imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: The state of Alpine has a Fair Employment Act that provides a remedy for victims of employment discrimination. The Act requires complainants to bring charges before the Alpine Fair Employment Commission within 180 days of the occurrence of alleged unlawful employment practices. The Commission then has 120 days to convene a factfinding conference to obtain evidence, ascertain the parties' positions, and explore settlement possibilities. Larson was discharged from his job with Widget Corp. purportedly because of a physical handicap unrelated to his ability to perform his job. Larson filed a timely complaint, alleging unlawful termination of employment, as required by the statute. However, through inadvertence, the Commission scheduled the factfinding conference for a date five days after expiration of the 120 -day statutory period. At the conference, Widget moved that the charge be dismissed for lack of a timely conference. The Commission denied the motion. Widget petitioned the Alpine Supreme Court. The court held for Widget, stating that the failure to comply with the 120 day requirement deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to consider Larson's charge. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Larson argues that his right to due process will be violated if the Commission's error is allowed to extinguish his cause of action. Which of the following best describes the viability of Larson's due process claim?

Options:
A. The claim fails, because Larson had no protected property interest in his job.
B. The claim fails, because the Alpine legislature, having conferred on claimants a remedy for claims of unfair employment practices, has the prerogative to establish limiting procedures for such claims.
C. The claim succeeds, because Larson had a protected property interest in the remedy.
D. The claim succeeds, because of the fundamental unfairness of leaving Larson without a remedy.
Answer: C
Question: Large semi-trailer trucks ordinarily used either "Gripper" tires or "Grabber" tires. There was some difference in the design of the tires, and a number of tire manufacturers made both types of tires, which were deemed to be equally safe by independent testing labs. Most state statutes and vehicle regulations allowed the use of both types of tires on state highways. However, State Plum and State Apricot had laws on their books permitting only Grippers and banning Grabbers. State Grapefruit, on the other hand, had a statute allowing the use of Grabbers, and banning Grippers, on its state highways. The National Trucking Board, a trade association of interstate trucking firms, brought suit to have the laws of State Plum and State Apricot declared unconstitutional. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which struck down the Apricot and Plum statutes as undue burdens on interstate commerce. The National Trucking Board then brought suit in federal court to have the State Grapefruit statute banning Grippers struck down. The Grapefruit attorney general argued that the Grapefruit statute did not burden interstate commerce because Grabbers were now legal in all 50 states. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court. How should the Court rule on the constitutionality of the statute?

Options:
A. Constitutional, because there is no difference in safety between Grippers and Grabbers.
B. Constitutional, because the states have the power to regulate safety on their highways.
C. Unconstitutional, because it is an undue burden on interstate commerce.
D. Unconstitutional, because it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV.
Answer: C
Question: When Uncle Izzy died, his will left Blackacre, a piece of property located in State Black, to his favorite nephew, Seymour, a resident of State White. Seymour never bothered to visit the property. Meanwhile, back in State Black, Michael noticed that Blackacre was now unoccupied. Not one to miss an opportunity, Michael leased Blackacre to Theresa. The lease was in writing and Theresa agreed to pay Michael an annual rent, which she always did promptly. Theresa had been leasing Blackacre from Michael for 15 years, when Seymour took a trip to State Black and decided to take a look at Blackacre. Upon discovering Theresa's occupancy, Seymour filed suit to quiet title, joining Michael in the action. In State Black, the statute of limitations for bringing an ejectment action for trespass to real property is set at 10 years. Whom shall the court declare to be the owner of Blackacre?

Options:
A. Seymour, because a lease to a third party does not constitute occupancy by Michael.
B. Seymour, because he was unaware that another was occupying Blackacre.
C. Michael, because Seymour abandoned Blackacre.
D. Michael, because occupancy by a tenant is sufficient possession by Michael to invoke adverse possession.
Answer: D
Question: Homer owned Springfield, a valuable piece of property located near the state university. Homer's son, Bart, was a student at the university, and Homer allowed Bart and Bart's classmate, Newt, to live in the large house on the property rent free, in part because he felt that the studious Newt would be a good influence on the partyloving Bart. On Bart's 20th birthday, Homer handed Bart an instrument of conveyance signed by Homer. The deed included the following language: "I give Springfield to my dearly beloved son Bart on the condition precedent that he receive a college degree before he reaches the age of 30 , and if he does not receive the degree by his 30th birthday to my beloved daughter, Lisa." Bart promptly recorded the deed. Shortly thereafter, Bart asked Newt to start paying him rent. An argument evolved out of Bart's request and an angry Bart told Newt to get off his property. Newt refused to leave and Bart filed suit to evict Newt. How will the court rule?

Options:
A. Bart wins, because he has a fee simple subject to divestment.
B. Bart loses, because Newt is Homer's tenant and not Bart's.
C. Newt wins, because Bart is attempting a retaliatory eviction.
D. Newt loses, because Homer's conveyance cuts off Newt's tenancy. 
Answer: B
Question: Martha brought her nine-year-old son, Norton, along with her on a trip to the Modern Mall shopping center. Modern Mall was, as its name describes, a modern mall development containing many different stores. The mall was entirely enclosed to provide protection from the elements. Martha had spent about half an hour at the mall without purchasing anything. In fact, her main purpose for going to the mall was "window shopping," a pastime that Martha found extremely enjoyable. At that time Norton told Martha that he needed to use the restroom and that he was going to the nearest men's room. Martha agreed to wait for him in front of Lacy's Lingerie Boutique. Norton entered the men's room. He was followed by Barry, a convicted child molester released on parole. Barry cornered Norton in the men's room and sexually molested him. Barry then quickly left the mall and has not yet been apprehended. Martha later filed suit against Modern Mall Management Associates ("MMMA"), the owner of the mall, on Norton's behalf for the injuries suffered by him. Is MMMA likely to be found liable to Norton?

Options:
A. Yes, because MMMA owes a strict duty to its customers.
B. Yes, if MMMA had reason to know of the danger to Norton.
C. No, because a criminal act is a superseding force.
D. No, because Norton was not an invitee of MMMA. 
Answer: B
Question: Neither the legislature nor the courts of State Yellow have abolished the common law tort defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. However, the State Yellow legislature decided it was time to take steps against all forms of drug abuse and passed the Omnibus Anti-Drug Act ("OADA"). One of the OADA provisions forbade the selling of airplane glue to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. OADA also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Primrose was a 14-year-old resident of State Yellow. Primrose had experienced the drug education program in his school, as mandated by OADA. One of the units in the program covered the dangers of glue sniffing. Primrose understood the anti-drug instruction, but he enjoyed the "high" he got from sniffing glue when he constructed model airplanes, and he wanted to experience more of it. He went to Daffodil's Hobby \& Craft Shop to purchase a large tube of airplane glue. Daffodil, sole proprietor of the hobby shop, sold the large tube of glue to Primrose. Primrose went home, hid in the garage, and sniffed the glue. His parents found Primrose in a coma on the garage floor. Although Primrose will survive, physicians have told his parents that he suffered permanent brain damage from sniffing the glue. On Primrose's behalf, the parents filed suit against Daffodil, which should result in a verdict: 

Options:
A. For Daffodil, because Primrose was aware of the danger when he sniffed the glue.
B. For Daffodil, because Primrose is not a member of the class of persons meant to be protected by OADA.
C. For Primrose, because Daffodil violated OADA when he sold the glue to Primrose.
D. For Primrose, unless Primrose could reasonably have been mistaken for an 18 year-old by Daffodil.
Answer: C
Question: Kuegler, who had a long list of petty crimes to his credit, cased the Jaymart Department Store for a week. He noticed that a display case containing very expensive watches was near one of the store's exit doors. He planned to steal the watches by setting a diversionary fire in a trash basket, hoping that this would distract the store security personnel long enough for Kuegler to break the glass covering the watch case, grab the watches, and run out the nearby exit. Kuegler knew that the store had an automatic sprinkler system that would promptly douse the fire, but his purpose was merely to create a distraction rather than to cause any damage to the building. One afternoon at 2:30 p.m., Kuegler entered the Jaymart. He advanced to a trash barrel and poured some lighter fluid onto the trash. He threw the lighter fluid can into the barrel and tossed in a match after it. The lighter fluid immediately caused a long flame to rise. The flame quickly charred the wall next to the barrel and blistered the paint on the surrounding area. No serious damage was done to the structure, because the sprinklers operated as designed and quickly put out the fire before it could spread. Kuegler made a dash toward the case containing the watches, but just as he was breaking the glass case, one of the store's security guards apprehended Kuegler and called the police. Kuegler was read his Miranda rights and taken into police custody. A statute in the jurisdiction extends the crime of arson to buildings other than dwellings. If Kuegler is tried for the crime of arson, the court should find him:

Options:
A. Not guilty, because Kuegler did not intend to burn the building.
B. Not guilty, because Kuegler's act was sufficient only for attempted arson.
C. Guilty, because Kuegler's conduct demonstrated the requisite state of mind for the crime.
D. Guilty, because Kuegler started the fire during the act of perpetrating another felony.
Answer: B
Question: Alpha gratuitously conveyed his interest in Greekacre to Beta by quitclaim deed. Beta promptly recorded. Six months later, Alpha conveyed his interest in Greekacre to Gamma for $ 50,000$. Alpha gave Gamma a warranty deed, which Gamma promptly recorded. As between Beta and Gamma, who has the superior right to title to Greekacre?

Options:
A. Beta, regardless of the type of recording statute.
B. Gamma, regardless of the type of recording statute.
C. Beta, because she recorded prior to Gamma recording.
D. Gamma, because he took by warranty deed rather than quitclaim deed.
Answer: A
Question: The legislature of the state of Westcoast enacted a statute authorizing all state agencies having legal departments or employing lawyers to subscribe to a computerized legal research service provided by LawComp, Inc. A contract was duly entered into between the state and the corporation. Before LawComp could begin installation of the necessary equipment in state offices, it was revealed that Westcoast's state university system had exhausted its budgeted resources and would not be able to operate without additional money. The legislature then repealed the statute authorizing use of the computer legal service and allocated the funds thereby released to the university. LawComp brings an action against the state to enforce the contract. The trial court should rule that the statute repealing authorization for LawComp's services is:

Options:
A. Invalid, because it violates the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts.
B. Valid, because the legislature has constitutional power to repeal its own enactments.
C. Invalid, because the state is equitably estopped to renounce a valid bid it has accepted.
D. Valid, because the sovereign may not constitutionally be sued without its own consent.
Answer: A
Question: In which of the following situations is the defendant most likely to be convicted of burglary?

Options:
A. Unreasonably mistaking Walter's briefcase for his own, Defendant removes the briefcase from Walter's office and takes it home, placing it in his hall closet.
B. Believing that it is not illegal to take a relative's property, Defendant enters his brother's home through an unlocked door while his brother is sleeping and takes his $ 2,000$ television set. Defendant later sells the set at a flea market. 
Answer: B
Question: Cyrus and Myrtle are adjoining landowners. On Myrtle's property there is a natural freshwater spring. Cyrus asked Myrtle if it would be possible to build an irrigation ditch from the spring to his property in order to provide water for his cattle. Since the spring supplied more than enough water to meet Myrtle's needs, she agreed, provided that Cyrus construct the ditch in such a manner that it would need the least maintenance possible, because Myrtle did not wish to be continually bothered by Cyrus's coming on her land. Cyrus constructed a concrete irrigation ditch from the spring to the land. The cost of construction of the ditch was $ 25,000$. The only maintenance required on the ditch was a semiannual cleaning. Three years later, Myrtle informed Cyrus that her water needs had increased and that she could no longer allow Cyrus to take water from the spring. In addition, Myrtle did not allow Cyrus on her land to do the semiannual cleaning, resulting in the blocking of the ditch. Cyrus wishes to keep water flowing through the irrigation ditch to his land. Which of the following would be his strongest argument? 

Options:
A. Cyrus owns a valid easement appurtenant to Myrtle's property.
B. Because Myrtle has allowed Cyrus to construct the irrigation ditch, Myrtle would be estopped from preventing Cyrus from coming onto her land.
C. Cyrus, although a licensee, has expended such a substantial sum of money in constructing the irrigation ditch that Myrtle may not terminate Cyrus's license now.
D. Cyrus, although a licensee, may continue to enter Myrtle's property to clean and maintain the ditch until he is able to acquire another source of water.
Answer: C
Question: Fat Goose Foods ("FGF") was a manufacturer of quality pates and terrines made from imported goose livers and truffles. In a written agreement between FGF and Gourmet Mart ("GM"), a retail seller of fine quality foods, FGF agreed to "sell all output of Fat Goose Foods liver pate to Gourmet Mart," and GM agreed to "sell Fat Goose Foods pates exclusively." The agreement went on to state that GM would pay $ 150$ for each 10 -loaf container of pates ordered from FGF. The agreement between GM and FGF also contained the statement, "either party may cancel this contract after two months upon giving reasonable notice to the other party." Assume that, after FGF faithfully filled GM's orders for six months, FGF determined that it was becoming too costly to operate the special oven used to roast the pate loaves. The oven had been manufactured in Belgium in 1937, but the plant that manufactured the oven was destroyed by bombing during World War II, and no more of the ovens were produced after 1940 . It would be difficult and expensive to find a suitable substitute, and when the oven malfunctioned, replacement parts were extremely difficult to find and very costly as well. FGF, therefore, decided to get out of the pate business entirely and to use its supply of goose livers to make a German-style liver sausage. FGF notified GM of its decision and the reasons for it, and shortly thereafter stopped shipping pate to GM. GM sued FGF, demanding that FGF continue to ship pate to GM or pay monetary damages to GM. Will GM prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, because it was not impossible for FGF to perform.
B. Yes, because FGF assumed the risk that making pate would become expensive.
C. No, because the expense of fixing the oven provides a good faith reason for stopping production.
D. No, because the cancellation provision made the contract illusory. 
Answer: C
Question: Andt lent his swim fins to his friend Gracehoper. Gracehoper promised to return the fins in a week, but two months had passed and, despite many reminders, Gracehoper still failed to return the fins. Andt decided to go to Gracehoper's cabin to retrieve them. Andt went to the cabin and knocked on the door, hoping to find Gracehoper at home. After knocking several times with no response, Andt tried the door and found it to be unlocked. Andt decided to look for the swim fins in Gracehoper's cabin and to retrieve them. Andt opened the door and entered Gracehoper's cabin. He looked around the cabin for $20 \mathrm{~min}$ utes, but he could not locate the swim fins. He concluded that Gracehoper was probably using them and left the cabin, taking nothing from it and closing the door behind him. If Andt is later charged and tried for burglary, Andt's best defense to the charge is which of the following?

Options:
A. Andt left the cabin without doing anything.
B. Andt took nothing from the cabin.
C. The swim fins belonged to Andt.
D. Gracehoper's door was unlocked.
Answer: C
Question: On an icy day, a vehicle driven by Doug struck Peter's car in the rear, smashing a taillight and denting Peter's bumper. Before Peter could say anything, Doug rushed out of his car and told Peter, "Look, if you'll take $ 500$ for the damage, I'm sure my insurance company will pay for it." Peter refused and sued Doug for damage to his car and minor personal injuries. Peter wishes to testify as to Doug's statement at the time of the accident. Doug objects. Should the court allow Doug's statement to be admitted?

Options:
A. Yes, because it is an admission of a party opponent.
B. Yes, because it is hearsay within the statement against interest exception.
C. No, because the statement took the form of a settlement negotiation.
D. No, because the statement is hearsay, not within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule.
Answer: A
Question: Augustus received an "inside tip" from his friend Drusus, a real estate developer. Acting on the tip, Augustus purchased several acres of scrub-covered land of little apparent value. Shortly thereafter, Whizny World, an international conglomerate, announced plans to develop a theme park to be called "Romeland" on a tract immediately adjacent to Augustus's scrubland. The Whizny World plan caused real estate values in the surrounding area to skyrocket. Augustus could have sold his land for a price many times greater than the purchase price, but Augustus decided that he would use the land to build a variety of tourist-oriented facilities. In order to finance his project, Augustus went to Brutus Bank ("Brubank") and took out a $ 20,000$ mortgage on his land. Brubank promptly recorded the mortgage. A few days later, Augustus went to Cassius Bank ("Casbank") and took out a $ 15,000$ mortgage on the land. Casbank had known of the Brubank mortgage, and Casbank promptly recorded its own mortgage. A few weeks after that, Augustus reviewed his plans and decided that he needed more money to make his proposed tourist facilities more "upscale." Augustus went back to Brubank and, after full disclosure of the Casbank mortgage, asked the loan officer if he could receive another advance of $ 15,000$ from the original Brubank mortgage. The loan officer readily agreed, processed the loan, and increased the amount borrowed against the mortgage from $ 20,000$ to $ 35,000$. Brubank promptly recorded the change. Augustus quickly spent most of his available funds on retainers for architects, builders, and attorneys. He was shocked to read in the paper that the County Council summarily rejected the Whizny World proposal, acceding to the arguments of community activists and environmentalists that the economic benefits from the theme park would be outweighed by the deleterious effects on the natural beauty and tranquility of the area. Augustus made no more mortgage payments to Casbank, but continued to make payments to Brubank. The value of the land plummeted, and Casbank brought a foreclosure action against Augustus and included Brubank as a party. At the foreclosure sale, the proceeds were a mere $ 18,000$ after attorneys' fees and court costs. How should the proceeds be divided?

Options:
A. $ 18,000$ to Brubank and nothing to Casbank.
B. $ 9,000$ to Brubank and $ 9,000$ to Casbank.
C. $ 3,000$ to Brubank and $ 15,000$ to Casbank.
D. Nothing to Brubank, $ 15,000$ to Casbank, and $ 3,000$ to Augustus. 
Answer: C
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. At Nick's trial, the prosecution seeks to introduce the cocaine into evidence against Nick. Nick's attorney objects. The court should rule the cocaine:

Options:
A. Admissible, because of the emergency conditions arising from the growing menace of drugs to the public.
B. Admissible, because, in consenting to the search of his luggage, Nick impliedly consented to a body search.
C. Inadmissible, because Sam had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to search Nick.
D. Inadmissible, because Sam had no right to search the luggage.
Answer: B