$ down payment and then to make a series of installment payments. Tommy planned to use the $ 1,000$ check he was expecting from Dad for the down payment. Tommy and Gidget both worked at part-time, minimum wage jobs while they attended school. Through a friend who lived in College Village, Dad discovered Tommy's plan to buy Gidget an expensive engagement ring. Dad refused to send Tommy the $ 1,000$ check. The jeweler is now demanding that Tommy make the $ 1,000$ down payment on the ring and pay the first installment as well. Can Tommy legally enforce Dad's promise to send Tommy $ 1,000$ ?

Options:
A. Yes, because Tommy relied on Dad's promise and the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.
B. Yes, because Tommy was an intended beneficiary.
C. No, because Dad's promise was a gift unsupported by consideration.
D. No, because Dad did not promise to send the money with the expectation of inducing Tommy to buy an engagement ring for Gidget. 
Answer: D
Question: Tekmart, a leading computer supply retailer, contacted Megabyte, a manufacturer of blank diskettes, on October 25 to supplement the supply of diskettes at Tekmart's area stores. In response, Megabyte offered to supply 50 cartons of boxed diskettes at $ 200$ a carton, for a total price of $ 10,000$, delivery one week after acceptance, and sent a letter containing those contractual terms to Tekmart on October 26 . The president of Tekmart signed the letter on October 27 without making any changes to it and sent it back to Megabyte by first class mail. The next day, having not heard from Tekmart, Megabyte's sales manager contacted the president of Tekmart and informed him that, if Tekmart accepted by the end of the month, it would receive a $1 \%$ discount in the total price. When Tekmart's president responded that he had already sent the acceptance, the sales manager assured him that the discount would still apply. On October 31, Tekmart received a circular from Dataco offering comparable diskettes for $5 \%$ less than Megabyte's price. The president of Tekmart immediately faxed a rejection to Megabyte. Megabyte received the rejection immediately but took no action on it. The next day, November 1, Megabyte received the signed contract from Tekmart. What is the status of the agreement between the parties?

Options:
A. An enforceable contract was formed for $ 9,900$ because Tekmart accepted before October 31 and needed no additional consideration for the oral modification.
B. An enforceable contract was formed for $ 10,000$ because the parol evidence rule precludes Tekmart from offering evidence of the telephone conversation.
C. An enforceable contract was formed for $ 10,000$ because, even though Tekmart accepted before October 31 , the Statute of Frauds makes the oral modification between the parties unenforceable.
D. An enforceable contract was not formed between the parties because Tekmart's rejection was received before its acceptance. 
Answer: C
Question: Denton was on trial in a civil torts action. He was charged with driving his car negligently and, as a result of his negligence, injuring Potts. Denton's friend, Weiner, was sitting in the passenger seat of the car driven by Denton when the accident occurred. Denton put Weiner on the stand, and Weiner testified that Denton was driving safely and well below the posted 55 mile-per-hour speed limit. Shortly before the trial began, Weiner's secretary, Sarah, telephoned Potts and told him, "You might be interested in knowing that Weiner has been understating his income to the government for years." The Internal Revenue Service has never charged Weiner with tax evasion, but Sarah's information was accurate. On cross-examination, Potts's attorney asked Weiner, "Have you ever cheated on your tax returns?" Denton's attorney objects. The objection should be:

Options:
A. Sustained, because the question is not relevant to the facts of the case at bar.
B. Sustained, because witnesses may not be impeached through the use of collateral material.
C. Overruled, because Weiner's tax evasion shows a tendency to lie.
D. Overruled, because Weiner's acts constitute a felony punishable by at least one year in prison. 
Answer: C
Question: Orbison owned Rockacre, but was badly in need of ready cash. He conveyed Rockacre to Presley, who put the deed in his guitar case and took off for a three-week tour of the Orient. Orbison knew that Presley had left town, and Orbison still found himself strapped for money. He offered to sell Rockacre to Madonna for $ 5,000$. Although Madonna had heard Presley say he had bought Rockacre, Madonna thought $ 5,000$ was a terrific price for the property. She paid Orbison $ 5,000$ and received a deed from him, which she promptly recorded. Madonna subsequently conveyed Rockacre to Fats for $ 15,000$. Fats knew nothing about Presley's deed and Fats promptly recorded the deed from Madonna. Two weeks later, upon his return from the Orient, Presley recorded his deed to Rockacre. A month after that, Fats conveyed Rockacre to Chubby for $ 17,000$. Chubby knew that Presley held a deed to Rockacre, but paid Fats $ 17,000$ anyway. Chubby immediately recorded and filed an appropriate action against Presley and against Fats to determine ownership of Rockacre. Assume that Rockacre is situated in a state with the following statute: No conveyance or mortgage of an interest in land is valid against any subsequent purchaser for value without notice thereof whose conveyance is first recorded. The court will most likely rule that:

Options:
A. Presley has superior rights to both Fats and Chubby.
B. Fats has superior rights to both Presley and Chubby.
C. Chubby has superior rights to both Presley and Fats.
D. Chubby has superior rights to Fats, but Presley has superior rights to Chubby.
Answer: C
Question: Parafun, Inc. manufactured and sold parachutes for use by sport skydivers. The corporation's product development committee selected a design for a parachute submitted by Silk, one of Parafun's three professional designers. The chute was placed on the market, with the warning, "This parachute should be discarded after 150 jumps." Parafun's market researchers had established that the usual practice among sport skydivers was to discard a parachute after 100 jumps. After the design had been approved and the product was successfully manufactured and marketed, Silk took several of the parachutes to an independent stress analysis laboratory. The scientists tested the chutes and concluded that there was a $1 \%$ failure rate on the chutes for jumps 100 through 150 , because the center of the parachute might tend to collapse because of a design defect. Silk did not report this problem to his superiors at Parafun, because he feared he would be fired. Several months after Silk received the testing report, Airborne, a sport skydiver, used one of the chutes designed by Silk and manufactured and sold by Parafun. Airborne's use was the 115 th jump for the chute. When Airborne leaped from the airplane, the chute opened properly, but halfway down, the center of the chute collapsed inward. Airborne hurtled to the ground to his death. An investigation established that Silk knew of the design defect. If Parafun is charged with manslaughter in a common law jurisdiction, the verdict should be: 

Options:
A. Guilty, because Silk was Parafun's employee and he designed the instrumentality of death.
B. Guilty, because Airborne died as a result of the failure of a product manufactured and sold by Parafun.
C. Not guilty, because a corporation cannot be found guilty of manslaughter.
D. Not guilty, because there was only a $1 \%$ chance of parachute failure.
Answer: C
Question: Deborah was at work when her husband called her and said, "You lazy procrastinator, you were supposed to be working in the front yard this weekend while I did the backyard. Ned just tripped over those roots I told you to take out. He's really been badly hurt and I'll bet he sues us for all we're worth." Deborah then told her secretary, Walter, "Ned just got hurt because I forgot to do my yard work." On returning home, however, Deborah discovered that Ned had tripped over roots from his own tree in his own yard. Ned disagreed and sued Deborah and her husband. At trial, Ned called Walter to testify as to Deborah's statement to him. Walter's testimony will be:

Options:
A. Excluded, because Deborah had no firsthand information when she made her statement to Walter.
B. Excluded, because it is inadmissible lay opinion.
C. Admitted, because it is not hearsay.
D. Admitted to impeach Deborah's expected testimony as to the result of her own investigation.
Answer: C
Question: Harriet observed an automobile accident that took place across the street from her house. She noticed at the time that the green car, which was driven by Def, did not come to a complete stop at the stop sign and entered the intersection to strike the yellow car driven by Plee after Plee's car had already entered the intersection. Plee sued Def for damages and injuries, but the trial did not take place until almost three years after the accident. Plee wanted Harriet to testify on his behalf against Def, but Harriet's recollection of the accident was very fuzzy. The night before she was scheduled to testify, Harriet consulted her diary, in which Harriet had noted that Def's car ran the stop sign and entered the intersection after Plee's car was already in the intersection. Plee's attorney called Harriet to the stand, and she testified regarding Def's failure to observe the stop sign and Def's entrance into the intersection after Plee. On cross-examination, Def's attorney asked Harriet if she had consulted any materials to prepare for her testimony. Harriet admitted that her recollection of the accident had been fuzzy and that she had consulted her diary the night before her testimony. Def's attorney immediately moved that Harriet's testimony be stricken from the record. The court should rule that:

Options:
A. Harriet's testimony is admissible if, after reviewing her notes, she had an independent recollection of the event.
B. Harriet's testimony is admissible, because the contents of her diary are protected under the work product rule.
C. Harriet's testimony should be stricken, because her diary was not made available to the opposing party prior to trial.
D. Harriet's testimony should be stricken, because it is not the best evidence.
Answer: A
Question: Moss, a state legislator, was the chairman of a committee that disbursed funds to schools in the state for various projects. A portion of the funds that were used were received from the federal government as part of a federal revenue sharing plan. Moss was charged with a violation of federal law when he and his committee made a $ 10,000$ grant for textbooks to a private school for whites only. Moss's defense is that his action as chairman of this committee was in the course of his legislative duties, and thus, immune from federal interference. The best argument that would support Moss's constitutional claim is:

Options:
A. If the state law authorizes Moss's action, he cannot be prosecuted for violation of a federal law.
B. The Tenth Amendment forbids the federal government from restricting the state's rights regarding the education of minor children within the state.
C. The doctrine of federalism prevents the federal government from interfering with a member of the state's legislature in the performance of his legislative duties.
D. As long as the private school is not a parochial school, federal law cannot limit a state's rights regarding the education of minor children within the state.
Answer: C